Shared publicly  - 
 
Google Doesn't Support Schema Mark-Up for Breadcrumbs

Maybe everyone already knew this or maybe you were a bit confused (like I was). But I've confirmed that Google doesn't support schema mark-up for breadcrumb snippets. 

You'll want to use data-vocabulary mark-up instead as detailed in the help section: http://bit.ly/14ChFzt

#seo   #structureddata  
21
6
Ahmed Khalifa's profile photoMartin Oxby's profile photoDaniel Moran's profile photoAaron Bradley's profile photo
15 comments
 
But who's to say that things will not change in the future, where Google may decide to support Schema for breadcrumbs.
AJ Kohn
 
Well yes +Ahmed Khalifa but if you're using Schema for breadcrumbs now you aren't getting any benefit. 
 
Understood +AJ Kohn. I was thinking more along the line of people who implement data-vocabulary but then decide to change it to Schema (if it happens) to go alongside their other Schema markups (if they have any).
 
I've always found RDFa works and it defines the breadcrumbs better than schema.org currently can. It's the only mark-up I have not fully converted to schema.

I think it's worth noting that you can use multiple markups on the same content. It is not a case of use one or the other. Use all that make sense. 
 
+Ahmed Khalifa You're  fine.  I meant it was confusing that Google is not supporting Schema for breadcrumbs but has a Webmaster Tools help page about it.
 
I'll see what's going on.  Just to be clear -- you're saying that the documented schema.org markup is not working?
 
So how do those sites showing breadcrumbs in the  SERPs get that - chance?
AJ Kohn
 
+Paul Lindner, sent you a private message.

+Martin Oxby, the old data-vocabulary mark-up works great and Google is also rather good at parsing native HTML for breadcrumbs and applying them.

But for those where that's not happening and you want the breadcrumb snippet (and you should) it seems wise to rely on the 'old' mark-up instead of schema.  
 
Yeah, the shcema.org people are well aware that they don't have their act together on this, just yet.

By the way, +Tony McCreath: Is there any documentation available for your claim that using multiple markups is A-OK?
 
AJ- thanks I will look into data-vocab, you're right I do want the extra info in our snippet, need to compete as much as possible for 'real estate' as I operate in a crowded marketplace, even locally.
 
+Enon Avital no documentation at hand but I regularly combine markups without a problem.

The whole concept of xml which html is a very close relative to, is that you can combine different markups into the same data. Often namespaces are used (like with RDFa) to stop them clashing. A parser looking for one type of markup should ignore all the other stuff. 
 
I'm late to this party (just saw a link to this post from someone on SEL), but in short +AJ Kohn is right.  Here's the skinny:

- Breadcrumbs in schema.org have long been problematic, and the issues have long been enumerated:
http://bit.ly/17FqXP7

- The most reliable method of generating breadcrumbs in the SERPs is to markup the data-vocabulary.org type using microdata (RDFa is probably fine too, but I've had 100% success with that combined vocabulary and syntax):
http://bit.ly/1bS5mQV

- Following a post to public-vocabs from +Jarno van Driel (thanks Jarno!) it looks as though the schema.org people are going to finally work this out:
http://bit.ly/13VgZnE (click "Next in Thread" to see progression of discussion)

- More here:
http://bit.ly/11X7eq0
Add a comment...