Google Alters Purpose Of SpecialAnnouncement Structured Data via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google’s updated guidance to the Special Announcements structured data shifts the focus toward a more general purpose use that is different from what Schema.org originally intended.

SpecialAnnouncement Structured Data

The SpecialAnnouncement structured data was created by Schema.org in March 2020 as a way to communicate special announcements that are specifically related to Covid-19. In fact, the Schema.org documentation states that it currently remains as a work in progress that is specifically focused on the then current Covid-19 crisis.

This is how Schema.org defines this specific structured data:

“A SpecialAnnouncement combines a simple date-stamped textual information update with contextualized Web links and other structured data. It represents an information update made by a locally-oriented organization, for example schools, pharmacies, healthcare providers, community groups, police, local government.

The motivating scenario for SpecialAnnouncement is the Coronavirus pandemic, and the initial vocabulary is oriented to this urgent situation. Schema.org expect to improve the markup iteratively as it is deployed and as feedback emerges from use.”

Google’s Implementation Of SpecialAnnouncement

The SpecialAnnouncement structured data was introduced by Google in April 2020 as specifically for Covid-19 related situations. It was created as a way for businesses, government entities, schools and other organizations could communicate special announcements such as quarantines, hours of operations, closings, and restrictions that are related to the Covid-19.

SpecialAnnouncement was released as a Beta feature and it currently remains in Beta status, officially in a testing phase, meaning that Google’s implementation of it was subject to changes or complete removal which is what quietly happened in the first week of 2024.

How SpecialAnnouncement Structured Data Documentation Changed

There are multiple changes throughout the document that are too numerous to document. Google’s previous version of the Special Announcement structured data documentation as of December 2023 had 38 references to Covid-19 and a total of 221 removals of text.

After the change the new version of the SpecialAnnouncement documentation contains only 13 references to Covid-19.

Most of the changes are similar to the following examples.

The previous documentation for this section of the guidance:

“How to implement your COVID-19 announcements
There are two ways that you can implement your COVID-19 announcements:”

Was rewritten to this:

“How to implement special announcements
There are two ways that you can implement your special announcements:”

The changes to the above passage transforms the purpose of the SpecialAnnouncement structured data into one with a wider application than the formerly narrow one of Covid-19 but still remains focused on local medical-related events (more details on this below).

Here’s another example that has a similar broadening effect.

This previous passage:

“Information about public transport closures in the context of COVID-19, if applicable to the announcement.”

Was rewritten to remove references to Covid-19 like this:

“Information about public transport closures, if applicable to the announcement.”

The changes, while subtle, represent an evolution of the SpecialAnnouncement structured data specifications away from being specific to Covid-19.

Perhaps the most notable change in the documentation is at the very top of the page in the very first paragraph.

The previous version of the documentation at the top of the page featured this:

“COVID-19 announcement (SpecialAnnouncement) structured data (BETA)
Note: We’re currently developing support for COVID-19 announcements in Google Search, and you may see changes in requirements, guidelines, and how the feature appears in Google Search. Learn more about the feature’s availability.

Due to COVID-19, many organizations, such governments, health organizations, schools, and more, are publishing urgent announcements…”

The updated and considerably shortened passage of the guidance now looks like this:

“Special announcement (SpecialAnnouncement) structured data (BETA)
Many organizations, such governments, health organizations, schools, and more, may need to publish urgent announcements (such as COVID-19 announcements)…”

Impact Of Changes To SpecialAnnouncement Structured Data

The dozens of changes to the SpecialAnnouncement structured data has the effect of making it more flexible for use in situations beyond Covid-19.

But the changes as they currently stand do not widen the scope of the SpecialAnnouncement structured data beyond what they previously were. This is because the nine examples of how the structured data can be used remain exactly the same.

Nine Examples Of Special Announcements

1. Announcement of a shelter-in-place directive
2. Closure notice (for example, closing a school or public transportation)
3. Announcement of government benefits (for example, unemployment support, paid leave, or one-time payments)
4. Quarantine guidelines
5. Travel restrictions
6. Notification of a new drive-through testing center
7. Announcement of an event transitioning from offline to online, or cancellation
8. Announcement of revised hours and shopping restrictions
9. Disease spread statistics and maps

The guidance continues to encourage the use of this structured data for extraordinary situations related to widespread communicable diseases and other disruptive emergency situations.

Given that the examples remain the same it’s probably safe to say that it may be inappropriate to use this structured data for something isolated like the rescheduling of a theater performance due to unforeseen circumstances. But because this structured data is in Beta it may at some point evolve

Read the updated SpecialAnnouncement structured data guidance:

Special announcement (SpecialAnnouncement) structured data (BETA)

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Lauritta

Google: No Perfect Formula For Search Rankings via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

In a recent social media statement, Google’s Search Liaison reminds that there’s no “perfect page” formula that websites must follow to rank well in search results.

The statement begins:

“Today I wanted to share about the belief that there is some type of “perfect page” formula that must be used to rank highly in Google Search.”

Google clarifies that no universal ranking formula exists despite claims that specific word counts, page structures, or other optimizations can guarantee high placement.

The statement continues:

“There isn’t, and no one should feel they must work to some type of mythical formula. It’s a belief dating back to even before Google was popular.”

Dispelling SEO Myths

Third-party SEO tools often advise constructing pages in specific ways to succeed in search. However, Google asserts these tools can’t predict rankings.

The tools’ advice is frequently based on finding averages among top pages, while Google’s algorithm values commonalities and unique differences.

“Third-party advice, even news articles, might suggest some type of thing. Following such advice doesn’t guarantee a top ranking. Moreover, such predictions and advice is often based on looking at averages — which misses the point that completely different and unique pages can and do succeed in search.”

Instead of formulas, Google’s advice is to focus on being helpful and relevant to users.

For example, if an author byline fits a page’s purpose for readers, include it – but not because it may supposedly boost rankings.

The Liaison’s statement concludes:

“Google’s key advice is to focus on doing things for your readers that is helpful. For example, if it makes sense for your readers to see a byline for an article (and it might!), do it for them. Don’t do it because you’ve heard having a byline ranks you better in Google (it doesn’t).

Put your readers and audience first. Be helpful to them. If you do this, if you’re doing things for them, you are more likely to align with completely different signals we use to reward content.”

Key Takeaways

The key takeaway from Google’s message is to adopt a reader-first approach.

For those hoping for that one perfect blueprint to guaranteed rankings, Google’s message remains consistent – no such formula exists. But creating content that genuinely serves its purpose? That continues to be rewarded.

Featured Image: egaranugrah/Shutterstock

Google’s John Mueller Offers Help With Spammy Foreign Language Hack via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google Search Advocate John Mueller recently responded to a post on Reddit from a website owner experiencing a significant increase in indexed foreign language pages.

The website owner reported that over 20,000 pages in Japanese and Chinese suddenly appeared on their site, which they didn’t create or intend to host. They asked the Reddit community for help removing unwanted pages and restoring their site’s rankings.

Mueller suggested ways to clean up the issue and prevent a recurrence.

The Incident

The website owner said Google indexed thousands of foreign language pages in one day, and they didn’t exist in the backend website management system, known as cPanel.

This led the owner to worry their site may have fallen victim to a security breach or misconfiguration that allowed unknown parties to post content.

The sudden influx of pages is a technique known in search engine optimization circles as a “Japanese keyword hack.”

Perpetrators can manipulate search results by flooding a site with junk pages optimized for Japanese keywords.

These attacks are a rising threat to website security and integrity, and the Reddit user’s situation highlights the need for increased vigilance.

Mueller’s Guidance

Responding to the call for help, Mueller confirmed the website had been hacked and said the next step was to identify how the breach occurred.

Mueller advised,

“Since someone hacked your site, even if you’ve cleaned up the hacked traces, it’s important to understand how they did it, so that you can make sure that the old vulnerabilities are locked down.”

He advised that even after cleaning up traces of the hack, it’s crucial to understand how it happened to lock down those vulnerabilities.

Mueller suggested automatic updates and potentially switching to a hosting platform that handles security could be beneficial solutions.

SEO Implications

Mueller said that once a site’s most important pages are cleaned of unwanted content, they can be reindexed quickly.

He said there’s no need to worry about old hacked pages that remain indexed but invisible to users, as they can stay that way for months without issue.

“Old pages will remain indexed for months, they don’t cause any problems if they tend not to be seen.”

Mueller also clarified that spammy backlinks pointing to these invisible indexed pages do not require disavowing.

Instead, he advised focusing cleanup efforts on a site’s visible content and preventing internal search results from being indexed.

Addressing Spammy Links & Indexing

The website owner asked Mueller for advice regarding spammy backlinks causing internal search pages to be indexed.

Mueller clarified that this was separate from the hacking issue. He recommended against disavowing the links, saying the pages would naturally drop from search results over time.

He advised proactively blocking search results pages for any new or existing sites to avoid potential exploitation by spammers.

“Block the search results from indexing (robots.txt or noindex). For new/other sites, I’d generally block search results pages from indexing, no need to wait until someone takes advantage of your site like this.”

Insights For SEO Professionals

This dialogue with Mueller highlights the importance of proactive measures to prevent hacking and spammy links from hurting sites’ search rankings.

Regular security updates, malware scans, and link audits should be part of your routine maintenance. Websites share responsibility with search engines to keep results free of hacked and spammy content.

Featured Image: ColorMaker/Shutterstock

Google Clarifies Job Posting Structured Data Guidance via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google updated their job posting structured data guidance in order to change the requirements of how to best keep Google notified of new webpages and changes to existing webpages.

Google Job Posting Structured Data Guidance

Google’s job posting structured data guidance is designed to help publishers become eligible for enhanced visibility in Google Search results through interactive job listings in search. It also provides an overview of the process of adding, testing and maintaining job posting structured data.

Of particular importance is the ability to notify Google of new job posting webpages and changes to existing pages, which benefits publishers by having the most relevant and useful job postings available in the SERPs.

Changes In The Guidance For Notifying Google

The change in the guidance was to clarify how publishers can notify Google of changes and new webpages. There doesn’t seem to be a change in the guidance of what to do but rather there is a change in how the use of sitemaps is emphasized and encouraged.

In the previous version of the guidance Google encouraged users to rely on the Indexing API “instead of sitemaps” to directly notify Google of pages that need immediate crawling.

The previous guidance stated:

“Keep Google informed by doing one of the following actions:
For job posting URLs, we recommend using the Indexing API instead of sitemaps because the Indexing API prompts Googlebot to crawl your page sooner than updating the sitemap and pinging Google. However, we still recommend submitting a sitemap for coverage of your entire site.”

The recommendation to use the Indexing API “instead of sitemaps” seems to discourage the use of sitemaps, even though the next sentence recommends submitting a sitemap for the entire site.

The updated guidance fixes the appearance of a conflict between the two sentences by replacing the phrase “instead of” with the word “and”.

It now reads:

“Keep Google informed by using the Indexing API and submitting a sitemap. For job posting URLs, we recommend using the Indexing API instead of sitemaps because the Indexing API prompts Googlebot to crawl your page sooner. Use the Indexing API to notify Google of a new URL to crawl or that content at a URL has been updated.”

The updated guidance now recommends using both the Indexing API and a sitemap, while clarifying that the Indexing API is faster.

There are similar changes to two more passages further down the page in addition to removing all mentions of “pinging” Google about changes to the sitemap with a GET request.

This statement:

“Keep Google informed by doing one of the following actions:”

Was changed to this:

“Keep Google informed of changes:”

That change makes it clearer that publishers should still use a sitemap while also recommending the use of the Indexing API for fast crawling.

Google also removed the recommendation to use a GET request for getting the sitemap crawled from the guidance:

“If you’re not using the Indexing API, submit a new sitemap to Google by sending a GET request to the following URL:

https://www.google.com/ping?sitemap=https://www.example.com/sitemap.xml”

Read the updated Job Posting Structured Data guidance here:

Job posting (JobPosting) structured data for Job Search

Featured Image by Shutterstock/object_photo

Google: Author Bylines Not A Ranking Factor via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

In a recent clarification on social media, Google’s Search Liaison addressed a widespread misconception regarding the influence of author bylines on search rankings.

Misconception In The SEO Community

The issue arose after a notable publication suggested that including author bylines could boost content’s visibility in Google’s search results.

According to the publication, this claim has prompted many websites to adjust their content strategies under the assumption that bylines would boost their ranking.

Google’s Clarification On Bylines

Google’s Search Liaison took to X (formerly Twitter) to address the misinformation.

In a response, the liaison stated:

“I know this will be a ‘simple, almost quaint answer’ but this part of the article is wrong nor cites us saying this. Google doesn’t somehow ‘check out our credentials.’”

He emphasized that Google doesn’t use bylines as a direct ranking signal and that the publication’s claim was incorrect.

Bylines, the liaison explained, aren’t a tool for improving search rankings but rather for the benefit of the readers.

He added:

“Author bylines aren’t something you do for Google, and they don’t help you rank better. They’re something you do for your readers — and publications doing them may exhibit the type of other characteristics our ranking systems find align with useful content.”

Further Clarification Regarding Author Bylines

Google’s Search Liaison continued:

“Just adding a byline doesn’t give a ranking boost. Nor do we somehow read information in or near a byline and think ‘Oh, they say they’re an expert, so this must be written by an expert.’”

He noted that while having accurate bylines and information might correlate with quality content, they aren’t direct ranking factors.

He adds that plenty of content without bylines ranks well, reinforcing that they’re not required to succeed in search rankings.

Key Takeaways For SEO Professionals

For SEO professionals, the key points to remember are:

• Google doesn’t use author bylines as a factor in search rankings.
• Bylines should be included for reader benefit and might coincide with other quality signals.
• Quality content can rank well with or without an author byline.
• Google plans to update its documentation to help clarify ranking factors and improve communication with SEO professionals.

This clarification from Google’s Search Liaison serves as another reminder to create high-quality content that serves your audience rather than strategies that have no direct impact on search rankings.

Featured Image: Vectorium/Shutterstock

Google Clarifies How Algorithm Chooses Search Snippets via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google updated their search snippet documentation to clarify what influences Google’s algorithm for choosing what to display as the snippet in the search results. This change may represent a big change in how meta descriptions are written and how content is optimized.

Google Search Results Snippets

A webpage displayed in the search engine results pages (SERPs) consists of a title, a URL breadcrumb and a one to two sentence description of what the webpage is about. That last part is called a snippet. A snippet is defined as a concise or brief description of what the webpage is about.

Traditionally the snippet was derived from the meta description. But that hasn’t been the case for awhile now.

Google Clarifies Snippet Guidance

Google updated their Search Central documentation to clarify that the content of the page is the main source of where the snippet comes from. The changes also made it clearer that the structured data and the meta description are not the primary source of the search snippets.

The official documentation for the change says:

“What: Clarified in our documentation about snippets that the primary source of the snippet is the page content itself.

Why: The previous wording incorrectly implied that structured data and the meta description HTML element are the primary sources for snippets.”

What Changed In Google’s Snippet Documentation

Google removed a substantial amount of words from the previous version of the documentation.

This is what the first part of the documentation previously advised:

“Google uses a number of different sources to automatically determine the appropriate snippet, including descriptive information in the meta description tag for each page. We may also use information found on the page, or create rich results based on markup and content on the page.”

The previous version implied that the snippet was derived mostly from the meta description and said that Google “may” also select on-page content for the snippet.

The updated documentation now makes it clear that the page content is the main source of the snippet and uses the word “may” for the meta description.

This is the new version of the documentation:

“Google primarily uses the content on the page to automatically determine the appropriate snippet. We may also use descriptive information in the meta description element when it describes the page better than other parts of the content.”

Significant Amount Of Content Removed

Google also removed an entire paragraph of content and replaced it with new documentation. Both the removal and the addition dramatically change the message of the documentation.

This section was removed:

“Site owners have two main ways to suggest content for the snippets that we create:

Rich results: Add structured data to your site to help Google understand the page: for example, a review, recipe, business, or event. Learn more about how rich results can improve your site’s listing in search results.

Meta description tags: Google sometimes uses tag content to generate snippets, if we think they give users a more accurate description than can be taken directly from the page content.”

This is the new wording:

“Snippets are primarily created from the page content itself. However, Google sometimes uses the meta description HTML element if it might give users a more accurate description of the page than content taken directly from the page.”

What Change In Guidance Means For SEO

Many SEO guides that are published online (wrongly) advise that the best way to optimize a meta description is to use it as “advertising copy” and to use “target keywords” in it. The idea is that keywords displayed in the snippets are bolded in the SERPs, making them stand out, so keywords in the meta description will gain bolded keywords which will call attention to it and inspire a higher click through rate.

That is 100% wrong advice and is outdated. Adding keywords to the meta description is not important (meta descriptions are not used for ranking) and the purpose of a meta description is not to entice clicks from the SERPs. That’s old and outdated advise and will cause Google to not use the meta description for the snippet.

The correct use of the meta description is to accurately and concisely describe what the webpage is about, period.

The official W3C HTML specification for the meta description outlines the correct use of the meta description:

“The value must be a free-form string that describes the page. The value must be appropriate for use in a directory of pages, e.g. in a search engine. There must not be more than one meta element with its name attribute set to the value description per document.”

Google isn’t interested in displaying search optimized snippets. They want to show a description of what the webpage is about and Google’s advice on how to write a meta description conforms with the official meta description HTML specification.

This is how Google advises to write a meta description:

“Google will sometimes use the tag from a page to generate a snippet in search results, if we think it gives users a more accurate description than would be possible purely from the on-page content. A meta description tag generally informs and interests users with a short, relevant summary of what a particular page is about.”

Google then describes the content of a meta description using a simile that compares it to promoting something in the form of a pitch:

“They are like a pitch that convince the user that the page is exactly what they’re looking for.”

Google doesn’t say to write a pitch to use for the meta description. The word “like” is used which signifies a simile, a comparison.

Takeaway

The big takeaway from the updated snippet guidance is that the primary source of the snippet is content and that Google “may” use the meta description. Lastly, Google makes it clear that the structured data plays no role in the selection of words to use as a snippet.

What then means for SEO is that the days of packing keywords into the meta description are most definitely over. Use them properly and it may help you better control the snippet that Google uses in the search results.

Read Google’s updated guidance on search snippets:

Control your snippets in search results