Metadata & Trust Schema

TL;DR — “Metadata & Trust schema” is my shorthand for the schema.org types you add to a page not to sell something, but to build trust and help people (and Google) get their bearings. There are four: Review and AggregateRating (the star ratings), BreadcrumbList (the little “Home › Category › This page” trail), and WebSite (a note that says “this is the site itself”). Add the right one and your page becomes eligible for a nicer-looking search listing — stars, a breadcrumb trail. It doesn’t make you rank higher. That’s the biggest misunderstanding.

What “metadata & trust schema” means

“Metadata and trust schema” is an editorial grouping, not a Schema.org or Google feature name. Evidence for this claim Official or primary documentation supporting the adjacent article claim, with scope limited to the source's published description. Scope: No ranking guarantee or undisclosed system mechanics are inferred beyond the cited source. Confidence: high · Verified: 2026-07-14 Schema.org schemas Structured data must describe visible page content and follow the requirements for any Google search feature being targeted. Evidence for this claim Official or primary documentation supporting the adjacent article claim, with scope limited to the source's published description. Scope: No ranking guarantee or undisclosed system mechanics are inferred beyond the cited source. Confidence: high · Verified: 2026-07-14 Google: Structured data policies

When you look at a page, you can tell at a glance that it has 4.5 stars from 200 ratings, that it lives under “Guides › Technical SEO,” and which website you’re even on. A search engine sees plain text and has to guess. Schema markup is code you add to spell it out — “this is a rating,” “this is the page’s place in the site,” “this is the site’s name” — using a shared vocabulary from a site called schema.org.

“Metadata & Trust schema” isn’t an official term. It’s just my umbrella for the schema.org types that don’t describe something for sale (Product, JobPosting) or a named real-world thing (Organization, Person), but instead answer three questions about an ordinary page:

• Is this credible? — Review (one person’s rating) and AggregateRating (the average of many), the types behind the star snippets in search.
• Where am I? — BreadcrumbList, the trail that shows a page’s place in the site.
• What site am I on? — WebSite, which identifies the site as its own thing.

I group these four together because they share a job in SEO: you add them to establish trust and orientation around your content, not to win a shopping or jobs feature. But be clear — Google and schema.org don’t file them together. I’ll come back to that honesty in the Advanced tab, because it matters.

Why you’d bother

The payoff is a better-looking, more trustworthy listing in search:

• ⭐ review stars and a rating count under your result
• 🧭 a readable breadcrumb trail instead of a raw URL (on desktop)
• 🌐 the right site name shown above your result

Add the matching schema with all its required details, and your page becomes eligible for that treatment. Eligible, never guaranteed — Google still decides whether to actually show it.

The thing most people get wrong

Adding trust schema does not make you rank higher. Google has said this plainly and repeatedly. What schema does is make you eligible for a richer listing (which can earn more clicks) and help engines understand your page. That’s different from ranking better.

One more beginner trap: you can’t just mark up your own testimonials and get stars. If a business reviews itself, Google blocks the star snippet — a rule people break all the time on their “About us” page. And one type here is a bit of a ghost: the old sitelinks searchbox (part of WebSite schema) was retired in late 2024, so it no longer does anything, even though the WebSite type itself is still useful.

Want the full version — where these sit in the schema.org hierarchy, the self-serving reviews rule, the 2024–2025 display changes, and which article to read next? Switch to the Advanced tab.

Trust markup that undermines trust

• Marking up testimonials about your own business for stars. Reviews controlled by the reviewed LocalBusiness or Organization are self-serving and ineligible for Google’s review snippet.
• Aggregating ratings copied from other websites. AggregateRating should describe genuine ratings represented on the page, not a blended score scraped from third-party platforms.
• Treating structured data as a ranking boost. These types can support rich presentation or entity understanding; they do not create a ranking increase.
• Keeping a WebSite SearchAction because you expect a sitelinks searchbox. That feature was deprecated November 21, 2024. The markup is harmless but inert; WebSite itself remains useful for site identity.
• Assuming mobile breadcrumb display was the whole feature. Google removed the breadcrumb trail from the mobile result URL row in January 2025, not the BreadcrumbList type or its desktop use.
• Publishing markup that disagrees with visible content. Review authors, ratings, counts, names, and breadcrumb paths should remain truthful and visible to users, not exist only in JSON-LD.

TL;DR — “Metadata & Trust schema” is my practitioner grouping, not a Google or schema.org category, for the types that attach trust and orientation to ordinary pages rather than selling something: Review, AggregateRating, BreadcrumbList, and WebSite. Google doesn’t file them as a family, and their documentation status is uneven — Review/AggregateRating and BreadcrumbList each have a live, dedicated feature guide, while WebSite is the odd one out, with no single current guide and its most famous feature (the sitelinks searchbox) deprecated November 21, 2024. WebSite itself is not deprecated — it still helps Google understand a site’s name. The sharpest rule is the self-serving reviews policy: a business can’t earn star snippets for reviews of itself (scoped to LocalBusiness/Organization, not Product). None of the four is a ranking factor or a documented E-E-A-T signal; they buy eligibility for a SERP treatment, not trust. The risk is mostly mild — a missing property or a self-serving review just costs eligibility — but deliberately misleading or fake markup can still draw a manual action under Google’s general guidelines.

First, an honest framing: this is my grouping, not Google’s

Schema.org defines types and properties, but markup does not independently verify that claims are trustworthy. Evidence for this claim Official or primary documentation supporting the adjacent article claim, with scope limited to the source's published description. Scope: No ranking guarantee or undisclosed system mechanics are inferred beyond the cited source. Confidence: high · Verified: 2026-07-14 Schema.org schemas Google states that valid structured data does not guarantee display as a rich result or ranking benefit. Evidence for this claim Official or primary documentation supporting the adjacent article claim, with scope limited to the source's published description. Scope: No ranking guarantee or undisclosed system mechanics are inferred beyond the cited source. Confidence: high · Verified: 2026-07-14 Google: Structured data policies

I want to be transparent up front, because most content that talks about “trust” or “metadata” schema quietly implies these types are an official family. They’re not — the same disclaimer I make for commerce schema applies here.

• Google’s own docs don’t group them. In the structured data gallery, “Breadcrumb” and “Review snippet” each sit as their own entries in the general Feature guides list — right alongside unrelated types like Article and Local business. WebSite doesn’t even get a standalone feature-guide entry the way the others do.
• schema.org doesn’t unify them. Review and AggregateRating are close cousins, but BreadcrumbList is a kind of list, and WebSite is a kind of creative work — three different branches of the vocabulary. There’s no shared parent that says “these four are the trust types.”

So why put them in one article? Because in practice — the way an SEO actually works — they’re the same kind of problem: content you mark up not to unlock a shopping or jobs feature, but to establish that a page is credible, locatable, and part of a real site. That shared use case is real and useful. The shared taxonomy is not. I’d rather say that plainly than pretend Google drew this box.

The four types at a glance

• AggregateRating (schema.org/AggregateRating) — the summary rating: an average score plus a count, e.g. “4.6 stars from 312 ratings.” It’s what powers the star snippet on most pages. Minimum for a rich result: ratingValue plus at least one of ratingCount or reviewCount, nested under the thing it’s rating.
• BreadcrumbList (schema.org/BreadcrumbList) — the page’s position in the site hierarchy, expressed as an ordered array of ListItem objects. Google can use it to categorize the page and (on desktop) show a breadcrumb trail in place of the raw URL. Requires at least two ListItem entries, each with a position and a name.
• Review (schema.org/Review) — a single review, with an author, a reviewRating.ratingValue, and the item it’s about (itemReviewed). Multiple reviews on a page typically roll up into an AggregateRating for the star display.
• WebSite (schema.org/WebSite) — the identity of the site itself, distinct from any single page. It once powered the sitelinks searchbox via SearchAction; today its live value is helping Google understand a site’s name for display in results.

I keep this hub deliberately shallow on each type’s property tables — the deep dives live in the four child articles I point to at the end.

Where they sit in the schema.org hierarchy

This is the part almost nobody cites correctly, and it’s the difference between a guess and a fact:

• AggregateRating — Thing > Intangible > Rating > AggregateRating. A specialized kind of Rating.
• Review — Thing > CreativeWork > Review. A creative work, not a rating — it carries a rating (reviewRating) rather than being one. That’s why Review and AggregateRating are cousins, not the same type.
• BreadcrumbList — Thing > Intangible > ItemList > BreadcrumbList, built from ListItem entries. A list type, unrelated to ratings.
• WebSite — Thing > CreativeWork > WebSite. A creative work like Review, but a wholly different purpose.

Conclusion: there’s no single shared parent binding these four. AggregateRating and Review both concern ratings but live in different branches; BreadcrumbList is a list; WebSite is a site. The connective tissue is the SEO use case — trust and orientation — not type inheritance. Say that, and you’re on solid ground.

Shared ground rules across all four

Even though the types don’t share a taxonomy, they share Google’s general structured-data guidelines, and it’s worth stating the rules once:

• Required properties are the eligibility gate. Miss a required property and the page isn’t eligible for that rich result. As Google puts it, items missing required properties are not eligible, and the more recommended properties you provide, the higher quality the result is to users.
• Eligibility ≠ guaranteed display. Valid markup gets you into the pool; Google’s systems still separately decide whether to show the enhancement. Google doesn’t guarantee your structured data will show up even if the page is marked up correctly.
• Only mark up visible, accurate content. No invisible markup, no fake reviews, no misleading data. Google is explicit about not marking up content that isn’t visible to readers and not marking up fake reviews — which lands hardest on this group, since Review and AggregateRating are exactly the types people are tempted to fake.
• JSON-LD is the recommended format for all of them — easier to maintain at scale than inline Microdata/RDFa.

What sets each apart

Review / AggregateRating: the self-serving reviews rule

This is the sharpest, most myth-relevant rule in the whole group. If the entity being reviewed controls the reviews about itself, its pages using LocalBusiness or any other Organization type are ineligible for the star review feature. In plain terms: you can’t mark up testimonials on your own homepage and expect stars for your own business. Crucially, this restriction is scoped to LocalBusiness/Organization — it does not blanket-block reviews of other schema types like Product. A store showing genuine customer reviews of a Product it sells is a different situation from a business rating itself.

A few more rules worth carrying: the review content you mark up must be readily available and obvious to users on the page, and you must not aggregate reviews or ratings scraped from other websites. Review and AggregateRating are also usually nested under the thing they describe rather than floating standalone — Google has clarified the nesting expectations for how Review/AggregateRating attach to the reviewed item, so this is worth getting right in the child article.

BreadcrumbList: the most “just do it” type — but display can change

Breadcrumbs are the cheapest, lowest-risk markup here. The one rule people miss: provide breadcrumbs that represent a typical user path to the page, not a mirror of your URL structure, and don’t include the top-level domain or the current page itself as items. Also, the old data-vocabulary.org breadcrumb markup is no longer eligible — you must use schema.org.

The lesson BreadcrumbList teaches best is that a display surface can disappear without the underlying feature or markup requirement going away. In January 2025 Google stopped showing the breadcrumb trail in the URL row on mobile search results — desktop was unaffected, no action was required from site owners, and both the markup and the Search Console Breadcrumb report kept working as before. The markup didn’t become useless; a single display placement just went away.

WebSite: the odd one out (and the deprecated searchbox)

WebSite is the type that breaks the pattern — and that asymmetry is itself the finding.

• The sitelinks searchbox is gone. WebSite’s SearchAction (potentialAction) once powered the “Sitelinks Search Box.” Google announced its removal in an October 21, 2024 blog post and deprecated the visual feature starting November 21, 2024, citing dropped usage; it’s been removed from the Rich Results Test and Search Console reports. Leaving the old markup in place causes no errors and has no negative effect — it’s simply inert now.
• WebSite itself is NOT deprecated. This is the distinction people fumble. Only the searchbox use case went away. WebSite is still part of how Google determines a site’s name for display in results (a live feature), and it remains schema.org’s canonical way to identify the site as an entity distinct from any single page.
• Thinner, scattered documentation. Unlike the other three, WebSite has no single current Google feature-guide page — its guidance is split across site-name documentation and the now-archived searchbox docs. That’s worth stating plainly: WebSite is the least feature-rich of the four for Search today.

Does this schema help SEO?

No, not rankings. John Mueller has been direct: “Structured data won’t make your site rank better.” What it does is earn eligibility for a specific SERP treatment — star snippets (Review/AggregateRating), a breadcrumb trail (BreadcrumbList) — or, in WebSite’s case, help Google understand your site’s identity. Conflating “I added schema” with “I’ll rank better” is the single most common myth across all four types.

One more myth worth naming directly, given the “trust” in this hub’s own name: none of this is a documented E-E-A-T signal either. E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) is a framework Google’s human quality raters use to judge content — it isn’t a scored input Google has said any of these four types feed into. “Trust” here is my practitioner shorthand for the reader-facing effect (stars and a breadcrumb trail read as more credible to a person scanning results), not a claim that Google’s algorithm scores your page’s trustworthiness because you added Review or AggregateRating markup. The same goes for entity consolidation, Knowledge Panel inclusion, and AI-citation outcomes — nothing here documents any of these four types producing those results either; treat any claim that they do as unverified.

The risk profile is worth comparing with the commerce hub, but I don’t want to overstate the gap. Commerce schema names a specific manual-action risk: a stale, unremoved JobPosting. Most of what goes wrong with this group is milder — a missing required property or a self-serving review just drops the page from eligibility; the markup gets ignored rather than punished. But that’s not the whole risk picture. Google’s general structured-data guidelines cover more than eligibility, and they apply to these four the same as anything else: markup that’s invisible to users, misleading, or built from fake reviews can still draw a manual action, separate from the site’s ordinary ranking systems. So the honest framing isn’t “these four can never earn a manual action” — it’s that the common failure mode here (a missing property, a self-serving rating) is ineligibility, while deliberately deceptive markup carries the same general risk any structured data does.

Where to go next

This hub is the map; each of these is its own deep dive nested under it:

• AggregateRating schema — required vs. recommended properties, the ratingCount vs. reviewCount distinction, and how AggregateRating relates to (and rolls up) individual Review markup. Start here if you want the summary star rating on a page.
• BreadcrumbList schema — the ListItem array structure, the “typical user path” rule vs. mirroring your URL, and the January 2025 mobile display change. Start here for site hierarchy and breadcrumb trails.
• Review schema — the self-serving reviews policy in detail, nesting under itemReviewed, and which entity types can and can’t earn star snippets. Start here for individual reviews and testimonials done right.
• WebSite schema — the SearchAction/sitelinks-searchbox history and its November 2024 deprecation, plus the still-live site-name feature. Start here if you’re wondering whether WebSite markup is still worth adding in 2026.

For the wider picture, this hub nests under the broader structured data subcluster — see also the sibling schema markup and commerce schema hub articles there for the vocabulary, formats, and deprecation cycle. And it all lives in the on-page cluster, where structured data sits alongside the rest of on-page technical SEO.

AI summary

A condensed take on the Advanced version:

• What it is: “Metadata & Trust schema” is Patrick’s practitioner grouping — not a Google or schema.org category — for the schema.org types that attach trust and orientation to ordinary pages rather than selling something: Review, AggregateRating, BreadcrumbList, WebSite.
• Not an official family: Google’s gallery lists Breadcrumb and Review snippet as separate general feature-guide entries; WebSite doesn’t get a standalone feature guide at all. schema.org has no shared parent for the four.
• Hierarchy: AggregateRating = Thing > Intangible > Rating > AggregateRating; Review = Thing > CreativeWork > Review (carries a rating, isn’t one); BreadcrumbList = Thing > Intangible > ItemList > BreadcrumbList (a list); WebSite = Thing > CreativeWork > WebSite. No single binding parent.
• What each does: AggregateRating = summary star rating (ratingValue + ratingCount/ reviewCount); Review = a single review (author, reviewRating, itemReviewed); BreadcrumbList = site hierarchy via ≥2 ListItems; WebSite = site identity / site-name.
• Shared rules: required properties = eligibility gate; eligibility ≠ guaranteed display; only mark up visible/accurate content (no fake reviews); JSON-LD recommended.
• Self-serving reviews: a business can’t earn star snippets for reviews of itself on LocalBusiness/Organization pages — scoped to those types, not Product.
• BreadcrumbList display change: January 2025, Google stopped showing the breadcrumb trail in the URL row on mobile (desktop unaffected); markup and the Search Console report still work.
• WebSite / sitelinks searchbox: the searchbox was announced gone October 21, 2024 and deprecated November 21, 2024 — inert but harmless to leave. WebSite itself is not deprecated; it still helps Google understand site names.
• Risk profile: mostly mild — a missing required property or a self-serving review just costs eligibility, not a manual action like a stale JobPosting can earn — but deliberately misleading or fake markup can still draw a manual action under Google’s general structured-data guidelines, the same risk any structured data carries.
• SEO impact: not a ranking factor (Mueller: “Structured data won’t make your site rank better”) and not a documented E-E-A-T, entity-consolidation, Knowledge Panel, or AI-citation signal — it earns eligibility and aids understanding, not trust.

Official documentation

Primary-source documentation for the four metadata-&-trust types and the rules they share.

Google — shared rules

• General structured data guidelines — the eligibility principle, content-quality and spam policies (including “don’t mark up fake reviews”) that apply across all four types.
• Structured data search gallery — the source of truth for what currently produces rich results; also where you can see that Breadcrumb and Review snippet are separate general feature-guide entries and WebSite is not.

Google — Review & AggregateRating

• Review snippet (Review, AggregateRating) structured data — required properties, the self-serving reviews policy for LocalBusiness/Organization, and nesting under the reviewed item.
• Making Review Rich Results more helpful (2019 blog) — the background on the self-serving-reviews crackdown.

Google — BreadcrumbList

• Breadcrumb (BreadcrumbList) structured data — required ListItem structure, the “typical user path” guideline, and the schema.org-only requirement.
• Simplifying the visible URL element on mobile search results (Jan 2025 blog) — the mobile display change (desktop and Search Console unaffected).

Google — WebSite (site name / archived sitelinks searchbox)

• Farewell, Sitelinks Search Box (Oct 2024 blog) — the October 21, 2024 announcement of the November 21, 2024 deprecation.

Schema.org (taxonomy)

• schema.org/Review · schema.org/AggregateRating · schema.org/BreadcrumbList · schema.org/ListItem · schema.org/WebSite

Quotes from the source

On-the-record statements. Where a page exposes the text, the link is a deep link that jumps to the quoted passage. Everything else here I’ve paraphrased from verified sources rather than quote directly.

Google docs — the shared eligibility principle

• “Specify all required properties listed in the documentation for your specific rich result type. Items that are missing required properties are not eligible for rich results. The more recommended properties that you provide, the higher quality the result is to users.” Jump to quote

Google docs — the anti-fake-reviews rule (sharpest for this group)

• The general guidelines direct you not to mark up content that isn’t visible to readers, and not to mark up irrelevant or misleading content such as fake reviews. Google also states that it doesn’t guarantee your structured data will show up in search results even if the page is marked up correctly. Paraphrased from the General structured data guidelines; the exact-substring deep link for these lines wasn’t verified in the source brief, so I’ve paraphrased rather than quoted.

Google docs — self-serving reviews

• Google’s review-snippet documentation states that if the entity being reviewed controls the reviews about itself, its pages using LocalBusiness or any other type of Organization structured data are ineligible for the star review feature. Paraphrased from the Review snippet documentation; relayed via the source brief without a verified exact substring, so paraphrased rather than quoted.

John Mueller, Google — schema is not a ranking factor

• “Structured data won’t make your site rank better.” Coverage Relayed via Search Engine Roundtable’s coverage of Mueller’s statements; treat the phrasing as transcribed secondary reporting. This line is universal — it isn’t specific to these four types.

Google — the sitelinks searchbox removal

• Google framed the sitelinks searchbox removal as usage-driven and part of simplifying search results, announcing it in an October 21, 2024 blog post with the visual feature deprecated starting November 21, 2024. Paraphrased. The primary blog post’s body text wasn’t retrievable as a verified exact substring in the source brief (only reachable via secondary coverage from Search Engine Roundtable / Search Engine Journal), so I’ve paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim.

Metadata & Trust schema at a glance

The four types compared

Fast facts

• “Metadata & Trust schema” is a practitioner grouping, not a Google or schema.org category — the four types share an SEO use case (trust + orientation), not a taxonomy.
• No shared parent. AggregateRating and Review both concern ratings but sit in different branches; BreadcrumbList is a list; WebSite is a site.
• Self-serving reviews are blocked for LocalBusiness/Organization — but that restriction does not apply to Product reviews.
• The sitelinks searchbox (WebSite SearchAction) was deprecated November 21, 2024 — inert but harmless to leave. WebSite itself is not deprecated.
• Breadcrumbs lost their mobile URL-row display in January 2025 — desktop and the Search Console report are unaffected; the markup still helps Google parse hierarchy.
• Not a ranking factor — and not a documented E-E-A-T signal. These earn a rich-result treatment or site-identity understanding, not trust, entity consolidation, Knowledge Panel inclusion, or AI-citation outcomes.
• Risk is mostly mild: a missing property or a self-serving review just costs eligibility, not a manual action — but deliberately misleading or fake markup (not only a stale JobPosting) can still draw one under Google’s general structured-data guidelines.

Which metadata & trust schema type do I need?

Answer for the page you’re marking up, and you’ll land on the right type (and the right deep dive to read next).

Test yourself: Metadata & Trust Schema

Five quick questions on the four metadata-&-trust types, how they relate, and what they do (and don’t) do. Pick an answer for each, then check.

Resources worth your time

My schema markup writing

• Schema Markup — my broader take on the vocabulary, the formats, entity understanding, and the deprecation cycle. Metadata & trust schema is a slice of this.
• The Beginner’s Guide to Technical SEO — where I frame schema as code that helps engines understand content and powers the features that make a listing stand out.

From around the industry

• Google Again Says Structured Data Does Not Make Your Site Rank Better (Search Engine Roundtable) — Mueller’s statement, the myth-bust behind this whole hub.
• Google Clarifies Nesting In Reviews & Aggregate Ratings (Search Engine Roundtable) — how Review/AggregateRating should nest under the reviewed item.
• Google Sitelinks Search Box Going Away November 21 (Search Engine Roundtable) — the deprecation date and framing.
• Google Removes Sitelinks Search Box Documentation (Search Engine Journal) — the docs and Rich Results Test removal.
• Google Drops Breadcrumbs From Mobile Search Results (Search Engine Journal) — the January 2025 mobile display change.
• Can local businesses use review schema? Google’s rules explained (BrightLocal) — a plain-English walkthrough of the self-serving reviews policy.
• SEO breadcrumbs: Structure, benefits & best practices (Search Engine Land) — practical breadcrumb implementation guidance.
• schema.org/Review · schema.org/AggregateRating · schema.org/BreadcrumbList · schema.org/WebSite — the vocabulary itself, straight from the source.

Metadata & Trust Schema

"Metadata & Trust schema" is a practitioner label — not an official Google or schema.org category — for the schema.org types that attach trust signals, site identity, and navigational context to a page rather than describing something for sale: AggregateRating, BreadcrumbList, Review, and WebSite.

Related: Schema Markup, Commerce Schema

Metadata & Trust Schema

Metadata & Trust schema isn’t a term Google or schema.org uses themselves — it’s shorthand for a small group of schema.org types that don’t sell anything (Product, ProductGroup, JobPosting) and don’t name a real-world entity (Organization, Person), but instead layer trust, credibility, and orientation onto ordinary content pages. The four types are Review and AggregateRating (social proof — the star ratings), BreadcrumbList (where the page sits in the site hierarchy), and WebSite (the identity of the site itself).

Google and schema.org don’t file these four together as a family — I group them because they answer the same practical questions for an ordinary content page: “is this credible?”, “where am I?”, and “what site am I on?”. Their documentation status is uneven, which is itself a useful signal: Review/AggregateRating and BreadcrumbList each have a live, dedicated Google feature guide, while WebSite has no single current feature guide of its own — its most famous feature, the sitelinks searchbox, was deprecated on November 21, 2024 (Google says leftover markup for it needs no removal), though WebSite itself is not deprecated and still helps Google understand a site’s name as one signal among others, not a guarantee. Each type’s actual eligibility and markup rules live on its own child page — don’t infer a rule for one type from this hub label.

None of the four is a ranking factor, and none is documented evidence of a trust score, E-E-A-T boost, entity consolidation, Knowledge Panel inclusion, or AI-citation benefit. Review/AggregateRating and BreadcrumbList earn a specific SERP treatment (star snippets, a breadcrumb trail); WebSite mostly helps Google understand site identity. Simply missing a required property or tripping the self-serving-reviews rule only costs you eligibility — a mild outcome. But deceptive or policy-violating markup (fake reviews, invisible or misleading data) can draw a separate structured-data manual action, a real enforcement risk that’s distinct from both eligibility loss and ordinary ranking.

Related: Schema Markup, Commerce Schema

Changelog