Google Drops Amazon's Rich Snippets From Search Results

May 7, 2014 • 8:44 am | comments (32) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization
 

Google Rich Snippets SpamGabs at Cre8asite Forums noticed that just recently, Amazon has lost their rich snippets in the Google search results.

About a year ago, Amazon had rich snippets even without them adding the rich snippet markups for product reviews. Here was the screen shot back then:

Amazon vs Walmart Rich Snippet

Now, if you look, Walmart has the rich snippets but Amazon does not:

Amazon vs Walmart Rich Snippet

Now, yes, Amazon does not have any rich snippet markup on that page, as you can see over here. But they didn't have the markup last year either, Google gave it to them anyway.

Walmart does have the markup, as you can see over here but last year did not get the rich snippets in the search results and now does.

Gabs thinks there was a major change in the rich snippets this past week. He said a lot of his clients lost the rich snippets in Google.

Google did have a major rich snippet reduction in December 2013.

The Moz feature history tool doesn't show a major change in authorship or reviews in the Google results (note the top line is authorship and the bottom line are reviews):

Moz feature history

Did you notice major changes in reviews rich snippets recently?

Forum discussion at Cre8asite Forums.

Previous story: Matt Cutts: Google May Treat The Same Subdirectories As Unique
 

Comments:

Yo Mamma

05/07/2014 12:52 pm

Want backlinks? Buy Google Adwords. They are the only links Google allows. Unfortunately Adwords has no intelligence built into it. And this appears to be by design. Design to maximize clicks and not positive results. Say for instance you are looking for a "pink cadillac dealer". What you get are Cadillac dealers, so thats what you click on >> Google charges ye olde loyal advertiser (clueless non-SEO auto dealer) for the click and the clicker bounces, WHY? Because the dealer doesn't offer any pink cadillac's. And therein lies the problem: Google has forced into its search unintelligent results, a complete waste of everyone's time for the sole purpose of fraudulently draining money from their ADWORD account holders. Should Google choose to improve ANYTHING it can consider this: A "pink cadillac dealer" search shouldn't render any results in the ADWORDS PAID SECTION when no such dealer exists. Showing results as "pink cadillac dealer" as you do now is nothing short of theft, fraud and you should be behind bars or at least in front on a civil court for fraud.

Yo Mamma

05/07/2014 01:00 pm

http://www.ispionage.com shows that Amazon hasn't been that loyal in their ADWORDS account. Google loves those that aren't natural search results FREELOADERS

Jake

05/07/2014 02:18 pm

> Want backlinks? Buy Google Adwords. They are the only links Google allows. You're an idiot. Speaking of theft and fraud, if you've ever charged a client money then you should give it back. There's no way you can help them in a meaningful way when you're this irrational and uneducated. Now can you go post your blubbering crybaby bullshit on a relevant article? This is about rich snippets in organic results, which have nothing to do with AdWords. Or is this whole site now just one great big anti-Google circlejerk? Maybe I missed the memo.

Steve H.

05/07/2014 02:37 pm

eh eh eh eh ....Money first, then people? And after all of that previous discussion about morality, it seems Google and other technology giants were working far more closely with the NSA government if a set of uncovered internal emails posted yesterday by Al Jazeera are real :) Believe in me, yeah Believe in me, yeah Believe in The way I look at you And stand beside you The way I speak the truth I’d never lie to you If you’d just believe in the things your eyes can see Believe in me

Art L

05/07/2014 02:42 pm

Did you know that Adwords users can control what searches bring up their ads with exact matches, partial, and even keep certain words from triggering ads? It isn't Google's fault if you didn't read the instructions. Maybe that non-pink Cadillac dealer wants those searchers to come to his site. If you are disappointed that you didn't find a pink Cadillac there, take it up with the dealer who ran the ad!

Jamo

05/07/2014 03:19 pm

You've been sleeping under a rock if you haven't noticed that SE Roundtable is just another PR mouthpiece for GOOG. Do you think it's some sort of coincidence that Barry is able to confirm or deny "updates"? This site is just a small piece of the overall PR machine that Google uses to spread its FUD campaign.

Barry Schwartz

05/07/2014 03:20 pm

That is not true. But whatever.

Durant Imboden

05/07/2014 03:25 pm

Aha! That must be why Barry keeps publishing stories that ask the peanut gallery to chime in on whether Google is unethical. :-)

CaptainKevin

05/07/2014 03:25 pm

Interesting. The only rich snippets I see for a few searches I just performed were for paid ads (Amazon was the top paid ad and had rich snippets too). Could this be a move by Google to entice more users to click paid instead of organic results? The rich snippets in organic does not appear to be Amazon specific to me.

huttondh

05/07/2014 03:36 pm

Ours has been missing for the better part of a year. Something that has been phasing out for some time now for sites not at the caliber of amazon and other top 100's. Reality of something they give you that they may or may not index.

wertwert

05/07/2014 04:12 pm

Amazon should have added markup by now... Its their own fault and they are lucky Google let it ride as long as they did. I know I'm normally anti-Google... but content tuning is Amazon's fail. If they had the markup and Google took away the rich snippets then this would be a story, but as it stands the headline should be "Amazon: Lazy about content tuning and pays price"

Doc Sheldon

05/07/2014 05:24 pm

Barry, surely you realize by now that there are folks that'll call you out for being either overly-critical or a fanboy, because of only 1% of what you say. ;) God forbid we should be objective in our observations!

F1 Steve

05/07/2014 05:33 pm

Don't agree, I WISH Barry was the head of the web spam team!!

Thomas

05/07/2014 06:08 pm

you save me hours, pretty much on a daily basis. do your thing man.

Yo Mamma

05/07/2014 06:29 pm

Don't mind if I call the kettle black - If you're the comment police, consider policing yourself blubbering crybaby bullshit, and post your nonsensical rant on a relevant article dealing with rants on those you consider rant worthy. The article is about GOOGLE You know GOOGLE? Not a free-for-all rant and character assassination Talk about uneducated and unreasonable, not to mention plain and simply stupid - Jeez And Barry does a wonderful job brown-nosing Google. Hey someone has to do it. PS, seen any Atari, Netscape, Altavista grey haired brown nosers recently? Not likely, they're hiding under a rock. Best look for your rock now. Rumor has it we're in for a shortage of hiding space soon....

Yo Mamma

05/07/2014 06:36 pm

Unethical schmethical. You cannot go to prison for being unethical or even unprofessional. I would love to see more articles about things that matter, like fraud and identity theft and doing unconstitutional stuff like snooping into email accounts. Now that is news worthy

Yo Mamma

05/07/2014 06:40 pm

Gosh, you really believe what you wrote or maybe you wrote what you think in which case what you thinking should be re-examined by those more qualified than I. I betcha no Cadillac dealer used the keyword PINK CADILLAC. Seriously, really

Art L

05/07/2014 07:02 pm

We have no way of knowing unless you want to poll all Cadillac dealers. But we do know that at least some of them did not filter "pink" using the negative keywords feature or else you would not be so upset by not finding the pink car of your dreams. You should sell Mary Kay. I think they still give top sellers a pink Caddy. The point is that it isn't really Google's fault if an advertiser has not limited what triggers their ads, or if an advertiser targets and bids for phrases which may only partially match the landing page. Nothing wrong with my thinking, other than I thought I could help you understand how Adwords works. I was wrong about that. What does your confusion about how Adwords works have to do with rich snippets anyway? You seem very angry at Google for something. Did your pink cadillac site get penalty?

Jan Dunlop

05/07/2014 07:20 pm

Really?

Jamo

05/07/2014 07:28 pm

Sure it may not be true. However, Google is using you and your platform to spread their agenda. You've seen how few people actually get helped in Google Support forums, but yet you get them to comment on whether or not Chicken Little Webmaster's ranking fluctuations are an Animal update or just natural. I appreciate the work you do but I think the marketing world would be much better off without rampant "oooh what's that shiny object, no wait, there's a squirrel!" As a community we should do less ogling over Matt Cutts and Google.

wertwert

05/07/2014 10:42 pm

Dude... calm down... It's just a white hat IM blog. It's not even a technical marketing blog... Its just headline recaps with Disqus comments... plus if you say something untrue about someone you should apologize even if you still think you are right.

brandonzeman

05/07/2014 11:32 pm

Was difficult to find, but I did find an Amazon result with rich snippets. Search 'peter pan book'. This page does not have any markup.

Soni Sharma

05/08/2014 05:30 am

Yes there are fluctuations in rich snippets sometimes it shows for Amazon results and sometimes not.

SEOWeasel

05/08/2014 11:15 am

Aren't those Amazon pages different URLs?

ethalon

05/08/2014 11:45 am

It's almost like that car dealership should have marked the word 'pink' as a negative keyword until they offer a pink Cadillac... ...crazy how phrase matching works and how you don't seem to understand the platform you are railing against.

Hesham Zebida

05/08/2014 12:46 pm

Amazon isn't a merchant like Walmart, is that why Google dropped Amazon's rich snippets?!

Michael DeHaven

05/08/2014 03:42 pm

Google has become increasingly rigid over the past 18 months regarding Rich Snippet stars; it's good to see that Amazon is no longer getting preferential treatment. The first major change we (@Bazaarvoice) noticed was about November of 2012. At that point, our clients using proper schema.org markup started to more commonly get rich snippet stars; those using microformats and RDFa consistently received stars less frequently. Then, in mid 2013, we noticed a change where aggregate review information alone was not sufficient -- parent class (schema.org/Product, etc.) markup is a must. Also note that Google is watching very closely for proper schema nesting. If the parent class closes prematurely, or if there are multiple copies of the parent class, no Rich Snippet stars for you!

Jamo

05/08/2014 03:45 pm

Yea, you're right. In the grand scheme of things Google's little SERoundtable PR campaign is barely a blip on the radar. It's a scare campaign. Kinda like when you have to take your shoes off when going through airport security, but coming back to the US from Mexico, you can keep your shoes on. Carry on sheep.

kimkrauseberg

05/08/2014 04:13 pm

We know who Barry is. He is not an anonymous ranter. The thread Barry reported on is from Cre8asiteforums, whose membership can be very anti-Google.

ttt

05/09/2014 12:20 pm

because of pure spam? Most of products from many small sites? Or they stop to pay commission to google?

Gracious Store

05/16/2014 11:22 pm

What reason has Google for favoring Walmat's rich snippet codes over those of Amazon? And what is the reason Google has for the general reduction of rich snippet code when it has previously asked webmaster to add those codes to their sites?

Snippet Shark

06/25/2014 02:16 am

I don't think it's totally accurate to say Google is dropping rich snippets from ALL of Amazon's search results as the title implies, but rather (and indeed) on many of them. There are still plenty of pages that show up as rich snippets, and Amazon appears to be using both the RDFa and microdata syntax on many product pages, so they are indeed marking up their data according to protocol (albeit inconsistently). However, since Amazon uses the data highlighter quite a bit (which wouldn't validate using the Google or Bing rich snippet testing tool) it's quite possible that there's something wonky going on with Google's machine learning ontology because of the incsonistencies in syntax. Perhaps they should just pick one and stick with that;) And thanks for proliferating the semantic web, Barry!

blog comments powered by Disqus