Shared publicly  - 
Return of the Google+ snippet

TL;DR > You need og:article or markup

A user on my blog notified provided an update to my update on Google+ snippets ( and what was required to generate them.

He noticed that you could remove a picture and still have the full snippet (title and description) appear.

After a bit of digging it turns out a picture wasn't necessary at all.  Hell, content on your web page isn't even necessary!

But you do now need structured data markup in the form of the Open Graph or declarations - and only if the article item type is declared.

Buyer beware - these results may change.  But as of this particular Friday afternoon, here they are:
og:type (article), og:title, og:description
Snippet generated:  yes.
og:type (website), og:title, og:description
Snippet generated:  no. declared on body tag, name and description properties declared on h1, p tags in content
Snippet generated:  yes. declared on html tag, name and description properties declared in meta tags in head
Snippet generated:  no. declared on body tag, name and description properties declared on h1, p tags in content
Snippet generated:  no.
Standard title and meta description tags, no content in body
Snippet generated:  no.
Standard title and meta description tags, content in body
Snippet generated:  no.

#googleplus   #snippets   #opengraph   #schemaorg  
Steve Eynon's profile photoStefan Weiss's profile photoMichael Schilling's profile photoEvgeniy Orlov's profile photo
+Denver Prophit Jr. I know little to nothing about WordPress frameworks or templates, and I don't even know what CPT stands for.  I can only reiterate what they should produce for indepth article-friendly  an Article.
I'm pulling my hairs out at this point, as I can't seem to get Google Plus to read og:image :( could you please, please give a look?

here are the meta tags:
<meta property="og:url" content="">
<meta property="og:title" content="Afinal quem são ELES?">
<meta property="og:image" content=";w=300&amp;h=300&amp;zc=1&amp;src=/Imgs/articles/article_64/afinalquemsaoeles.jpg">
<meta property="og:description" content="Afinal quem s&atilde;o ELES?
ELES s&oacute; querem saber dos n&uacute;meros!
ELES nunca est&atilde;o presentes quando &eacute; preciso.
ELES n&atilde;o se preocupam com o problema.
ELES nunca est&atilde;o dispon&iacute;veis para fazer um pequeno esfor&ccedil;o.
ELES n&atilde;o ouvem ningu&eacute;m&hellip;">

Thanks a bunch...
+Ana Abreu Your og:image URL is invalid.  Clicking on that URL should result in an image being displayed - instead I get the message "No src image?!".
Thank you so much Aaron, for taking the time to sneak at this!

It is still weird that Facebook and Linkedin manage to read the image...

The url problem seems to be caused by the "&amp;" in it... I've forwarded the information to the developer, and hopefully he'll be able to change that (and still keep it readable on Facebook and Linkedin though)

Thanks again!!
No problems +Ana Abreu.  BTW, you may think that Facebook is reading this image URL correctly, but if you're basing this on Facebook snippet display Facebook may be actually simply be snagging the image from the page content.  To tell if it's parsing the og:image value correctly run the page containing this through the debugger (
Thanks again +Aaron Bradley , yeah the Debugger has been my best friend through the weekend. Facebook is indeed reading the image (even with the mal sctructured url), as it was only able to pick up the correct image after we inserted the meta property og: tags in the head. Prior to that Facebook wasn't able to pick up any image at all most of the times, and when it was, it was doing it so with the wrong one... hopefully I'll hear back from the developer today, and he'll be able to fix the url in a way that Facebook, Linkedin AND Google Plus manage to read it correctly... (but I tell you, these issues can sure give me extra grey hairs...)
+Ana Abreu  At first blush I can't understand Google's issue with this.  Do you have another URL with a similar image URL construction I can look at?
Add a comment...