Video Sitemaps and mRSS vs. Facebook Share and RDFa
Stay organized with collections
Save and categorize content based on your preferences.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
What are the benefits of submitting feeds like
Video Sitemaps and
mRSS
vs. the benefits of
Facebook Share and RDFa?
Is one better than the other? Let's start the discussion.
Functionality of feeds vs. on-page markup
Google accepts information from both video feeds, such as Video Sitemaps and mRSS, as well as
on-page markup, such as Facebook Share and RDFa. We recommend that you use both!
If you have limited resources, however, here's a chart explaining the pros and cons of each
method. The key differentiators include:
While both feeds and on-page markup give search engines metadata, Video Sitemaps/mRSS also help
with crawl discovery. We may find a new URL through your feed that we wouldn't have easily
discovered otherwise.
Using Video Sitemaps/mRSS requires that the search engine support these formats and not all
engines do. Because on-page markup is just that—on the page—crawlers can gather the
metadata through organic means as they index the URL. No feed support is required.
Feeds (Video Sitemaps and mRSS)
On-page markup (Facebook Share and RDFa)
Accepted by Google
✓
✓
Helps search engines discover new URLs with videos (improves discovery and coverage)
✓
Provides structured metadata (for example, video title and description)
✓
✓
Allows search engines without sitemap/mRSS support to still obtain metadata information
(allows organic gathering of metadata)
✓
Incorporates additional metadata like "duration"
✓
If you're further wondering about the benefits of specific feeds (Video Sitemaps vs. mRSS), we can
help with clarification there, too. First of all, you can use either. We're indifferent about it.
:) One benefit of Video Sitemaps is that, because it's a format we're
actively enhancing, we can quickly extend it to allow for more specifications.
All this said, if you're going to start from scratch, Video Sitemaps is our recommended start.
Video Sitemaps
mRSS
Accepted by Google
✓
✓
Been around for a long, long time and pretty widely accepted
✓
Extremely quick for Google Video Search team to extend
✓
"Starving" to start conversation about feeds or on-page markup? Join us in the
Sitemaps section
of the Webmaster discussion forum.
Written by
Maile Ohye,
Developer Programs Tech Lead
[[["Easy to understand","easyToUnderstand","thumb-up"],["Solved my problem","solvedMyProblem","thumb-up"],["Other","otherUp","thumb-up"]],[["Missing the information I need","missingTheInformationINeed","thumb-down"],["Too complicated / too many steps","tooComplicatedTooManySteps","thumb-down"],["Out of date","outOfDate","thumb-down"],["Samples / code issue","samplesCodeIssue","thumb-down"],["Other","otherDown","thumb-down"]],[],[[["\u003cp\u003eGoogle accepts video information from both feeds (Video Sitemaps and mRSS) and on-page markup (Facebook Share and RDFa), and using both is recommended for optimal results.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eWhile both methods provide metadata to search engines, feeds like Video Sitemaps and mRSS offer better crawl discovery, helping search engines find new video URLs.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eOn-page markup, such as Facebook Share and RDFa, allows search engines without feed support to organically gather metadata as they index the page.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eFor those starting fresh, Google recommends using Video Sitemaps for enhanced discoverability and future extensibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],["Google accepts both video feeds (Video Sitemaps, mRSS) and on-page markup (Facebook Share, RDFa) for video metadata. While both provide metadata, feeds enhance URL discovery; however, not all search engines support them. On-page markup allows organic metadata gathering, independent of feed support. Video Sitemaps are Google's recommended starting point due to their extensibility, though both it and mRSS are accepted. Using both feeds and on-page markup is the best practice.\n"],null,["# Video Sitemaps and mRSS vs. Facebook Share and RDFa\n\nThursday, December 23, 2010\n| It's been a while since we published this blog post. Some of the information may be outdated (for example, some images may be missing, and some links may not work anymore).\n\n\nWhat are the benefits of submitting feeds like\n[Video Sitemaps](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/sitemaps/video-sitemaps) and\n[mRSS](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/sitemaps/video-sitemaps#sitemap_alternatives)\nvs. the benefits of\n[Facebook Share and RDFa](/search/blog/2009/09/supporting-facebook-share-and-rdfa-for)?\nIs one better than the other? Let's start the discussion.\n\nFunctionality of feeds vs. on-page markup\n-----------------------------------------\n\n\nGoogle accepts information from both video feeds, such as Video Sitemaps and mRSS, as well as\non-page markup, such as Facebook Share and RDFa. We recommend that you use both!\n\n\nIf you have limited resources, however, here's a chart explaining the pros and cons of each\nmethod. The key differentiators include:\n\n- While both feeds and on-page markup give search engines metadata, Video Sitemaps/mRSS also help with crawl discovery. We may find a new URL through your feed that we wouldn't have easily discovered otherwise.\n- Using Video Sitemaps/mRSS requires that the search engine support these formats and not all engines do. Because on-page markup is just that---on the page---crawlers can gather the metadata through organic means as they index the URL. No feed support is required.\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|\n| | **Feeds (Video Sitemaps and mRSS)** | **On-page markup (Facebook Share and RDFa)** |\n| Accepted by Google | **✓** | **✓** |\n| Helps search engines discover new URLs with videos (improves discovery and coverage) | **✓** | |\n| Provides structured metadata (for example, video title and description) | **✓** | **✓** |\n| Allows search engines without sitemap/mRSS support to still obtain metadata information (allows organic gathering of metadata) | | **✓** |\n| Incorporates additional metadata like \"duration\" | **✓** | |\n\n\nIf you're further wondering about the benefits of specific feeds (Video Sitemaps vs. mRSS), we can\nhelp with clarification there, too. First of all, you can use either. We're indifferent about it.\n:) One benefit of Video Sitemaps is that, because it's a format we're\nactively enhancing, we can quickly extend it to allow for more specifications.\n\n\n*All this said, if you're going to start from scratch, Video Sitemaps is our recommended start.*\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------|\n| | **Video Sitemaps** | **mRSS** |\n| Accepted by Google | **✓** | **✓** |\n| Been around for a long, long time and pretty widely accepted | | **✓** |\n| Extremely quick for Google Video Search team to extend | **✓** | |\n\n\n\"Starving\" to start conversation about feeds or on-page markup? Join us in the\n[Sitemaps section](https://support.google.com/webmasters/community/label?lid=401d0e67c19e20e9&hl=en)\nof the Webmaster discussion forum.\n\n\nWritten by\n[Maile Ohye](/search/blog/authors/maile-ohye),\nDeveloper Programs Tech Lead"]]
