Few companies enjoy being the object of public scrutiny. But Google, one of the world’s most recognized brands, seems especially averse. Last year, when Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, was asked to testify before Congress about antitrust concerns, he refused. They held the hearing without his presence. His name card was there, in front of an empty chair.
Last month Congress held another hearing on antitrust. This time, Pichai was in his chair in front of the cameras, remotely if reluctantly. During the hearings, Google’s fairness was a focal issue. According to a summary of the testimony on the ProMarket blog of the University of Chicago Business School’s Stigler Center: “If the content provider complained about its treatment [by Google], it could be disappeared from search. Pichai didn’t deny the allegation.”
One of the major ways that content providers gain (or lose) visibility on Google — the first option that most people choose to find information — is through their use of a metadata standard known as schema.org. And the hearing revealed that publishers are alleging that Google engages in bullying tactics relating to how their information is presented on the Google platform. How might these issues be related? Who sits in the chair that decides the stakes?
Metadata and antitrust may seem arcane and wonky topics, especially when looked at together. Each requires some basic knowledge to understand, so it is rare that the interaction between the two is discussed. Yet it’s never been more important to remove the obscurity surrounding how the most widely used standard for web metadata, schema.org influences the fortunes of Google, one of the most valuable companies in the world.
Why schema.org is important to Google’s dominant market position
Google controls 90% of searches in the US, and its Android operating system powers 9 of 10 smartphones globally. Both these products depend on schema.org metadata (or “structured data”) to induce consumers to use Google products.
A recent investigation by The Markup noted that “Google devoted 41 percent of the first page of search results on mobile devices to its own properties and what it calls ‘direct answers.’” Many of these direct answers are populated by schema.org metadata that publishers provide in hopes of driving traffic to their websites. But Google has a financial incentive to stop traffic from leaving its websites. The Markup notes that “Google makes five times as much revenue through advertising on its own properties as it does selling ad space on third-party websites.” Tens of billions of dollars of Google revenues depend in some way on the schema.org metadata. In addition to web search results, many Google smartphone apps including Gmail capture schema.org metadata that can support other ad-related revenues.
During the recent antitrust hearings, Congressman Cicilline told Sundar Pichai that “Google evolved from a turnstile to the rest of the web to a walled garden.” The walled garden problem is at the core of Google’s monopoly position. Perversely, Google has been able to manipulate the use of public standards to create a walled garden for its products. Google reaps a disproportionate benefit from the standard by preventing broader uses of the standards that could result in competitive threats to Google.
There’s a deep irony is that a W3C-sanctioned metadata standard, schema.org, has been captured by a tech giant not just to promote its unique interests but to limit the interests of others. Schema.org was supposed to popularize the semantic web and help citizens gain unprecedented access to the world’s information. Yet Google has managed to monopolize this public asset.
How schema.org became a walled garden
How Google came to dominate a W3C-affiliated standard requires a little history. The short history is that Google has always been schema.org’s chief patron. It created schema.org and promoted it in the W3C. Since then, it has consolidated its hold on it.
The semantic web — the inspiration for schema.org — has deep roots in the W3C. Tim Berners Lee, the founder of the World Wide Web, coined the concept and has been its major champion. The commercialization of the approach has been long in the making. Metaweb was the first venture-funded company to commercialize the semantic web with its product Freebase The New York Times noted at the time: “In its ambitions, Freebase has some similarities to Google — which has asserted that its mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. But its approach sets it apart.” Google bought Metaweb and its Freebase database in 2010, buying and removing a potential competitor. The following year (2011) Google launched the schema.org initiative, bringing along Bing and Yahoo, the other search engines that competed with Google. While the market share of Bing and Yahoo were small compared to Google, the launch initiative raised hopes that more options would be available for search. Google noted: “With schema.org, site owners can improve how their sites appear in search results not only on Google, but on Bing, Yahoo! and potentially other search engines as well in the future.” Nearly a decade later, there is even less competition in search than there was when schema.org was created.
In 2015 a Google employee proposed that schema.org become a W3C community group. He soon became the chair of the group once it was formed.
By making schema.org a W3C community, the Google-driven initiative gained credibility through its W3C endorsement as a community-driven standard. Previously, only Google and its initiative partners (Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo, and later Russia’s Yandex) had any say over the decisions that webmasters and other individuals involved with publishing web content needed to follow, a situation which could have triggered antitrust alarms relating to collusion. Google also faced the challenge of encouraging webmasters to adopt the schema.org standard. Webmasters had been slow to embrace the standard and assume the work involved with using it. Making schema.org an open community-driven standard solved multiple problems for Google at once.
In normal circumstances — untinged by a massive and domineering tech platform — an open standard should have encouraged webmasters to participate in the standards-making process and express their goals and needs. Ideally, a community-driven standard would be the driver of innovation. It could finally open up the semantic web for the benefit of web users. But the tight control Google has exercised over the schema.org community has prevented that from happening.
The murky ownership of the schema.org standard
From the beginnings of schema.org, Google’s participation has been more active than anyone else, and Google’s guidance about schema.org has been more detailed than even the official schema.org website. This has created a great deal of confusion among webmasters about what schema.org requires for compliance to the standard, as opposed to what Google requires for compliance for its search results and ranking. It’s common for an SEO specialist to ask in a schema.org forum a question about Google’s search results. Even people with a limited knowledge of schema.org’s mandate assume — correctly — that it exists primarily for the benefit of Google.
In theory, Google is just one of numerous organizations that implements a standard that is created by a third party. In practice, Google is both the biggest user of the schema.org standard — and also its primary author. Google is overwhelmingly the biggest consumer of schema.org structured data. It also is by far the most active contributor to the standard. Most other participants are along for the ride: trying to keep up with what Google is deciding internally about how it will use schema.org in its products, and what it is announcing externally about changes Google wants to make to the standard.
In many cases, if you want to understand the schema.org standard, you need to rely on Google’s documentation. Webmasters routinely complain about the quality of schema.org’s documentation: its ambiguities, or the lack of examples. Parts of the standard that are not priorities for Google are not well documented anywhere. If they are priorities for Google, however, Google itself provides excellent documentation about how information should be specified in schema.org so that Google can use it. Because schema.org’s documentation is poor, the focus of attention stays on Google.
The reliance that nearly everyone has on Google to ascertain compliance with schema.org requirements was highlighted last month by Google’s decision to discontinue its Structured Data Testing Tool, which is widely used by webmasters to check that their schema.org metadata is correct — at least as far as Google is concerned. Because the concrete implementation requirements of schema.org are often murky, many rely on this Google tool to verify the correctness of the data independently of how the data would be used. Google is replacing this developer-focused tool with a website that checks whether the metadata will display correctly in Google’s “rich results.” The new “Rich Results Test Tool” acknowledges finally what’s been an open secret: Google’s promotion of schema.org is primarily about populating its walled garden with content.
Google’s domination of the schema.org community
The purpose of a W3C group should be to serve everyone, not just a single company. In the case of schema.org, a W3C community has been dominated from the start by a single company: Google.
Google has chaired the schema.org community continuously since its inception in 2015. Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo (now Verizon), who are minor players in the search business, participate nominally but are not very active considering they were founding members of schema.org. Google, in contrast, has multiple employees active in community discussions, steering the direction of conversations. These employees shape the core decisions, together with a few independent consultants who have longstanding relationships with Google. It’s hard to imagine any decision happening without Google’s consent. Google has effective veto power over decisions.
Google’s domination of the schema.org community is possible because the community has no resources of its own. Google conveniently volunteers the labor of its employees to perform duties related to community business, but these activities will naturally reflect the interests of the employer, Google. Since other firms don’t have the same financial incentives that Google has through its market dominance of search and smartphones in the outcomes of schema.org decisions, they don’t allocate their employees to spend time on schema.org issues. Google corners the discussion while appearing to be the most generous contributor.
The absence of governance in the schema.org community
The schema.org community essentially has zero governance — a situation Google is happy with. There are no formal rules, no formal process for proposals and decisions, no way to appeal a decision, and no formal roles apart from the chair, who ultimately can decide everything. There’s no process of recusal. Google holds sway in part because the community has no permanent and independent staff. And there’s no independent board of oversight reviewing how business is conducted.
It’s tempting to see the absence of governance as an example of a group of developers who have a disdain for bureaucracy — that’s the view Google encourages. But the commercial and social significance of these community decisions is enormous and shouldn’t be cloaked in capricious informality. Moreover, the more mundane problems of a lack of process are also apparent. Many people who attempt to make suggestions feel frozen out and unwelcome. Suggestions may be challenged by core insiders who have deep relationships with one another. The standards- making process itself lacks standardization.
In the absence of governance, the possibilities of a conflict of interest are substantial. First, there’s the problem of self-dealing: Google using its position as the chair of a public forum to prioritize its own commercial interests ahead of others. Second, there’s the possibility that non-Google proposals will be stopped because they are seen as costly to Google, if only because they create extra work for the largest single user of schema.org structured data.
As a public company, Google is obligated to its shareholders — not to larger community interests. A salaried Google employee can’t simultaneously promote his company’s commercial interests and promote interests that could weaken his company’s competitive position.
Community bias in decisions
Few people want an open W3C community to exhibit biases in their decisions. But owing to Google’s outsized participation and the absence of governance, decision making that’s biased toward Google’s priorities is common.
Whatever Google wants is fast-tracked — sometimes happening within a matter of days. If a change to schema.org is needed to support a Google product that needs to ship, nothing will slow down that from happening.
Suggestions from people not affiliated with Google face a tougher journey. If the suggestion does not match Google priorities, it is slow-walked. They will be challenged as to their necessity or practicality. They will languish as an open issue in Github, where they will go unnoticed unless they generate an active discussion. Eventually, the chair will cull proposals that have been long buried in the interest of closing out open issues.
While individuals and groups can propose suggestions of their own, successful ones tend to be incremental in nature, already aligned with Google’s agenda. More disruptive or innovative ones are less likely to be adopted.
In the absence of a defined process, the ratification of proposals tends to happen through an informal virtual acclamation. Various Google employees will conduct a public online discussion agreeing with one another on the merits of adopting a proposal or change. With “community” sentiment demonstrated, the change is pushed ahead.
Consumer harm from Google’s capture of schema.org
Google’s domination of schema.org is an essential part of its business model. Schema.org structured data drives traffic to Google properties, and Google has leveraged it so that it can present fewer links that would drive traffic elsewhere. The more time consumers spend on Google properties, the more their information decisions are limited to the ads that Google sells. Consumers need to work harder to find “organic” links (objectively determined by their query and involving no payment to Google) to information sources they seek.
A technical standard should be a public good that benefits all. In principle, publishers that use schema.org metadata should be able to expand the reach of their information, so that apps from many firms take advantage of it, and consumers have more choices about how and where they get their information. The motivating idea behind semantic structured data such as schema.org provides is that information becomes independent of platforms. But ironically, for consumers to enjoy the value of structured data, they mostly need to use Google products. This is a significant market failure, which hasn’t happened by accident.
The original premise of the semantic web was based on openness. Publishers freely offered information, and consumers could freely access it. But the commercial version, driven by Google, has changed this dynamic. The commercial semantic web isn’t truly open; it is asymmetrically open. It involves open publishing but closed access. Web publishers are free to publish their data using the schema.org standard and are actively encouraged to do so by Google. The barriers to creating structured data are minimal, though the barriers to retrieving it aren’t.
Right now, only a firm with the scale of Google is in a position to access this data and normalize it into something useful for consumers. Google’s formidable ad revenues allow it to crawl the web and harvest the data for its private gain. A few other firms are also harvesting this data to build private knowledge graphs that similarly provide gated access. The goal of open consumer access to this data remains elusive. A small company may invest time or money to create structured data, but they lack the means to use structured data for their own purposes. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Has Google’s domination of schema.org stifled innovation?
When considering how big tech has influenced innovation, it is necessary to pose a counterfactual question: What might have been possible if the heavy hand of a big tech platform hadn’t been meddling?
Google’s routine challenge to suggestions for additions to the schema.org vocabulary is to question whether the new idea will be used. “What consuming application is going to use this?” is the common screening question. If Google isn’t interested in using it, why is it worthwhile doing? Unless the individual making the suggestion is associated with a huge organization that will build significant infrastructure around the new proposal, the proposal is considered unviable.
The word choice of “consuming applications” is an example of how Google avoids referring to itself and its market dominance. The Markup recently revealed how Google coaches its employees to avoid phrases that could get it in additional antitrust trouble. Within the schema.org community group, Google employees strive to make discussion appear objective, where Google seems disinterested in the decision.
One area where Google has discouraged alternative developments is in discouraging the linking of schema.org data with data using other metadata vocabularies (standards). This is significant for multiple reasons. The schema.org vocabulary is limited in its scope, mostly focusing on commercial entities and not on non-commercial entities. Because Google is not interested in non-commercial entity coverage, publishers need to rely on other vocabularies. But Google doesn’t want to look at other vocabularies, claiming that it is too taxing for them to crawl data described by other vocabularies. In this, Google is making a commercial decision that goes against the principles of linked data (a principle of the semantic web), which explicitly encourages the mixing of vocabularies. For publishers, they are forced to obey Google’s diktats. Why should they supply metadata that Google, the biggest consumer of schema.org metadata, says it will ignore? With a few select exceptions, Google mandates that only schema.org metadata should be used in web content and no other semantic vocabularies. Google sets the vision of what schema.org is, and what it does.
To break this cycle, the public should be asking: How might consumers access and utilize information from the information commons without relying on Google?
There are several paths possible. One might involve opening up the web crawl to wider use by firms of all sizes. Another would be to expand the role of the schema.org vocabularies in APIs to support consumer apps. Whatever path is pursued, it needs to be attractive to small firms and startups to bring greater diversity to consumers and spark innovation.
Possibilities for reform: Getting Google out of the way
If schema.org is to continue as a W3C community and associated with the trust conferred by that designation, then it will require serious reform. It needs governance — and independence from Google. It may need to transform into something far more formal than a community group.
In its current incarnation, it’s difficult to imagine this level of oversight. The community is resource-starved, and relies on Google to function. But if schema.org isn’t viable without Google’s outsized involvement, then why does it exist at all? Whose community is it?
There’s no rationale to justify the W3C lending its endorsement to a community that is dominated by a single company. One solution is for schema.org to cease being part of the W3C umbrella and return to its prior status of being a Google-sponsored initiative. That would be the honest solution, barring more sweeping changes.
Another option would be to create a rival W3C standard that isn’t tied to Google and therefore couldn’t be dominated by it, but a standard Google couldn’t afford to ignore. That would be a more radical option, involving significant reprioritization by publishers. It would be disruptive in the short term, but might ultimately result in greater innovation. A starting point for this option would be to explore how to popularize Wikidata as a general-purpose vocabulary that could be used instead of schema.org.
A final option would be for Google to step up in order to step down. They could acknowledge that they have benefited enormously from the thousands of webmasters and others who contribute structured data and they owe a debt to them. They could offer to payback in kind. Google could draw on the recent example of Facebook’s funding of an independent body that will provide oversight that company. Google could fund a truly independent body to oversee schema.org, and financially guarantee the creation of a new organizational structure. Such an organization would leave no questions about how decisions are made and would dispel industry concerns that Google is gaining unfair advantages. Given the heightening regulatory scrutiny of Google, this option is not as extravagant as it may first sound.
On a pragmatic level, I would like to see schema.org realize its full potential. This issue is important enough to merit broader discussion, not just in the narrow community of people who work on web metadata, but those involved with regulating technology and looking at antitrust. Google spends considerable sums, often furtively, hiring academic experts and others to dismiss concerns about their market dominance. The role of metadata should be to make information more transparent. That’s why this matters in many ways.
— Michael Andrews
Clarification: schema.org’s status as a north star and as a standard (August 12)
The welcome page of schema.org notes it is “developed by an open community process, using the public-schemaorg@w3.org mailing list.” When I first published this post I referred to schema.org as an “open W3C metadata standard.” Dan Brickley of Google tweeted to me and others stating that I made a “simple factual error” doing so. He is technically correct that my characterization of the W3C’s role is not precise, so I have changed the wording to say “a W3C-sanctioned metadata standard” instead (sanctioned = permitted), which is the most accurate I can manage, given the intentionally confusing nature of schema.org’s mandate. This may seem like mincing words, but the implications are important, and I want to elaborate on what those are.
It is true that schema.org is not an official W3C standard in the sense that HTML5 is, which had a cast of thousands involved in its development. For standards to become an official W3C standard, they need to go through a long process of community vetting, moving through stages such as being a recommendation first. Even a recommendation is not yet an official standard, though it is widely followed. Just because technical guidelines aren’t official W3C standards or are even referred to as standards does not mean they don’t have the effect of a standard that others would be expected to follow in order to gain market acceptance. Standards vary in the degree they are voluntary — schema.org has always been a voluntary standard. And there are different levels of standards maturity within the W3C’s standards making framework, with the most mature ones reflecting the most stringent levels of compliance. A W3C community group discussions around standards proposals would be the least rigorous and normally associated with the least developed stage of standards activity. It is typically associated with new ideas for standards, rather than well-formed standards that are widely used by thousands of companies.
A key difference with the schema.org community group is that is hosts discussions about a fully-formed standard. This standard was fully formed before there was ever a community group to discuss it. In other words, there was never any community input on the basic foundation of schema.org. Google decided this together with its partners in the schema.org initiative.
So I agree that schema.org fails to satisfy the expectations of a W3C standard. The W3C has a well-established process for standards, and schema.org’s governance doesn’t remotely align with how a W3C standard is developed.
The problem is that by having fully-formed standard being discussed in a W3C forum, it appears as if schema.org is a W3C standard of some sort. Appearances do matter. Webmasters on the W3C mailing list can reasonably assume the W3C endorses schema.org. And by hosting a community group on schema.org, the W3C has lent support to schema.org. To outsiders, they appear to be sponsoring its development and one would presume be interested in having open participation in decision making about it. The terms of service for schema.org treat “the schemas published by Schema.org as if the schemas were W3C Recommendations.” The optics of schema.org imply it is W3C-ish.
Dan Brickley refers to schema.org as a “independent project” and not a “W3C thing.” I’m not reassured by that characterization, which is the first I’ve heard Google draw explicit distance from W3C affiliation. He seems to be rejecting the notion that the W3C should provide any oversight over the schema.org process. They’re merely providing a free mailing list. The four corporate “sponsors” of schema.org set the binding conditions of the terms of service. Nothing schema.org is working on is intended to become an official W3C standard and hence subject to W3C governance.
Even though 10 million websites use schema.org metadata and are affected by its decisions, schema.org’s decision making is tightly held. Ultimate decision making authority rests with a Steering Committee (also chaired by Google) that is invitation-only and not open to public participation. Supposedly, a W3C representative is allowed to sit on this committee, though the details about this, like much else in schema.org’s documentation, are unclear.
It may seem reassuring to imagine that schema.org belongs to a nebulous entity called the “community,” but that glosses over how much of the community activities and decisions are Google-driven. Google does draw on the expertise and ideas of others, so that schema.org is more than one company’s creation. But in the end, Google keeps tight control over the process so that schema.org reflects its priorities. It would be simpler to call this the Google Structured Data schema.
Schema.org appears to be public and open, while in practice is controlled by a small group of competitors and one firm in particular. Google is having its cake and eating it too. If schema.org does not want W3C oversight, then the W3C should disavow having a connection with them, and help to reduce at least some of the confusion about who is in control of schema.org.
