Microformats are dead. Hello Schema.org?

[bill]

Anyone use Microformats on their sites? I've been using it for years buffered by the hope/rumor that the major search engines would support them. Then today I came across Schema.org. Looks like the major SEs have taken it upon themselves to make their own microformat markup. If all of the majors are on-board with this then I may as well dump all of my carefully crafted microformat data and use their scheme.

[Gurtie]

yeah its bloody irritating isn't it? especially when they seem to have adopted the one format Google didn't previously endorse.

Since all the same sites are still showing the extra info they used to (linkedin, recipe searches on.com, etc etc) then I'm assuming they're still using whatever they can get and I'm not bothering to go back and change anything already existing, I'm just seething as I have to change everything still in process.

[rcjordan]

I know of an seo-knowledgeable site developer who swears by semantic markup which looks a lot like the schema.org format.  To me, it looks like a quasi-legitimate way to stuff pages.

[Gurtie]

>> To me, it looks like a quasi-legitimate way to stuff pages.

and your point?.....

[rcjordan]

Sames as yours. Carefully crafted, semantic markup --even an amateurish homebrewed, ummm, 'attempt'-- could add kws to onpage and likely still get by human review. Worst case, you beg forgiveness if you're called out. 

I'd also bet that even textbook perfect semantic markup would break the dupe filters for questionable content.

[bill]

I wonder if this stuff passes validation. They're using tags that aren't part of any HTML I've used to date.

One tidbit I did pickup in my reading about this. They warn about mixing schemas. Don't use this new schema on a page that also uses microformats. It will screw up their parsers.