Microformat's hRecipe vs. Schema's Recipe

Question

I would like to know what are the main differences between Microformat's hRecipe and Schema.org's Recipe and how search engines treat each one.

Besides the differences in code and the fact that the former is open while the latter is propietary, how do search engines treat each one and which one is better to implement, both from a long-term perspective and a SEO perspective?

Answer 1

hRecipe is based on class attributes while schema's Recipe is based on multiple attributes. those are the main differences in the markup; hRecipe is backwards compatible whereas Recipe is not, because it's using html5 data attributes.

the big three search engines say that they'll treat both the same, however i don't buy that; Google has been pushing their web platform(s) long enough for me to think that they'll be adding extra juice to Recipe, even though i can't prove it. even if they aren't throwing extra seo at Recipe, you can be sure that they'll work something into SERPS so that if you are using their proprietary markup, you get noticed....more. take the link element's prefetch and prender attributes as an example; google created prerender and if you use it on your site, voila, it prerenders in SERPS for the user. prefetch does not.

i'm not sure how to differentiate between a long-term perspective or an seo perspective, i look @ them the same; i'm not saying that you can't, just trying to explain more. i have thought this over before from a clients perspective and asked myself these same questions in regards to microformats as a whole vs. schema. it's basically a judgement call: microformats are tried and true format; there are millions more sites using micoformatted data than there are using schema's. they aren't going anywhere. and (as noted earlier) they are backwards compatible.

that said, schema is backed by the big three, and being html5 based, shouldn't have portability problems in the future. also previously mentioned, i'm sure all three will be rewarding users (though i have no proof) in their respective search results. one caveat here though, is how fast everything on the web is moving; just as quickly as Schema popped up, it could conceivably be dropped. i doubt it (though i'm hoping) but it is a possibility.

i can't say which is better to implement, but microformats are certainly much easier to implement, they're class based and so freaking easy.

Answer 2

Schema.org with Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex

Since you asked this question, Microformat's hRecipe has been updated with microformats2 as h-recipe, but otherwise your question remains relevant and is worth answering more than 6 years later.

…how do search engines treat each one…?

Search engine giants, Google, Microsoft (Bing), and Yahoo!, along with Yandex (a popular search engine in Russia and elsewhere globally) collaborated to create Schema.org and the schemas therein.

This collaboration is the biggest differentiator between Schema.org and Microformats; it does and will likely continue to have an impact on how each treats schemas defined by other parties.

You can read about why they created it and how they treat other formats in the Schema.org FAQ.

Specifically, you may be interested in their answers to…

• What is the purpose of schema.org?
• Why are Google, Bing, Yandex and Yahoo! collaborating?
• I have already added markup in some other format (i.e. microformats, RDFa, data-vocabulary.org, etc). Do I need to change anything on my site?
• Why microdata? Why not RDFa or microformats?
• Why don't you support other vocabularies such as FOAF, SKOS, etc?

…which one is better to implement, both from a long-term perspective and a SEO perspective?

The schema better to implement is the one with the most support; in this case, that appears to be Schema.org's Recipe. While all of the above search engines still support microformats, mentions of it have disappeared from some of Google's official documentation regarding structured data and rich snippets.

Interestingly, Google recommends a newer syntax for structured data called JSON-LD.

JSON-LD: The future of structured data?

From a long-term perspective, you may want to consider adopting the evermore popular JSON-LD markup syntax with the Schema.org Recipe schema, which even Bing is supporting now ( here are examples demonstrating it ) despite their documentation having no mention of it.

Pinterest's interesting support

The popular content discovery platform Pinterest supports both schemas and even supports the new JSON-LD syntax (though it is not explicitly mentioned in their documentation).

Despite Schema.org's growing popularity and adoption, Pinterest offers seemingly greater support for the h-recipe microformat with their inclusion of e-instructions as a supported class, whereas Schema.org's corresponding recipeInstructions property is not a supported property.

It's unclear if this is intentional or even which schema they actually prefer, but it is worth keeping in mind if you intend to develop specifically for this platform.

Answer 3

It is better to use the schema.org formats as that has been accepted as standard by all of the major search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). Using an alternative microformat may mean that some of the search engines will not recognize that data as being special and losing any possible advantages it offers.