<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The Ugly State of Google SERPs: Rich Snippet Abuse</title>
		<description>Discuss The Ugly State of Google SERPs: Rich Snippet Abuse</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 19:37:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/351/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Thomas says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1757</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Do you think Google took some measures to deal with websites taking advantage of the 5 stars rich snippet internally implemented? I used to see a lot of listing like that in the french Serps, and now... not much. Why Google have to stop this? In Yelp you have good and bad reviews and in your website you do not put the bad reviews... So it is bad for users. though, I think an Seo cannot be blame for maximising one client listing in the SERP, taking advantage of Google rules... Cheers !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1757</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Brian Lowman says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1735</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my opinion, review sites like Yelp, Angie's List are skewing the results just as much if not more. Yelp's algorithm is not just a little bit, but mostly flawed. Even using rich snippets and tying it to Google can just as easily be toyed with. I understand the desire to create a true user experience but there is no easy or true way to do so. All that being said, I don't see anything wrong with what Dino did as long as the ranking and comments were true.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Brian Lowman</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:38:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1735</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Derrick says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1725</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So how does one go about doing it the right way? Say I have a review on Yelp that I want to highlight on the a service page.. Is it ok to create a rich snippet for this review and link to it? If so, do I need to notate somehow in the markup that I am indeed pointing to the origin of the review?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Derrick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:10:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1725</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Prashant says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1724</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good article on Rich snippets; One of the worry area in rich snippet is spamming . Spamming through fake reviews and ratings. However Google will be soon be able to segregate the spammed content from the genuine. The shops with spammed data will possibly be penalized by Google ranking algorithms Our company TransPacific Software has been doing lot of research on Rich snippets and its effect on search engine rankings. Seems ranking are unaffected by Rich snippets but has increased click through rate CTR. In some cases increased it by 40-50%. Our company has released two free Rich snippet extension plugins for OpenCart shops . Both extensions have received encouraging reviews and more than 1000 shops have installed them. One of the precautions we took was to have minimum user intervention so no way to spam rich snippet data. We hope this will help shop owner in long term . More info about plugins is available on http://www.transpacific.in/opencart-ecommerce-extension.php]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Prashant</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:25:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1724</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dino Basaldella says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1563</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Linda, While I wouldn't mind explaining "how" I performed the implementation, I would no longer advocate it and have recently removed some of the markup. I concur with Mike, in that, such implementation of schema rating markup, if not used with extreme discretion and accuracy, can result in a convoluted and cluttered user experience in the SERPs. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I look forward to your response over on your site!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dino Basaldella</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1563</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Linda Buquet says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1562</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey Dino, Great replies and glad you got a new client. I didn't see all the replies here until Mike replied to my post at the Local Search Forum. Even though in my post I asked the question Smart marketing or rich snipped spam - quite honestly my underlying motivation for the post was a little different. I know lots of local marketers that have been trying to get their legit rich snippet stars back so knew my readers would have some interest.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Linda Buquet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:31:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1562</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dino Basaldella says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1561</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I bet you were "amazed" - seems no one is willing to own-up to anything now a days. For the record; my approach has always been above-the-board, and in view of the fact I had no intent of manipulating or distorting what I knew to be factual - I have no reason to fly under the radar. No worries, Mike. I didn't feel as if you were singling me out, nor that I was the sole inspiration for your post. By reading your post, it's obvious that you have been monitoring the topic and contributed a good deal of time and effort composing the post and your opinions are appreciated. Five Star reviews: I hadn't planned on the star rating being picked-up for so many search terms when I implemented the markup. As I monitored the results and saw more and more stars showing-up, I began to get the sense it didn't "feel" right - even though there was no documentation that I could find indicating it was not a permissible practice. In no way, shape or form did I wish to make my valued client's site or image appear "spammy" to searchers. However, I do I understand your point regarding the reviews being biased. Cart before the horse? Apparently so. I added the markup to the testimonials (which I do believe would have been 5 stars) in order to test the effectiveness of the markup and began to search for a viable rating system for the site, which brings up another issue, given that a review process or system is in place on the site - doesn't mean it can't be influenced. I feel this is also the case with 3rd party review sites (i.e. many review sites that are specific to physicians and other professionals). In my estimation, none of these systems (Yelp included) are beyond external manipulation. And I, as yourself and fellow SEO's, search for some benchmark that can convey a user experience with honesty, accuracy and is beyond manipulation. Perhaps by engaging in constructive discussion such as this, we will eventually find an end to a mean. I am grateful a new potential client, searching for "how to get testimonials in search results" found your post and brought my attention to it - that's how she found me! So for that, I must Thank You and Linda for the unexpected and controversial exposure. Lets hope some good comes from it :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dino Basaldella</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1561</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mike Wilton says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1560</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dino, first let me say I am amazed that you came out like that and admitted to being the example. That being said, you're not the sole inspiration for this post you just happened to be the final inspiration for the post before I wrote it. The skewed user experience for me is more than just the five star reviews site wide, it's that a site with no review process or system in place is displaying stars at all. Just because a patient provides a positive testimonial doesn't mean they are leaving a five star review for the doctor. Testimonials are a core element of most doctor, and specifically, plastic surgeon websites and if a positive testimonial = five star reviews then the entire niche should probably start plastering them on their testimonials pages. In terms of rel="author" again, you weren't the one I was specifically calling out on this, and as an SEO in the plastic surgery space I am sure you are seeing it just as much as the rest of us. This point in particular is still a grey area IMO. Google doesn't seem to want to make a stance, and therefore I don't know that anyone could be held to a proper standard just yet, however I do feel the documentation definitely alludes to the idea that it should be used predominantly for published works that aren't a home page, about page, or product page (I've seen this in other niches). So to this point I am more pointing out Google's faults than yours or anyone else using rel="author" sitewide. For the final point about Yelp, should reviews from Yelp, CitySearch, and the like carry more validity? Yes, but only because they are going to be far less biased (in most cases) and allow users to see a balance of positive and negative reviews instead of a slew of positive reviews hand picked by a surgeon who decided to place them on his or her site. Do sites like Yelp screw up from time to time, definitely, as does Google. But at least it gives a variety of responses for a consumer to sort through and decide for themselves. Again, this is my personal opinion, but even as an internet marketer I tend to side more with the consumer. Thank you again for reaching out, and I'll reiterate this wasn't directed at you specifically or your client, which is why SNC did its part to edit out client information. The goal of the post was to a) express how unclear Google has been about the use of rich snippet markup on sites and b) show how easily the SERPs can be manipulated. It wasn't until Catalyst Local picked up the post that the doctor's full name and identity was revealed following some detective work from Linda Buquet.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mike Wilton</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1560</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mike Wilton says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1559</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dino, for some reason most of my response got cut off above. This is just the last paragraph. I will repost shortly.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mike Wilton</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1559</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dino Basaldella says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1558</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey Mike, I would like to chime-in here, since I am the SEO that created the material that served as the basis for your "ugly state" post :sigh: First and foremost, I was not attempting to "deceive" anyone. I have a very close working-relationship with the client and I can personally attest to the fact that these are not "fake" testimonials on the site. They represent unsolicited patient reviews/testimonials received via walk-in, website and recently through our new FB business page. As this was my first attempt at learning how to implement schema markup, I wasn't sure what the net-effect (if any) would be in the SERPs in terms of the ratings being displayed, so as an extra measure, I place the markup in the footer as well. It's ironic you slammed me on this point for potentially creating a skewed user experience, as I have been toiling over this very issue for a few days now. That is, while the reviews are 100% legit; someone whom has conducted a specific search query (e.g. tummy tucks) may be led to believe the 20 reviews are related to that specific procedure only - they are not - they are cumulative. Therefore, I agree with you, I feel it would be a best practice to remove the site-wide schema markup as related to the reviews in order to provide a better Google search experience. However, I must say, after reading-through the docs at schema and on the Google forums, I couldn't find anything that would indicate this is an unethical practice. What I may consider doing in lieu of the site-wide schema markup, is tying an individual testimonial (and related schema markup) directly to the specific procedure. What do you think? Regarding authorship: The client has written all of the material on the site. The client is extremely pro-active and willing to provide content for the site - a true pleasure to work with! That being said; the rel=author markup is not site-wide - only on pages where the client actually wrote quality/informative content regarding procedures, techniques or materials being used - not simply generic junk filler text. @Yehoshua Coren I would like to thank you for taking a bit more of an objective perspective regarding authorship usage. @Paul Gailey it is unfortunate that you felt compelled to post abuse links without first attempting to engage in discussion and/or fact gathering. Again, these are legit, unsolicited testimonials. Sidebar: Yelp has "filtered" more than a dozen legitimate and positive reviews for my client. Clearly (as we all know) there is something amiss in their filtering algorithms! Should reviews appearing in the SERPs from YELP, City Search and niche-specific review sites carry any more validity than reviews received directly by the business owner? I realize some review sites attempt to substantiate the validity of the reviews - a good thing - while others (Yelp) are making grave mistakes resulting in negative impact upon the business. Where is my link to report this? Can't seem to find one on Yelp... I look forward to your constructive input.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dino Basaldella</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120918351/Technical/the-ugly-state-of-google-serps-rich-snippet-abuse.html#comment-1558</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
