About schemamarkup.info
A free schema markup generator and validator, maintained by one person. This page says who that is, how the rules behind the verdicts are kept current, and what to do when one of them is wrong.
Who maintains it
schemamarkup.info is built and maintained by Taylor Walsh. Questions, corrections and disagreements all go to the same place: talyorwalsh@gmail.com.
That matters more here than on most tool sites. This one publishes judgements about other people’s markup and prints a date next to its own rules — and a claim about accuracy with nobody’s name on it is not a claim, it is a marketing line.
Why it exists
Most structured data tools check syntax. They tell you the JSON parses and the required properties are present, which is a low bar and not the thing that gets markup ignored. The requirement that actually matters is that marked-up values reflect what visitors see, and almost nothing tests it.
The second problem is staleness. Google adds features and removes them. FAQ rich results were withdrawn on 7 May 2026, how-to results went earlier, and a great deal of published advice — and a good number of tools — still describe them as though they work. A validator that quietly finds nothing wrong on a page carrying dead markup is not helping.
So this tool keeps a dated record of what Google documents, checks values against the page they sit on, and says plainly when a feature no longer produces anything.
How the rules are maintained
Every check comes from a registry of 19 Google Search features, each with the date it was last verified, the surface it applies to, and a link to the documentation it came from. That date appears on every report, and degrades to a warning when it gets old. Requirements were last verified 2026-08-29.
Entries are never deleted. 3 features are on record as removed, which is what lets a report say a page carries markup that no longer produces a Google feature rather than finding nothing and staying silent.
Where Google’s own documentation surfaces contradict each other — currently 2 features, where a feature guide says one thing and the structured data gallery another — the conflict is recorded and the status is marked unclear. It is not resolved to whichever answer is more convenient.
The whole registry is published, including which entries are still provisional.
What this tool is not
It cannot tell you whether a rich result will appear. Nothing can, and any tool claiming otherwise is describing something it has no way to know. For the authoritative answer to “does Google consider this page eligible”, use Google’s Rich Results Test (opens in a new tab), which reads Google’s own index with Google’s own parser.
It also cannot tell you what Google sees. It reports what our crawler observed, or what was in the HTML you supplied, and the report says which. Structured data can make a page eligible for supported features; it does not guarantee one appears and it is not a ranking factor.
When we get it wrong
The measure that matters for a validator is its false-positive rate. A tool that flags correct markup as broken gets abandoned faster than one that misses a problem, so a verdict you disagree with is worth more to us than a compliment.
Send the URL and what you expected to talyorwalsh@gmail.com. Reports that turn out to be right become test cases, so the same mistake cannot come back.
For transparency: 19 of 19 registry entries are currently marked provisional — seeded from the documentation but not yet re-read end to end against the live pages by a human. They drive the same checks; the label exists so a surprising finding can be weighed accordingly.
Privacy, briefly
The generator runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you type into it is sent anywhere, and it keeps working if this site’s servers do not.
The validator has to fetch the URL you give it, so that URL reaches our server. Pasted HTML is processed to produce your report and not retained. There are no advertising trackers on this site.