Best rich snippet markup for a widgets website?

[makin]

Hi,

I have a widget's websites. I'm not directly selling widget, so I can't not use the "product" rich snippet of google. So, my question is, what markups can I use for a widget's website?

Actually I'm using breadcrumbs and reviews. It's possible to use software application rich snippet for "widgets"? I have a price, I have reviews, I have operations systems.. but I think that a widget is not a software application.

Thanks in advance,

[edited by: goodroi at 12:06 am (utc) on Mar 16, 2013]
[edit reason] Widgetized [/edit]

[tedster]

In the schema.org mark-up, reviews fall under "creative work". Does that connect for you?

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

You might also look into RDFa, which I believe has the ability to markup more "granular" information the way someone intends, but I'm not 100% it will apply in this case.

[Robert Charlton]

As discussed in this thread, your choices are schema.org and RDFa....

Ways of marking up a page for a Product
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4534834.htm [webmasterworld.com]

I noted in the discussion that, going forward, schema.org is the microdata format that will be supported by the big three search engines.

In the Google Support article cited [support.google.com...] ...these particular Q&As apply. I believe that the second quote below particularly addresses your concern....

Q: Does schema.org support all the information types already supported for microdata/microformats/RDFa?
A: Yes. Anything that could be done using a previous markup format can be done using schema.org.

Q: My website contains content that isn’t supported by schema.org. Will you add it? How do I mark it up in the meantime?
A: If you publish content of an unsupported type, you have three options:

Do nothing (don’t mark up the content in any way). However, before you decide to do this, check to see if any of the types supported by schema.org—such as reviews, comments, images, or breadcrumbs—are relevant.

Use a less-specific markup type. For example, schema.org has no "Professor" type. However, if you have a directory of professors in your university department, you could use the Person type to mark up the information for every professor in the directory.

If you're feeling ambitious, use the schema.org extension system to define a new type.

See the above pages for more references.

[makin]

@tedster I took a look to the creative works types of schema.org and my specific type is not supported with my widget. BTW, as @Robert Charlton said, maybe I can use some less-specific markup type.

@Robert Charlton Thank you, I think that this reply my question:

Q: My website contains content that isn’t supported by schema.org. Will you add it? How do I mark it up in the meantime?
A: If you publish content of an unsupported type, you have three options:

Do nothing (don’t mark up the content in any way). However, before you decide to do this, check to see if any of the types supported by schema.org—such as reviews, comments, images, or breadcrumbs—are relevant.

Use a less-specific markup type. For example, schema.org has no "Professor" type. However, if you have a directory of professors in your university department, you could use the Person type to mark up the information for every professor in the directory.

If you're feeling ambitious, use the schema.org extension system to define a new type.

BTW, I don't know if the robot of google think the same, I mean, if he find that I'm using an incorrect snippet maybe he penalize me without asking why I'm using the incorrect snippet.

Also, I saw that the software application have an author and creator in schema.org but in google only have the author field (http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1645432). What is the difference between author and creator?
The author of software application rich snippet can be linked with google authorship?

Thank you guys! I'll appreciate it.

[Andem]

You are very unlikely to get anything other than a schema.org/SoftwareApplication recognized as such.