Shared publicly  - 
Various people have asked: "how do I get that cool article rendering for my content?" and now we've published the documentation:


Samuele Toffanelli's profile photoSoso Lee's profile photoCendrine Marrouat's profile photoLawyer Mohan Mudaliyar K N (Mohanji)'s profile photo
And you even managed to get a nice preview snippet for this article ;)
Btw, I know it's mentioned in the main snippet description, but it might be worth adding the info about cached snippet data to this page as well. I remember a lot of people getting frustrated when they attempted several changes but the snippet stayed the same.
a wordpress plugin will do nicely, thank you in advance
"name" please!

"headline" is, as I've asserted elsewhere, redundant given the existence of "name" and really should be deprecated (and Jarno, it's not spelled "headLine" either--heh!)
I forget the schema they use, but i want this to work for sharing from popular photo sites as well.
+Jarno van Driel Early on, the write up says "Google uses the Name and Description in the Google+ post." So I think "name" has to be the intended property.
can u pls help me ???? how do i create a badge on google plus
How about a strikethrough or something on the improper example? I bet people skim and miss that it's an anti-pattern...
Ah, that's why mine didn't work, it has to be Article or Blog...
...yet other types that actually would make sense (ImageObject, Photograph, ImageGallery) can only get the small thumbnail.  Seems strangely incomplete.
+Ade Oshineye there's a few murmurings that this documentation might be out of date and images with the correct aspect but less than 506px wide would work. Can you confirm? Cheers.
Thanks for sharing that, +Ade Oshineye.  But just one clarification, please... Open Graph tags are of course usually placed in the head section of a page with meta tags.  Schemas are typically used to mark up the actual content that users see.  I noticed that the schema examples on the above page are using meta tags.  So is it ok to use meta tags with, Blog, or BlogPosting markups?  I ask because generally speaking, Google's guidelines prohibit the use of meta tags to "hide" markups, so I just wanted to double-check.  Thanks.
Hey thanks everybody for the feedback! The power of crowd sourcing is obviously much greater than my proof reading. Were working on a revision to the article and will have it up soon. Thanks!
There are a few errors in the new documentation which we're fixing.

I can't see why we're not picking up your description.

Compare: to 

I suspect there's something wrong with the nesting of the entities in that page. The other possibility is that it's caused by the existence of multiple different kinds of structured markup in one page. You have meta tags, OGP and may be confusing the system. Try testing with just markup.
+Ade Oshineye 
Well, that's when things get a bit weirder.
Schema only - reverts to small image preview.
OG only -  reverts to small image preview.

OG only but preceded by 
<meta itemscope itemtype=\"\" /> 
Large preview but still no description.

I've used the Structured Data Testing Tool and it does pick up  the description but it still wont work in a post.
FYI: I finally got the comments working by moving Google Analytics further down and removing some spurious tags.
tap tap tap -- the doc page hasn't changed since May 8th and is still disseminating non-optimal (that is to say... technically incorrect... information).

See also for some more general feedback about the doc page and its lack of adherence to general best practices for the Web (such as a descriptive <title> tag), as well as to its own guidelines.

Sorry to be a pest, but this is pretty important stuff to get right!
+Gabriel Doliner So, it's a bit weird that the example uses all <meta> tags; normally we would mark those up inline as <div>, <span>, <p>, etc and only fall back to meta when you don't have a good element to add the attribute to.

And the OGP example mixes microdata (itemprop) and RDFa (property) attributes, which probably isn't intended.
Dan, thanks for the feedback.

We were aware that using the meta tags for the schema example is a bit weird, but given that we wanted to keep the example as simple as possible, and the fact that the markup is out of context, we thought it was a fair trade off.

I'll flag the issue with the OGP markup and we'll get that fixed.
Add a comment...