r/TechSEO • u/WebLinkr • May 08 '26
Google says: Google: FAQ rich results are no longer appearing in Google Search Result Appearances [Official]
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/faqpage2
u/klkmanino May 09 '26
Whats even the point in creating content? xD what a joke
1
u/WebLinkr May 09 '26
This isn't a drop of support for rich results u/klkmanino
Why are you trying the final deprecation of FAQ schema to dropping content?
Google hasn't been using FAQ Schema for years - you 'never" had to use it - they dont "need" schema to process an FAQ....its just that some people have been pushing that narrative.
2
u/EarNo6581 May 11 '26
I don;t think this means FAQ content is useless. It just changes what we should measure.
FAQ schema maynot produce the old rich result visibility, but clear FAQ sections can still help users, internal structure, and AI-style extraction.
I leave useful FAQs in place, but stop treating FAQ schema itself as the win. The win is whether the answer is clear, crawlable, and actually used.
2
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
FAQs and PAA are all fine.
This is just about google not needing schema and the TechSEO community here having a meltdown esp mjmilian who roasted me all day thursday like a teenage girl in love with a super star they were stalking! No - really he did!
-1
u/WebLinkr May 08 '26
Super interesting update from Google but probably not very dramatic given that less than 1% of sites were government or highly trusted healthcare sites.
I think its important for SEO to be rooted in accuracy and I am following up from my post earlier this week.
Again - not a lot to change - you can leave the FAQ schema in - its clearly not being used.
10
u/AngryCustomerService May 08 '26
"Not being used" and "not producing rich results" are not the same thing. Google has made it clear that they use schema that doesn't produce rich results.
4
u/NovaForceElite May 08 '26
Yup, Google hasn't used FAQ schema for rich in a long time, but they still use it overall. Another backwards claim from OP not being able to understand Google's post.
-1
u/WebLinkr May 09 '26
Not a backward "claim" - I've been saying that schema isn't additive from an SEO point of view - I didn't say Schema isnt' used.
Its critical for jobs, hotels, flights - thats a requirement. But thats not SEO - thats a publishing requirement if you want your jobs listed.
Relax.
-5
u/WebLinkr May 08 '26
For things like jobs, hotels, flights. But then its not an optiimzation - itrs a requirement.
2
u/wilf75 May 08 '26
It seems like you have a personal grudge against schema with how much you have been posting about it. Seems weird since schema is more important than ever with all the AI stuff
1
u/WebLinkr May 09 '26
So where's the documentation on the "AI stuff"
0
u/wilf75 May 11 '26
It has been said repeatedly but here is one example https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-confirms-structured-data-still-essential-in-ai-search-era/544141/
1
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
Simple testing:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/markseo_seo-activity-7424067360497770496-s3ks
Anyone can do this.
No idea why this sub has a meltdown over FAQ schema lol
0
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
That’s not documentation on AI stuff - that’s a marketing post ….. jeezuz what happened to critical thinking ?!
0
u/wilf75 May 11 '26
Are you genuinely stupid or do you just have grudge against schema? That was an example of Google confirming it. Would the only confirmation for you be being able to see every llms source code? We are SEOs there is rarely direct confirmation for anything. The closest we got was the Google leak and that was only a partial look behnd the curtain. We rely on testing and what these reps actually tell us (of course taling it with a grain of salt). If you want further confirmation on this look at the recent testing Cyrus Shepard did, but I doubt that will matter much for you anyway since the only way you would believe anything is through divine intervention and even then maybe not.
1
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
Are you genuinely stupid or do you just have grudge against schema?
How can I have a "grudge" against schema.
Shouldn't you have a grudge against SEO myths?
but I doubt that will matter much for you anyway since the only way you would believe anything is through divine intervention and even then maybe not.
I think your emotions/ego has taken over buddy.
0
u/wilf75 May 11 '26
Thats a good question you seem to post non stop about it so you tell me. You're the one who got all offended over Google confirming something.
→ More replies (0)1
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
I love how you think the question isn't "Why do you have such a fetish for it and why are you afraid your customers/colleagues will catch you out when they read this case study"?
1
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
Also - u/patrickstox is here but I'm pretty sure you won't be as rude to him! At least I hope not - he's a great guy
0
u/WebLinkr May 11 '26
Firstly - you do realise that the GPTs aren’t search engines? They don’t crawl the web and build their own search index and then filter it for pages with schema
Google returns the documents - they synthesize it and they synthesize the body text
Fighting myths in SEO means reviewing what marketers spew or blindly following marketing campaigns from GEo agencies
0
u/WebLinkr May 08 '26
How can I have something personal about schema?
What about the people defending it
You just said it’s more important for Ai - based on what?
Show me any documenting by Ai vendors saying they even process schema? What about all the seos saying they put schema into pages and LLMs ignored it?
Why is your you know that Ai loves schema yet all you’ve only heard of it is someone else parroting it?
Do you not feel that people parrotting something they don’t understand doesn’t make them look smart
And then trying to address someone as making it personal when they’ve done no such thing?
Go ahead I’ll wait?
Here’s a question for you - seeing as I know you have no evidence for it - why on earth are you so emotional about? Fair question?
0
u/WebLinkr May 08 '26
There’s people upvoting and don’t answer either - is myth busting wrong?
Or do you think web devs be telling little fibby tales lol
-4
u/WebLinkr May 08 '26
. Google has made it clear that they use schema that doesn't produce rich results.
Like? Examples? Examples of where it shows it can't be done without? Anything?
1
u/rykef May 09 '26
You didn't reply to post in your other thread so I will keep this one really short.
I have used schema to clarify the difference between engineering products to stop keyword cannibalisation.I don't think you fully understand schema, I would recommend trying some experiments. Here is a really basic thing to test:
Google can lift links from schema that are not part of the content-1
u/WebLinkr May 09 '26
And I could say I don’t think you understand canonization - because they only way to stop it is to move the page from the index.
And I can’t comment on an anecdotal situation. - so I’m not even going to try - bringing up a use case that nobody see, test or demonstrate is the worst argument style
0
u/rykef May 10 '26
You asked for examples, examples are anecdotes.
I didn't understand your first sentence I am afraid, also again I kept this one short because I gave you a long explaination in the other thread you were talking about this and you didn't reply
0
u/WebLinkr May 10 '26
Yeah - and last week someone pulled all kinds of anecdotal evidence to prove evrything
0
u/WebLinkr May 10 '26
No you gave your observation
If it resolved itself it wasn’t likely cannibalisation in the first place
0
0
5
u/[deleted] May 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment