OG:不是文章的单个网页的文章类型与网站的关系 [英] OG:type article vs website for Individual Web Pages That Are Not Articles
问题描述
我正在寻求对在技术上不是文章"但也不代表整个网站的单个网页上使用og:type文章与网站的关系进行澄清.
I'm seeking clarification regarding the use of og:type article vs website for an individual web page that is technically not an "article" but also does not represent an entire website.
文档似乎矛盾:
来自 https://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraphprotocol/#types
Use article for any URL that represents transient content - such as a
news article, blog post, photo, video, etc. Do not use website for this
purpose. website and blog are designed to represent an entire site, an
og:type tag with types website or blog should usually only appear on the
root of a domain.
在这种情况下，文章应仅用于瞬态"内容. 瞬态"的定义是仅持续很短时间".这句话还暗含了网站和博客旨在代表整个网站...(并且)通常只应出现在域的根目录下."
In this case, article should only be used for "transient" content. The definition of "transient" is "lasting only for a short time". This quote also implicitly says "website and blog are designed to represent an entire site...(and) should usually only appear on the root of a domain."
有趣的是，描述类型的同一页面还显示:
Interestingly, the same page describing types also says:
If your URL is a video, you should set og:type to video.
就视频本身而言，这本身与上面的说法相矛盾.
Which, in and of itself, contradicts the quote above regarding video.
回到主题，但是更高的位置，同一页上还显示:
Back on subject, however, higher up, the same page also says:
If your URL is a piece of content — such as a news article, photo, or
similar — you should set og:type to article (see below).
这似乎与第一句话一致.
This seems to concur with the first quote.
此外，以下页面( https://developers.facebook.com/docs/technical-guides/opengraph/built-in-objects/#article )展示了og:type = article与Publish Time，Expiration Time和Author的结合使用，它们支持这个想法应该用于上面带有文章"的页面.在同一页面上，网站示例支持用法，指示整个网站是所定义的对象.
Furthermore, the following page (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/technical-guides/opengraph/built-in-objects/#article) shows using og:type = article in conjunction with Publish Time, Expiration Time, and Author, which support the idea that it should be used for pages that have "articles" on them. On the same page, the website example supports a usage indicating an entire website is the object being defined.
但是，从Open Graph协议网站上:
However, from the Open Graph protocol website:
Any non-marked up webpage should be treated as og:type website.
此引号似乎表示一种最佳实践，我认为网页"是指可能存在于具有多个页面的网站的上下文中的单个网页，应视为og:type网站.这似乎与上述陈述相矛盾.
This quote seems to indicate a best practice that a "webpage," which I assume refers to an individual webpage that may exist within the context of a website with many pages, should be treated as og:type website. That seemingly contradicts the above statements.
更复杂的是，它们都没有解决一个常见的现实情况，即网站中单个网页的内容不是文章，博客条目，也不是类似的过时"或短暂"内容，而是长期内容，也不能由任何其他og:type直接表示.
To make matters more complicated, neither addresses a common real-world scenario in which the content of a single web page within a website is not an article, blog entry, or some similarly "dated" or "transient" content, but rather long term content that is also not directly represented by any other og:type.
例如，网站上的常见问题解答页面.什么类型的如果页面上有公司提供的服务的说明，那该怎么办?还是描述公司的使命声明和开展业务的方法的页面?或描述产品或服务的好处但实际上并不直接代表产品或服务的营销页面，该页面留在产品详细信息页面上.
For example, an FAQ page on a website. What type is it? What about a page featuring an explanation of services offered by a company? Or a page describing a company's mission statement and methods of doing business? Or a marketing page describing the benefits of a product or service but does not actually directly represent the product or service, which is left to the product detail page.
尽管有Open Graph协议网站的声明，但是，如果我们希望这些页面每个都具有唯一的LIKE按钮，则网站"不是正确的og:type.
Despite the Open Graph protocol website's statement, it seems that, if we want these pages to each have unique LIKE buttons, "website" is not the right og:type.
但是，这些页面上的内容通常不会被描述为暂时性/临时性"，并且未注明日期或与特定作者相关联，因此似乎文章"也不适合og:type.
However, the content on these pages would not typically be described as "transient/temporary" and are not dated or associated with a specific author, so it seems that "article" is also not the right og:type.
但是，这似乎是我们仅有的两个选择.奇怪的是，我找不到关于这个非常灰色的主题随处可见"的讨论.没有澄清.没有最佳做法.提到og:type的文章很少这样做，并且大多数将读者带到"Open Graph对象类型列表"以了解更多信息.
But, it would seem that those are our only two options. The odd thing is that I cannot find a shred of discussion about this very gray topic anywhere. No clarification. No best practices. Articles that mention the og:type only do so very sparingly, and most refer the reader to the "list of Open Graph object types" to learn more.
似乎正确的类型也很关键，因为可能会导致错误输入.
It also seems that getting the type correct is critical because there are potential consequences for getting it wrong.
那么，有人知道Facebook希望这些类型的单个页面对象成为哪种类型吗?有没有人看到有关此的任何讨论?其他人在做什么?
So, does anybody know what type Facebook wants these types of individual page objects to be? Has anybody seen any discussion about this? What is everybody else doing?
谢谢！弗里兹
推荐答案
以我的经验，文章"和网站"之间的区别与Facebook如何使用喜欢"有关.网站类型为喜欢"的网页将显示在用户个人资料部分，列出其喜欢的内容；带有文章"类型的页面的赞"则不然.用户喜欢文章"对象的对象更有可能在其新闻源中显示给朋友(尽管到目前为止，即使没有评论的文章也不太可能成为新闻源项目，除非有很强的原因-共同感兴趣的话题，用户之间非常频繁的互动-使得商品在Facebook的算法中浮出水面.
In my experience, the difference between 'article' and 'website' is related to how Facebook uses the 'like'. A 'like' of a page with type website will appear in the section of the user's profile where it lists their likes; a 'like' of a page with type article does not. A user's like of an 'article' object is more likely to be displayed to friends in their newsfeeds (although, as of now, even an article, without a comment, is pretty unlikely to make it into a newsfeed item, unless there are strong reasons-- topic of mutual interest, very frequent interaction between the users-- to make the item surface in Facebook's algorithm).
这篇关于OG:不是文章的单个网页的文章类型与网站的关系的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
