First of all, I am new here, so I hope I am doing well posting here for a bug.
I tried to find an existing topic before to post a new one but I did not find anything, so I am sorry in advance if such topic already exists. Do not hesitate to link it or do whatever is necessary. Thank you.
So here is the issue I would like to report. As mentionned in the title, microdata on discourse do not fulfil with Google toolâs expectations.
On topic lists, Google tools reports more than 60 errors :
My company is using discourse as forum for 3 of our websites. We greatly consider the SEO aspect and would be thankful for you to correct all possible errors in microdata.
I posted my question about two weeks ago. I assume fixing microdata will take a certain amount of time but since I got no answer yet I allow myself to ask you if the fix is on track and when it could be released ?
Thank you in advance for your work and your reply.
Are all 61 errors saying the same thing? <div itemprop='itemListElement' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/ListItem'> needs to have a âpositionâ attribute?
ItemList -> itemListElement -> url and/or ItemList -> itemListElement -> item -> url (30 times): All values provided for url must point to the same page.
ItemList -> itemListElement -> position (30 times): A value for the position field is required.
global to ItemList (1 time): ListItem with url and ListItem with item are incompatible.
As I mentioned it in my first post, you can follow the links I gave to see all details.
Particularly this page has a warning with âDiscussionForumPostingâ which is asking us to provide an image if possible. I think we could just add `itemprop=âimageâ when we cook the post to images. I will investigate this.
You fixed the issues regarding the âpositionâ attribute.
But it still remains to resolve the uncompatibility between ListItem with âurlâ and ListItem with âitemâ Also, url attribute of each ListItem should point to the same page.
More than any error in google validation tool, Iâm interested by errors you would see in the google search console.
Search console -> Search appearance -> Structured data If you have ERRORS in this section which you think are caused by Discourse, Iâm very interested to fix these.
As you asked for, I checked the Search console -> Search appearance -> Structured data panel for both our websites using Discourse as forum (i.e. https://www.gamekult.com as GK and https://www.focus-numerique.com as FN). We have absolutly no errors caused by Discourse on GK and no errors at all on FN.
However, I do not see how it could be different since Discourse is not embeded in the source code of our website. As you should know (I guess), our Discourse instances are completely separated applications that are hosted separately (servers/network of your own). We just provide access to them from links in our websites.
We recommend creating a separate Search Console property for each domain or folder that you want to track separately, as well as the lowest level domain that you own. For example, if you have a travel site with specific subfolders covering Ireland, France, and Spain, you could add the following sites to your Search Console account:
The fact that itâs not in your âmainâ application code doesnât change anything here, google doesnât inspect your source code. He tries to get an URL an sees what he gets thatâs all.
And yes Iâm focusing on this link too, but I get very confusing results in my tests and would like to cross check this with " REAL" data.
Here the second occurence of this unique error message on the right panel and the responsible source code line highlighted in grey on left panel. You can see that it is not the same line than for the first occurence (maybe it is relevant ?)
Here you can see only one error instead of 2 on GKâs forum. But it seems to be the exact same one than one of GK
Remark :
both urls in the <meta> tag and the <a> tag are absolute on Discourse whereas the <meta> tagâs url is relative on GK. I do not know why or if it is relevant but I think it could explain why urls are considered different.
First of all, I thought this issue would be an easy one for you. But after reading your last answer (which was lightning for me), I understand better how strange is this issue from your side.
So I hope this long answer will be helpful, even if I may not have been precise enough regarding what answer you expected. I tried to answer your question and to provide you in the same time as much information as possible . If I missed something, do not hesitate to ask.