Google Developers - Recommendations

  • That's completely okay and in fact it is good that people care about their sites.

    Good. Because a lot of people do. I'm one of them. :)



    Yet there is nothing for us to fix because there is nothing wrong:

    That is not how it is going to come across or how it will be upheld. I am getting Google warnings about this and notifications about this.



    because they're not standardized

    Google makes their own standard. You can comply or ignore it. Ignoring it usually has consequences.

    • Official Post

    Google makes their own standard. You can comply or ignore it. Ignoring it usually has consequences.

    We comply with their standard, this is obvious because there are no errors. Not a single one.


    All it does is giving a heads up that there is something it does not recognize, but things that are not recognized will result in being ignored. The OGP tags are required to be able to properly share with Facebook, Twitter and even Google Plus. Notice the last thing? Right, Google even requires you to use them in order to properly share things on Google Plus.

  • All it does is giving a heads up that there is something it does not recognize, but things that are not recognized will result in being ignored. The OGP tags are required to be able to properly share with Facebook, Twitter and even Google Plus. Notice the last thing? Right, Google even requires you to use them in order to properly share things on Google Plus.

    So all the more reason to include them ;)


    Because a lot of people (myself included), use the power of social media.

    • Official Post

    Because a lot of people (myself included), use the power of social media.

    Yes and that's why these meta tags are there, because they're required to accomplish that.


    And as funny as it gets: You demanding in this thread is to remove them. "Fixing" the warnings can only be accomplished by purging them.

  • Yes and that's why these meta tags are there, because they're required to accomplish that.
    And as funny as it gets: You demanding in this thread is to remove them. "Fixing" the warnings can only be accomplished by purging them.

    No, I'm asking you to please include them with the compliance of adding the missing part. Which can be done, because IP.Board is 1 step away from full compliance (they have both).


    https://developers.google.com/…ress-for-my-homepage%252F


    If your competitor can do it, I have fair you can too.

  • You demanding

    Off topic:


    I never demand anything. I do however sometimes in an effort to get to the point, become short in my replies (using as few words as possible). It should not be interpreted as me trying to be aggressive or hostile or anything unfriendly.


    While I do get passionate sometimes about things that are important to me OR if I'm frustrated trying to figure something out... If in doubt or if you think I need to take it a notch down, please speak up.


    My communication skills are a bit limited sometimes on the internet and I am sometimes misunderstood. So please do not think I am demanding anything.

    Edited once, last by Aslan ().

  • There is nothing missing. By "empty", the tool means there’s no child schema elements inside that parent.

    I feel we're getting hung up on "fine print" (terminology)


    Empty, means missing, means absent, means not there.


    I would like it to comply with Google to include it so it will not be empty or missing and for it to be there.

  • To show you how stupid this tool is, replace all occurences of rel="author" with with rel="xauthor".

    That's basically all it's looking for, yes. Which is good enough for Google.


    I never said I like their standards... But liking it is irrelevant, so long as there is compliance... Which is what Google holds you on.

  • To show you how stupid this tool is, replace all occurences of rel="author" with with rel="xauthor".

    One would hope that it would actually reference the author, but hell... If you want quick and easy.... You could simply have it spit out the name of the site. It still would technically be compliance

    • Official Post

    Google no longer cares for rel="author" because they dropped the support for it.


    By the way, IP.B is not really a step ahead, because they don't use rel="author" at all and thus avoid it completely. This is like avoiding a car accident by simply not driving a car.

  • That's no standard, that's an error at their end...

    Their tool does not take into account who the author is, because it does not take into account which platform it is reading. So filling in rel="xauthor" is good enough for that basic tool.


    Google Bot however I would imagine would be a little more thorough... maybe.

  • Google no longer cares for rel="author" because they dropped the support for it.


    By the way, IP.B is not really a step ahead, because they don't use rel="author" at all and thus avoid it completely. This is like avoiding a car accident by simply not driving a car.

    Regrettably, I see dumb people... I see dump people all the time... While you and I may not be one of then... For simplicity, many folks are going to notice that IP.Board can do it and you cannot. They are only 1 step away from compliance


    https://developers.google.com/…ress-for-my-homepage%252F


    That is going to become a selling point. I never said it will be fair.


    But even putting that aside... As you have said, Google is not the only game in town. You have Bring, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Ask, and Baidu just to name a few.

    Edited once, last by Aslan ().

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!