Categories
Reviews Schema

How to Markup Reviews, AggregateRatings, & Critic Reviews in Schema Business Review Markup


Valid Review Structured Data Markup, AggregateRatings, and Critic Reviews

Review structured data markup may well be the most powerful type of schema, according to the results we monitor. However, use this form of markup with prudence; it demands a high level of accuracy.

“Review Metadata” or schema helps search engines understand webpage data in a structured format so that they can return relevant result data back to end-users based on search queries. The on-page code is what is behind the gold review stars that showed up in rich results. Spammy structured markup penalties and how to recover from them has become a growing issue. Structured data markup can be highly advantageous for a website to gain better visibility in search engine results pages, star reviews, and voice search – but to accomplish it correctly requires caution and care!

In the dynamic world of web improvements, the website owner may want those highly coveted review rich snippets that help users identify trusted websites and products quicker. If the user sees a ton of vibrant gold stars indicating a number of reviewers, they can receive additional information regarding those reviews and ratings.

Google is investing a lot in machine learning, deep learning, and Artificial Intelligence, which all rely on the proper implementation of schema structured data markup. If you’re making use of this on your web pages, these tips can help you prevent a manual penalty. Schema continues to evolve and one area to pay close attention to is its transition to Google’s requirements for review markup. For example, now we need to markup both bestRating and worstRating. So we keep an eye out for any Google Updates to structured data guidelines.

Set a Proper Goal to Gain Review Rich Snippets: Gold Stars

The goal should be more than to avoid punishment for structured data spam, rather set your goal to gain those stunning visible review rich snippets.

Keeping a watchful eye on your website’s link profile has been more in focus for many an SEO professional, as well as prioritizing unique web content quality on an ongoing basis. However, to avoid Google Penguin and Panda penalties, there is more to pay attention to: audit your structured data markup implementation to either recover from or to avoid a spammy structured markup penalty. Many start with analyzing their product schema, which is key to moving online sales forward, but we have found penalties more often are due to improper client review markup.

The use and uses of Schema Review continue to change. Successfully implementing and maintaining review structured data markup involves the need to keep pace with Google’s ever-changing specificity for data requirements. Using the aggregate review has the propensity to cause issues if not executed correctly, so start with a clear understanding of the different schema types. Plan for the necessary time to test and monitor your semantic vocabulary code to gain – and keep – review rich snippets in Google Search.

Review Schema Applies with AggregateRatings

Focus on reviews and rating first for your local business schema; understand the following terms before additionally implementing schema for AgggregateRatings.

Schema.org Type: Review – A review of an item.

Schema.org Type: AggregateRating – The average rating based on multiple ratings or reviews. This typically applies to user ratings rather than professional critic ratings.

Schema.org Type: Rating – Note that reviews can themselves be rated. The reviewRating applies to the rating given by the reviewer. The aggregateRating property applies to the review itself.

Example of a manual spam notice:

“Google has detected structured markup on some of your pages that we believe violates our structured data guidelines. Because incorrect information lowers the quality of search results for users, rich snippets will not appear in Google Search results for pages with incorrect structured data markup.”

Google Critic Review Guidelines & Schema.org Properties

AggregateRating reviews in local search provide rich “Aggregate Rating” data that includes the name of the thing the rating is for, the number of reviews, and the value of the review.

Google lays out clear requirements as well as recommendations and examples for local business Schema markup. The “necessary” fields are specified and those that fall in the category of “recommend” are easy to distinguish. Each can be used to build your local business listing, invoke an action and are used to facilitate local searches (on a desktop, mobile and for voice search). Where it applies to your business, add specific data in your Schema markup that depicts your business and makes it easier for search engines to know what services and products you provide.

Start adding your review schema markup to your most important pages. They offer high impact Schema markup. When implemented according to Google’s guidelines, review rich snippets contribute to your chances to be in the 3 pack, to building a Knowledge Graph Panel in Google search results, and other forms of featured rich results. Google SERPs that display schema business review markup stand out to the eye.

With your critic reviews displayed prominently in visible Google Search results, potential well-suited clients can easily find them and click to your web pages to read what others have to say about you.

ReviewTrust is a leading review system for obtaining and displaying client reviews. It takes care of the basic tasks of creating forms to capture reviews (text, video or audio), while providing 14 options for adding those reviews on your website ranging from e-commerce display formats to blog and Facebook type displays, as well as the option of using pull-out tabs found at the side of a page.

UPDATE: Self-serving reviews aren’t allowed for LocalBusiness and Organization

“Reviews that can be perceived as “self-serving” aren’t in the best interest of users. We call reviews “self-serving” when a review about entity A is placed on the website of entity A – either directly in their markup or via an embedded 3rd party widget. That’s why, with this change, we’re not going to display review rich results anymore for the schema types LocalBusiness and Organization (and their subtypes) in cases when the entity being reviewed controls the reviews themselves.” – Webmaster Central Blog Sept 16, 2019

Many search marketers are suming this up to mean, no review snippets for reviews of your own local business on your own site.

Schema Business Review Markup: JSON-LD, Microdata and RDFa Review Formats

Now you can use JSON-LD or another format for your structured data markup to gain review rich snippets in highly engaging SERPs or the Google Knowledge Graph. Prior to the February 2016, the generation of review and product rich snippets in Google search result pages was only possible in microdata and RDFa format. Because reviews offer a form of validation to potential buyers or someone considering if they will use a professional service, they merit a careful markup process. Think if you trust someone’s opinion to make a purchase, you wouldn’t want anyone to cheat the integrity of the review system.

Determine which format you prefer; then move forward.

Online reviews and ratings are among the most powerful validation points that a digital marketer can take advantage of. Not only do Google+ reviews have proven influence on consumer behavior and a business’s digital brand reputation; they also significantly influence search performance. Those coveted gold star views are highly sought after in search results. Whether or not your business is able to convert visitors into customers may depend on if you can show proof of favorable customer reviews available online.

Google’s Schema Markup Guidelines for Nesting Reviews

Rules apply to just how you can mark up your items with structured data; in some cases, you can include multiple items. For example, a movie review might include a Person as the author of a review. In this case, you can convey the relationship between these types of data by nesting Person information (reviewer details) inside the corresponding statement about how the person like the movie.

Problems with improper review nesting is a technical SEO issue that may seem odd to associate with spammy content, but GoogleBot needs to be able to easily interpret your structured data. The challenge arises when it is confusing, which may produce negative results versus the advantages that are wanted. Google guidelines for review markup for proper structured data nesting and implementation is becoming more comprehensive.

Mark up Product and AggregateRating, Review and Offer types so that they are connected to one another. Depending on the how the page is set up, markup Product may be the best the top entity and then nest in Offer, AggregateRating, and Review.

Review AggregatedRating and itemReviewed Property

By nesting Review and AggregateRating under the Product type, it eliminates the need for the itemReviewed property as well; it is simply understood that the review is for the product mentioned.

I have wrestled first-hand with how to fill in the fields correctly for review markup. Avoid spammy tactics that cripple Rich snippet results and eCommerce SEO needed to be more of a priority. As much as reviews are desirable for their visual appeal, it takes practice, testing, and focused time to gain the ability to be detailed to get it right.

14 Tips on How to Add Review Schema Markup

1. Third-party reviews should be on individual product pages.

A web page that introduces a range of e-Commerce products you want to markup and that fall under one type should not have a structured data review for a specific product. That could be confusing to the reader. It is better to place the review on the page designated for that single product. In March 2015, Google updated its rating and reviews Rich Snippet guidelines, providing information that these types of markup must be placed only on specific product items, not on “category pages” or “a list of items” for sale.

Google prefers the use of reviews on closely themed pages. This is regarded as providing a better user experience than just a testimonials page with a list of reviews. This means markup on web pages that are directly relevant to the reviews. And the ratings you add schema to must be sourced directly from the user or reviewer.

Display information about the product being reviewed on a unique product page containing marked-up product information in addition to the review content.

2. Keep your reviews unique per page.

If you place the same markup for the same reviews on multiple pages of your website, it clouds the users’ ability to determine just which product the review was for. Adding to the footer or sidebar places them in mass on your site. This doesn’t help the site visitor distinguish which review is for which product.

Then be patient. It may take up to a week or longer to get your post updated into SERP based on your site’s crawl algorithm. Lock Down Design** says, “Google review stars don’t show until you get five reviews. You need ten 5-star reviews to get a 5.0 average.”

3. Match your Markup Type to the Page

\

A business review varies from a product or professional service review. If the intent of the page is to offer information about the business, then it is a proper place to markup business reviews. A review that is provided online for the business is different from a web page. Therefore, the markup on this page should fit an Organization type or one of the subtypes that best describes your industry.

Google Trends Analyst John Mueller* stated that “we’ve cleaned up some of our application logic. For example, requirements for an explicitly reviewed item and correct property name values are now enforced”.

Schema on the homepage is totally okay, however, placement of aggregate review schema to the homepage is not. This has gone the way of yesterday; Google does not show gold review stars on a homepage anymore.

Given that the intent of a review is to offer unbiased comments on products or services and in general, they belong on the corresponding underlying page. While technically SEO doesn’t state exactly where to place the JSON review code, Google recommends adding it in the header part of the HTML code and then to test in the Google Search Consolee. Microdata and RDFa review formats should be placed high enough on the page to be immediately seen.

4. Critic Reviews demand clarityKnowledge Panel Google Critic Reviews and Review Snippets Application Form

For critic reviews, Google says “It should be immediately obvious to users that the page has review or rating content”. All reviews should be honest and true representations of the customer experience. A critic is someone who is unbiased and therefore their review is different from someone who is an employer or family member.

Don’t place the review on a page that requires the visitor to log-in. That means that the review isn’t instantly present for users to readers. It should be clear that there are no commercial agreements (paid or in-kind) to provide critic reviews between the content issuer and the reviewed business. Also, avoid inclusion of critic reviews that are duplicated or much the same similar reviews posted by several businesses.

Google is open to individuals who already publish critic reviews, and who adhere to its guidelines: Knowledge Panel Critic Reviews and Review Snippets feature. Applicants are asked to provide two “URL of a production page with critic review markup embedded”. This means involvement is intended for a professional critic reviewer, in my opinion.

Critic review definitions and common properties

Gooogle says the following properties work for all reviews, regardless of the review subject and provides the table below.

Properties
itemReviewed

Local business, Movie, and Book, required

Annotation for the subject being reviewed. See below for details of each type of
review.

author

Person or Organization,
recommended

The author of the review. The reviewer’s name needs to be a valid name.

author.name

Text, recommended

Name of the author of the review. Provide the full name of the author. The value should be capitalized
correctly. Names comprised of entirely uppercase or lowercase letters will be edited such
that the first letter of every word is capitalized.

author.sameAs

URL, recommended

URL to a page that unambiguously identified the author, e.g. the author’s official website,
a profile page, a Wikipedia article.

datePublished

Date, required

Date of the review’s first publication, in
ISO 8601 date format.

inLanguage

Text, recommended

The BCP-47 language code of the review description, e.g. “ja” is Japanese.
Strongly recommended for non-English reviews.

description

Text, required

Snippet from the body of the actual review that captures the author’s opinion about the review subject. This snippet will be used on the Google Search result page, as shown in the mocks above. All of the following criteria should be met, else the review will be excluded from the feature.

  • The snippet cannot exceed 200 characters.
  • Use non-smart double quotation marks (") to denote titles, e.g. “"Gravity"
    is the best movie.”
  • Follow the critic review guidelines in the
    content of the snippet.
publisher

Organization, required

Annotation for the publisher of the review.

publisher.name

Text, required

Name of the publisher of the review, e.g. “The New York Times.”

publisher.sameAs

URL, recommended

The URL of the publisher’s official website or Wikipedia page.

reviewRating

Rating, recommended

The rating given in this review. A nested schema.org/Rating or more specific
subtype, most typically schema.org/AggregateRating.

reviewRating.bestRating

Text*

The highest value allowed in this rating system.

* Required if the rating system is not on a 5-point scale. If bestRating is
omitted, 5 is assumed.

reviewRating.worstRatingText*

The lowest value allowed in this rating system.

* Required if the rating system is not on a 5-point scale. If worstRating is
omitted, 1 is assumed.

reviewRating.ratingValue

Text

The rating given to the reviewed item. Letter grades are allowed, e.g. “B+”.

aggregateRating

AggregateRating

Annotation for the average score assigned to the item being reviewed. This typically applies
to user ratings rather than professional critic ratings.

aggregateRating.bestRating

Text

The highest value allowed in the reviewer’s rating system. If this field is omitted,
5 is assumed. Letter grades are allowed, e.g. “A”.

aggregateRating.worstRating

Text

The lowest value allowed in the reviewer’s rating system. If this field is omitted,
1 is assumed. Letter grades are allowed, e.g. “C-“.

aggregateRating.ratingValue

Text

The average rating given to the reviewed item. Letter grades are allowed, e.g. “B+”.

aggregateRating.ratingCount

Number

The number of ratings given to the reviewed item.

URL

URL

Canonical URL of the web page that contains the full text of the review.

  • If no value is provided, Google assumes that the crawled page is the location of the
    review in its entirety.
  • If your structured data is on a page other than the one containing
    the full text of the review, or if you have multiple URLs for the full-text review,
    you must populate this field.
  • The webpage indicated by this field must contain a full-length review that is longer
    than 300 words.

5. Rated reviews need a trusted system

It is ideal when a client has left the review on Google, Yext, Yelp or a trusted review system with a 5-point scale or a clearly defined scale. By default, Google assumes a 5-point scale, where 5 is the best possible result and 1 is the lowest review rating, but websites can use a different rating scale. “If you do, you can mark up the best and worst ratings, and Google will scale that to the 5-star system used in rich snippets”, says Google.

Few sites, other than large eCommerce sites can support a review system of their own. To make this easier, Google now permits businesses to place third-party reviews on their site. So pull in those great reviews someone left on Google+, Yelp, Health Grades, Angie’s List or one of the multiple trusted review sites that exist. Be found trustworthy online by eliminating any reviews that could be assessed as fake information. Overdoing your review markup or adding spammy structured data gets sites in trouble as well.

Review AggregateRatings is only applicable on schema types such as Service, Brand, CreativeWork, Product, Offer, Organization, Place, and Event ( https://schema.org/AggregateRating). Google doesn’t accept the type “Thing” the same way; an error will be generated on AggregatedReatings, but it works for Single Ratings.

6. Gradually add Rated Reviews to your website.How to check your review structured data in your Google Search Console

Genuine product reviews come at a realistic pace and typically, a lot of hard work. Likewise, don’t stockpile review stars to many web pages simultaneously, but add them gradually over time as you legitimately gain them. Google holds sole discretion as to when and where review stars are displayed. Domain trust and page authority need to be established before you should anticipate your new review stars to appear. It can take several days (or longer) for a review to be judged valid and worthy of being shown in snippet search results.

7. Double check your review markup with more than one tool.

It is possible that neither your Search Console Markup Reports nor the Google Structured Data Testing Tool will catch spammy review markup. Cross-reference and examine review schema markup examples and errors with Google guidelines, Schema.org, and other trusted sources. Have your developer fix review errors as quickly as possible. Test your review markup before publishing on your website, and then watch it. Current preference is the JSON-LD review format, which can be tested in the JSON-LD Playground tool (http://json-ld.org/playground) to ensure that your code is in top shape.

NOTE: Google has no obligation to incorporate your review content in any Knowledge Panel feature or review rich result. It is at the company’s sole discretion. However, it is logical that by double checking your review markup, the more likely it is to implement it correctly the first time. Domain trust is a factor. And if you which to become a critic reviewer, it is reasonable to assume that Google values personal accuracy in following Google reviewer guidelines.

“Done wisely, having the review stars in the search results for your local business’ products and/or services can have a positive effect on the CTR (Click Through Rate).” – Whitespark

Schema business review markup for a Google review summary with gold stars8. Make sure your review is visible to the reader.

Image source: Google

Google wants all reviews easy to see. So if you rely of JSON review markup, it must correlate with text that is visible on the page. This shouldn’t be in small font in the footer. The detailed information that is provided in your markup must match the page’s content that visitors see.

Good-quality structured data will be markup that is an accurate reflection of the web content already available to the reader of that page.

9. Provide proof of your review.

These coveted reviews and ratings not only need to be marked up correctly, there are additional Google stipulations if you want to do this and not risk a penalty.

A. Foremost, provide “proof” that your third-party reviews truly exist.  The review should be visually displayed somewhere on the page.  Some web designers love widgets that provide a carousel of reviews. But be careful, it is better to have one review that is relevant to the page than many general reviews.

B. Next, be sure to include a link to the third-party site that the original review was posted on. Collecting reviews and placing them where they are easy to see on the marked-up page creates the best user experience. This way the reader doesn’t have to click-through to another page to see the reviews but can choose to follow the verifying link if they choose to. Google is all about creating a good user experience by giving them the information they need. While normally marketers want to eliminate exit points where they may lose the buyer, this review URL is a requirement.

10. Look for continual updates in Google Quality GuidelinesGoogle Search Console test-review structured data markup

Digital marketing is a fast-paced world that incorporates continual change. Be sure to stay on top of your current review markup by watching for errors and warnings in your Google Search Console.

Go to “Search Appearance”, “Structured Data”, “Review (markup: schema.org)” and then click on each line item to gain the “Test live data” button. (NOTE: When you first reach the “Structured Data” page, Google offers a time stamp for the report on the top far left; “Status: 5/2/17”.) The button opens up the Google Structured Data Testing Tool.

Review markup errors and warnings found in the Google Structured-Data Testing ToolWhile we didn’t have any errors or warning found here, it is not a conclusive analysis of valid view markup. Early in 2016, it seems fine, but with Gooogle’s tighter quality controls, the original markup now lacks the URL where the review was posted. Additionally, a spammy markup penalty may not be a technical application of the correct markup language as much as it is an inappropriate use of where the code is placed according to the guidelines.

Next, use the rich snippets preview tool. Whether you have hand-coded, used a schema review plugin, the Aggregate Rating Schema Generator, the Schema creator for ‘Review’, or the, schema.org microdata rich snippet review generator, you should gain an image of how your review rich snippet might look.

Not all Google-quality markup updates are easy to catch. Create a Gooogle Alert and stay alert by reading continually about any structured data review requirement updates.

11. Don’t place your reviews in an iframe

It is too common to find “review” features on e-Commerce websites that are embedded into iframes in order to integrate with third-party solution providers or some fancy web design. However, if this ends up in defeating the purpose of this content for high SEO value and validating buyer’s pending decisions, why not switch it up? Iframes tend to make it challenging for search engine crawlers to understand this critical content. Buyer reviews are best when incorporated into product pages as crawlable HTML content and marked up with schema for better click-through rates.

12. Keep your review content fresh

A common question in Google Search that comes from prospective buyers is “how many reviews does this product have?” or “what do people say about this product?” Substitute in the name of your product and try it your self. Google answers can come in the form of consumer reviews. Some businesses claim that their Google Reviews are dropping off. It may be that here is another case where Google wants to see fresh and current content. Some sites report reviews dropping out-of-sight over time; we can see the day on other trusted sites that display a review left 7 years ago.

Google seems okay with processing multiple page entities when it comes to reviews. For example, it combines without error in our tests with Breadcrumb and WebSite markup. This contrasts with Product markup, which should only be for one specific item per page. However, all reviews on an individual page should relate to that page’s theme and type. Multiple individuals may purchase the same item and post a favorable review to help inform subsequent buyers.

The naming of the author, the date the review was posted, and the URL where the review can be found works to disambiguate who left which review.

13. Keep your review content visible

Keep in mind, if you are using JSON-LD, the individual reviews must be accessible from the marked up page. Review schema markup should not be used to hide what the reviewer stated. JSON-LD review code that validates correctly but is not visible to users in any form would be a violation of Google’s guidelines. For example, if the JSON-LD markup describes a famous football player, the HTML body should describe that same athlete.

14. Add your review content and markup to AMP HTML pages

Mark up all relevant pages on your primary business website, not just your standard HTLP web pages. Not only should your canonical pages, such as your desktop URLs, have this schema implemented, you should also markup AMP HTML page equivalents for the same customer reviews. Currently, use the same structured data markup across both the canonical and AMP pages for reviews.

Advantages of Review Rich Snippets in SERRPs

* Improved CTR (equals revenue): Since revenue belongs to those who hold the treasured top positions in Google, it is clear why so much effort goes into trying to reach #1. If you gain clicks because you stand out online, now someone navigates to your site who may never have otherwise known about you. The majesty of structured data is that your business doesn’t have to occupy the #1 spot to be the user’s choice. If you have gained a review rich result, for example, your listing will jump out to the eye, which increases click-through-rates. If your competitors are not leveraging structured data yet, you will likely be gaining more clicks – even if they are ranked above you.

* Getting in the Local 3 Pack: Given how Google is testing new ways to display the local 3 pack, reviews that are attributed to a business jump out visually. A Heat Map study led by Casey Meraz and published in Moz**** indicates that reviews search results seem to be the deciding factor when it comes to a user clicking on a local business in organic search result pages.

“In the 3 heat map tests, when a local pack result was chosen by the user, the overall majority chose a local business that had reviews. Where the local 3 pack contained no reviews, users were less likely to to use the local 3 pack,” Tim Capper posted on August 19, 2015.

* Keeps your site performing well in Google results: How to avoid violating Google’s Spammy Structured Markup guidelines may seem like an arduous task. It’s essential to regularly audit your existing schema markup and stay up-to-date. As the Google Knowlege Graph evolves, reviews are becoming a larger part of it.

* Wins favor with prospective buyers :

By enhancing your rich snippets with review markup, you can find more favor with prospective buyers. Buyers value the ability to find and read reviews before making a purchase decision. Any form of online or brick-and-mortar products or professional services for sale qualifies for this feature. National, international or local products – all are the same and can benefit from proof of quality products and happy customers with rated reviews in SERPs. Add review markup using schema.org on own your own, hire an SEO expert, or attempt to use automated tools.

* Statistics prove that cultivating reviews equals improved sales:

BrightLocal sums up several ‘Key Takeaways’ from an online review survey research:

• 58% of buyers report that the star rating of a business is most important

• 54% of people will visit the website after reading positive reviews

• 84% of consumers trust online reviews just as they do a personal recommendation

• 58% of consumers indicate that a business review star rating is most important

• 90% of purchasers read fewer than 10 reviews prior to making a decision about a business

• 3% of potential clients believe that reviews older than 3 months have lost relevacy

The Observer feels it is significant enough to restate that “82 percent of U.S. adults read online ratings or reviews before making a purchase”. In the September 21, 2017 Yelp Might Be on Death’s Doorstep, but Some Reviews Still Matter article, he also says that “For companies with stiff competition for consumers, a low rating or lack of reviews could do a lot of harm”.

“With your critic reviews displayed prominently in Google Search results, your readers will be able to easily find them and navigate to your website to read the complete reviews. Critic reviews appear in Search results with a snippet from the critic, the critic’s name and the publisher icon.” – Google for Developers

Example of Correct JSON LD Product Review

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
"@context": "http://schema.org/",
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Insert Product Name Here",
"image": "https://www.example.com/anvil_executive.jpg",
"description": "Insert a description of the product reviewed in this space.",
"brand": {
"@type": "Thing",
"name": "shoes"
},
"aggregateRating": {
"@type": "AggregateRating",
"ratingValue": "4.8",
"reviewCount": "24"
},
"review": {
"@type": "Review",
"reviewBody": "Review goes word for word here",
"reviewRating": {
"@type": "Rating",
"ratingValue": "5"
},
"author": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Author Name"
}
},
"offers": {
"@type": "Offer",
"priceCurrency": "USD",
"price": "90.00",
"itemCondition": "http://schema.org/UsedCondition",
"availability": "http://schema.org/InStock",
"seller": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Name"
}
}
}
</script>

“If you or your company are selling anything or reviewing anything online and you are not using JSON-LD, you will more than likely have a lower organic search ranking than other websites who have equally relevant search, but who use JSON-LD. More than that, not using JSON-LD can decrease your searchability and decrease your click-through rate.” – NoBul Media

Embrace Customer Reviews and Foster Them

Some companies are hesitant to include customer reviews on their websites for fear of negative people who say demeaning things. Or developers are fearful of risking a spam penalty. However, often if prospective buyers fail to find reinforcing reviews on your website, they are likely to read them elsewhere; we all know the shopping giant, Amazon.com. The positive aspect of customer reviews from a searcher’s view is that they are a constant source of new, user-generated opinions.

Many consider them to be more genuine than what a business site may say about its products and services.

Mike Blumenthal (http://localu.org/blog/google-show-4-8-rating-5-star-reviews) covers some of the reasons why Google opts not to show reviews;

* If they are posted from the same IP block as the business

* If Google has established a known relationship with the business

* If the reviewer add URLs in their review

* Apparent duplicate review text.

Google Movie Reviews now Experimenting with Audience Reviews

Threading on how Google sees the importance of reviews, the search giant seems to be testing a new way to help the public voice their opinion about a movie that they have seen.

In the summer of 2017, Google began showing top voted tags for popular movie knowledge panels. Google Movie Reviews used to provide “like and dislike buttons”; however, now in some cases, users see audience reviews, over their former tendency to display reviews from established critic websites. It seems Google is showing their own movie reviews and lets searchers add their own reviews as well.

Jogesh Sharma posted a screenshot on Twitter of what this looks like***.

Summary

Implementing aggregated schema rating markup should be done with extreme discretion and accuracy. The Search Giant is quick to discern if it may lead to a deceptive user experience in their SERPs. Resist any craving to manipulate the review stars.

For the individuals who are willing to implement aggregate rating markup to communicate user-submitted reviews with 100% accuracy, a significant upturn in CTR may be just ahead and well-worth the painstaking effort. Users may love to sort by the number of reviews posted per product. Make it super easy for users to find your products and professional service reviews. Focus on the buyer who already knows what they want to buy, they are just deciding which business to make their purchase from.

Knowledge Graph optimization for product reviews is a great opportunity to provide your ideal audience the compelling and visual affirmation that reviews provide. Without even navigating to your web page, they can tell immediately within the Google search interface that your business stands out. Note, that there is no guarantee your Knowledge Graph Panel will display reviews to searchers. But the more you work at it, the higher your chances are.

Grace Massa Langlois stated on the Webmaster forum that it is best to “keep in mind, even if Google discovers technically correct markup there are no guarantees that they will display rich snippets for your site in search. The algorithm determines whether or not to display them based on a variety of quality guidelines.”

Call us to schedule your consultation for opportunities to gain more favorable review rich snippets. Begin with a Technical SEO Audit Including Reviews

 

 

* https://plus.google.com/+JohnMueller/posts/5ivUfWzdHX4

** https://www.lockedowndesign.com/google-review-stars/

*** https://twitter.com/JogeshKSharma/status/911494969063489541

**** https://moz.com/blog/the-new-snack-pack-where-users-clicking-how-you-can-win





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *