View Poll Results: Should SEOs stop using FAQ Schema to prevent Google from stealing answers?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - Visitors will have to visit my page.

    0 0%
  • No - Schema FAQs drive traffic to my site.

    2 20.00%
  • Indifferent - I only use FAQs because my competitors do it/industry best practice

    2 20.00%
  • Doesn't Matter - Google will aggregate content another way.

    6 60.00%
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    bpmee is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2004
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    101
    Thanked 110 Times in 72 Posts

    Question FAQ Schema Gives Google Free Q&A Content That Steals Your Traffic

    Adding FAQ Schema to important web pages has been en vogue recently. FAQs are useful for customers and demonstrate expertise if answered correctly.

    Occasionally, a page's FAQs will appear under its Google organic result, almost like a clickable drop-down menu. This is another way to catch a user's eyes and get them to visit your site.

    However, there is a big downside

    Google aggregates questions and answers from multiple sites, particularly for more generic keyword searches.

    These will often appear under the first and second result. People will click through them, usually finding the info they need without ever leaving Google! All your hard work writing comprehensive, high-quality content has been lost to "GoogleWeb".

    The visits you rightly earned never arrived.

    Question: Should SEOs stop using the FAQ schema to encourage people to actually visit the pages they optimized?

  2. #2
    mickyfu is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2013
    Posts
    730
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 505 Times in 307 Posts

    Default

    In my experience adding FAQ has very quickly boosted rankings (sometimes). You can also write them and encourage visitors rather than telling them exactly what they need to know.

    However they don't seem to boost rankings as much as they did when they first came out.

  3. #3
    chaumi is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    1,526
    Thanks
    516
    Thanked 789 Times in 577 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mickyfu View Post
    In my experience adding FAQ has very quickly boosted rankings (sometimes).
    I'd suggest that (in most cases) if you add FAQs to a page and it changes SERPs position (upwards), then we ( as in the generic we) wouldn't really know......

    Was it just a freshness boost
    Was it just the fact you were adding FAQs that appear in PAA (and hence increasing page relevance factors)
    Were you in fact increasing or decreasing term densities and/or overall page relevance by adding them
    If you were schema-ing them, was it really the schema that played a major part
    Was it just the plain fact you had FAQs on the page
    Or even was it something else that happened 3 or 6 months ago, and only just filtered through (ie perhaps not even majorly related with the FAQs anyway)

    Or was it a combination of some elements of all of them to varying degrees (alongside any others I can't think of with a sleepy brain!)


    But all potentially irrelevant because (I think) Bpmee is coming at it from a specific angle...although it's kind of clear and murky to me at the same time exactly what that angle is....

    So, my interpretation (and it could be misinterpreted/flawed)..

    1. Google is effectively using intellectual property for their own gain (in other words, to keep searchers on Google for as long as possible)

    This has been widely recognized in recent times. Seems pretty obvious. And, I would suggest, a pretty clever business move. The ethics of it I'm not sure about. I'd offer a view that anyone that publishes web material (in the main) understands that material is going to (hopefully, for most people) get picked up and ranked in some way or at least shown to visitors on occasions. Google is providing the tool that makes all that work ...so, surely they can use that in any way they see fit???

    Bear in mind, that it's possible we've not seen the full fallout/future yet and a few FAQs might be the tip of the iceberg.


    2. Should SEOs stop using the FAQ schema to encourage people to actually visit the pages they optimized?Actually, this is probably the basis of a good point. But it's one of those where the 'haves' won't want to do it (because they already 'have' and want more)...while the 'have nots' can only watch, want to become a 'haver' ...and either have to watch while it gets further from their grasp or join the throng and try to do it too.

    The debate is whether a couple of FAQS showing under a SERPs result takes away traffic or increases it to those pages 'lucky' enough to get the two FAQs to pop. I don't know the answer to that, never seen any useful data that might indicate one or the other.

  4. #4
    mickyfu is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2013
    Posts
    730
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 505 Times in 307 Posts

    Default

    Short answer, you used to be able to add FAQ, force Google to crawl your page, within a very short period your FAQs would be visible and you page moved up. Repeat this numerous times and you can pretty much come to the conclusion that the FAQs moved the page up. But like I said, this is when they first came out.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to mickyfu For This Useful Post:

    chaumi (18 June 2022)

  6. #5
    bpmee is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2004
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    101
    Thanked 110 Times in 72 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaumi View Post
    1. Google is effectively using intellectual property for their own gain (in other words, to keep searchers on Google for as long as possible)

    This has been widely recognized in recent times. Seems pretty obvious. And, I would suggest, a pretty clever business move. The ethics of it I'm not sure about. I'd offer a view that anyone that publishes web material (in the main) understands that material is going to (hopefully, for most people) get picked up and ranked in some way or at least shown to visitors on occasions. Google is providing the tool that makes all that work ...so, surely they can use that in any way they see fit???

    Bear in mind, that it's possible we've not seen the full fallout/future yet and a few FAQs might be the tip of the iceberg.
    Right, I'm actually less concerned about IP theft and more the loss of visitors. Yes, aggregating content for one's own purposes is theft unless it's compensated in some way.

    For example, the USA has the AP news service. Many 3rd parties aggregate and post AP news stories. While the AP doesn't get "traffic" from these stories, they are compensated for their journalists' efforts. The fact that their work appears elsewhere isn't detrimental.

    On the other hand, Google is using our FAQs to keep users on Google.com. Potential customers never visit your site because their question about "Does Bet365 accept Skrill?", or "What is best bonus for Canadian online casinos?" is answered for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by chaumi View Post
    2. Should SEOs stop using the FAQ schema to encourage people to actually visit the pages they optimized?Actually, this is probably the basis of a good point. But it's one of those where the 'haves' won't want to do it (because they already 'have' and want more)...while the 'have nots' can only watch, want to become a 'haver' ...and either have to watch while it gets further from their grasp or join the throng and try to do it too.

    The debate is whether a couple of FAQS showing under a SERPs result takes away traffic or increases it to those pages 'lucky' enough to get the two FAQs to pop. I don't know the answer to that, never seen any useful data that might indicate one or the other.
    Good point. Those that don't have traffic will use them as a means to get higher rankings. Meanwhile, those with existing rankings could be more stingy. The NET effect across an entire industry wouldn't be large enough to catch Google's eye. In other words, only a few people would be picketing at the labor strike, while others would be waltzing into work.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to bpmee For This Useful Post:

    universal4 (18 June 2022)

  8. #6
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,506
    Thanks
    1,058
    Thanked 6,036 Times in 1,927 Posts

    Default

    I've moved this poll from the SEO forum to the polls forum. That way it will be visible as a poll. But I've also left a permanent redirect in the SEO forum to the post i the SEO forum, so that way it will be visible from both locations.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot
    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    Anthony (22 June 2022), universal4 (22 June 2022)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •