Hello. We are currently receiving this message in our Google Search Console. I’m not entirely sure what it signifies. Could I get more clarity on this issue? Is there a solution? Additionally, I would like to mention that we have tried using multiple themes for the platform, but the same error persists. [2023-12-04_00-01-08] [2023-12-04_00-01-24]

The first thing you should note is that the link you showed indicates that the link does not have Discussion Forum Schema. That link has “Breadcrumbs” schema only, no “Discussion Forum” schema at all. That’s happening because you’re testing the link in “smartphone” mode, and not in “desktop” mode. https://search.google.com/test/rich-results/result?id=TlLcA6saLMo3BrxbQYnFuw [image] When you switch the link to desktop testing, “Discussion Forum” schema appears, and it flags the “missing field url” issue. https://search.google.com/test/rich-results/result?id=uy3Ub3IwJiIuaMh-7YUu6g https://search.google.com/test/rich-results/result/r%2Fdiscussion-forum?id=uy3Ub3IwJiIuaMh-7YUu6g [image] To reproduce the critical errors, you have to test a long thread with the ?page=2 URL parameter, like this one: https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-air-theme/197703?page=2 https://search.google.com/test/rich-results/result?id=n8ZJes2JomqJ5vQiprNB5w https://search.google.com/test/rich-results/result/r%2Fdiscussion-forum?id=n8ZJes2JomqJ5vQiprNB5w [image]

I should point out, I think it’s an important bug in Discourse that the schema does not show up in smartphone mode. Google wouldn’t know to flag it (because Google only flags errors in schema that’s present), but smartphone crawling and indexing is the default for Google for years now, so it’s important that any schema appear in smartphone mode and in desktop mode.

The issue described in first post plus some other issues has been fixed in this commit: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/d9ca6c3bb90c15d32b3f2ece1709522be65fb690 Thanks for the suggestions here @rrit! :+1: [image] Dan Fabulich: To reproduce the critical errors, you have to test a long thread with the ?page=2 URL parameter This is happening because the first post is not included from second page onwards in crawler view. @sam should we include first post on all the pages in crawler view to fix the schema issues? :thinking:

[image] Arpit Jalan: should we include first post on all the pages in crawler view to fix the schema issues? No I don’t think so, duplicating content never ends well, are there other options

[image] Sam Saffron: are there other options The other option would be to replace microdata schema with JSON-LD (which Google recommends). This would decouple rendered data from structured data and will also work on mobile (as Dan pointed out above). We’re already using JSON-LD schema in solved plugin.

[image] Sam Saffron: [image] techAPJ: should we include first post on all the pages in crawler view to fix the schema issues? No I don’t think so, duplicating content never ends well, are there other options Do not include the data/text of the first post on subsequent pages, but always add itemprop="url" pointing to the first page: [image]Google structured data for forums and profile pages itemprop="url" Add itemprop="url" to the itemscope of DiscussionForumPosting. This ensures that comments on subpages (…?page=2) are bound to the main topic page. See Google structured data for forums and profile pages - #9 by rrit

[image] Arpit Jalan: The other option would be to replace microdata schema with JSON-LD (which Google recommends ). This would decouple rendered data from structured data and will also work on mobile (as Dan pointed out above). No rule without an exemption: For DiscussionForumPosting Google recommends the use of Microdata and not JSON-LD. See Discussion Forum (DiscussionForumPosting, SocialMediaPosting) Schema Markup | Google Search Central | Documentation | Google for Developers Technical guidelines Unlike our general structured data preference, we recommend providing the DiscussionForumPosting markup in Microdata (or RDFa) if possible. This prevents you from needing to duplicate large text blocks inside markup. However, this is just a recommendation, and JSON-LD is still fully supported.

[image] Arpit Jalan: The issue described in first post plus some other issues has been fixed in this commit: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/d9ca6c3bb90c15d32b3f2ece1709522be65fb690https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/d9ca6c3bb90c15d32b3f2ece1709522be65fb690 Thanks for the suggestions here @rrit! :+1: Is this alread live on meta.discourse.org? Please see my comment on github: This whole link-tag should only be defined for post.is_first_post - no need to repeat it with the identical url for each Comment-item. On meta.discourse.org the quotation marks are mangled right now: See Schema Markup Validator

[image] Ayke: Do not include the data/text of the first post on subsequent pages, but always add itemprop="url" pointing to the first page: Yes, we’re doing that now per the recent commit but even after adding that we’re missing some required fields (author, datePublished, text) for subsequent pages (?page=2). [image] Ayke: This whole link-tag should only be defined for post.is_first_post - no need to repeat it with the identical url for each Comment-item. On meta.discourse.org the quotation marks are mangled right now: See Schema Markup Validator Great catch! Fixed in this PR: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/25082 [image] Ayke: Unlike our general structured data preference, we recommend providing the DiscussionForumPosting markup in Microdata (or RDFa) if possible. This prevents you from needing to duplicate large text blocks inside markup. However, this is just a recommendation, and JSON-LD is still fully supported. Oh yeah. This was also confirmed by @rrlevering here: [image]Error in the Schema.org data for DiscussionForumPosting? Oh, and please don’t switch to JSON-LD. Honestly that’s preferred for text heavy markup like forums. Having to duplicate the textual contents is silly. It’s just easier to author which is why we’ve been pushing it. So I guess we’ll have to improve microdata schema while making sure we do not end up duplicating content on subsequent pages.

Discussion Forum Schema improvements

Product Support

sam (Sam Saffron) December 28, 2023, 11:43pm 15

Sure, this sounds like a much more correct solution.

Topic		Replies	Views
Google Structured Data -- Invalid Article Schema Product Support	39	9458	July 31, 2018
Different schema type for Topics and Posts Feature	16	4255	January 1, 2024
Google structured data for forums and profile pages Feature seo	13	2006	January 1, 2024
Missing field 'text' (in 'mainEntity.suggestedAnswer') Bug	31	1137	October 19, 2026
Removing the /2, /3, /4, etc links for each reply within a topic URL Development seo	33	4792	October 13, 2024

Discussion Forum Schema improvements

Related topics