Key Takeaways
- GSC reports structured data errors under Enhancements → [Schema type] — each report shows valid, warning, and error counts by URL
- A "missing required property" error means a property Google considers mandatory for rich results isn't present in the markup — fix by adding the property to your JSON-LD
- A "warning" (yellow) won't prevent rich results but reduces eligibility for enhanced features — fix warnings to maximise rich result appearance
- GSC validates structured data against Google's interpretation of Schema.org, not Schema.org itself — some properties GSC requires aren't in the official spec
- After fixing errors, use the URL Inspection tool's "Test live URL" to verify the fix before requesting re-indexing
Where to Find Structured Data Reports in GSC
Navigate to GSC → Enhancements → [Schema type name]. The reports available depend on which schema types Google has found on your site. Common reports include FAQPage, HowTo, Article, Product, Event, Recipe, BreadcrumbList, Sitelinks Searchbox, and Video.
Each report is split into three status tabs:
- Valid items — markup that passes validation and is eligible for rich results
- Valid with warnings — markup that passes but is missing recommended properties
- Invalid items — markup with errors that prevent rich results entirely
Click any status tab to see the specific URLs affected. Click a URL to see the exact error messages GSC found. The error message text is your primary diagnostic — it names the property and schema type together, e.g. "Missing field 'author' (Article)".
Error Type 1 — Missing Required Property
This is the most common error. "Missing required property 'author'" means Google considers author mandatory for this schema type but it isn't present in your markup. Required properties for rich results are defined by Google's rich result guidelines, which are stricter than the base Schema.org spec — Google requires certain properties that Schema.org only recommends.
The fix process is straightforward:
- Note the property name from the error message
- Open the JSON-LD on the affected page (View Source → search for
application/ld+json) - Add the missing property with an appropriate value
- Verify the fix using the Schema Markup Tester or GSC's URL Inspection → Test Live URL
Common missing properties vary by schema type:
| Schema type | Commonly missing properties |
|---|---|
| Article / BlogPosting | author (with @type: Person and name), datePublished, image |
| FAQPage | mainEntity array, individual Question with acceptedAnswer |
| HowTo | step array, totalTime, description |
| Product | offers (with price, priceCurrency), name |
| Event | startDate, location (with address) |
| BreadcrumbList | item with id and name on each ListItem |
Error Type 2 — Invalid Value
The property is present but the value isn't in the expected format. This is the second most common class of structured data errors and usually comes down to dates, prices, or image formats.
Common examples:
datePublished: "June 2026"instead of ISO 8601 format"2026-06-22T10:00:00Z"price: "free"instead of a numeric string"0"imagepointing to an SVG or WebP when Google requires JPEG or PNG for some schema typesaggregateRating.ratingValueoutside the declaredbestRating/worstRatingrange
The fix is to standardise your data formats: use ISO 8601 for all dates, numeric strings for prices, and JPEG or PNG for images referenced in structured data — even if your pages serve WebP to browsers.
"2026-06-22T10:00:00Z". Date-only format "2026-06-22" is also valid and accepted by Google for datePublished and dateModified. Avoid any other format — GSC will flag it as invalid.
Error Type 3 — Markup Doesn't Match Visible Content
Google's rich results guidelines require that structured data accurately represents what's visible on the page. Markup that contradicts what users actually see is treated as spam under Google's policies. Common violations include:
authorin JSON-LD shows "John Smith" but no author credit is visible anywhere on the pageaggregateRatingshows 4.8 stars but no review or rating UI is visible on the pagepricein Product markup differs from the price displayed to usersavailableAtOrFromshows a location that doesn't match the page content
The fix is either to make the structured data match the visible content, or to add the corresponding visible content to the page. Structured data that describes content that doesn't exist for users is a policy violation — not just a technical error — and can result in manual actions against your site's rich results eligibility.
Warnings — Recommended But Not Required Properties
Warnings (shown in yellow in GSC) indicate properties that are "recommended" by Google for enhanced rich result features but not strictly required for the feature to appear at all. Warnings don't block rich results — but they reduce how prominently or completely the rich result is shown.
Common warnings worth addressing:
- Article: missing
imageproperty — required for the article-rich-result image thumbnail to appear in search - Product: missing
revieworaggregateRating— prevents star ratings from showing - HowTo: missing
imageon individual steps — reduces eligibility for step-image display - Event: missing
offersfor ticketed events — prevents the "Get tickets" link from appearing
Prioritise warnings in order of business value. The image property on Articles is worth fixing because it enables the image-enhanced appearance that gets higher click-through rates. Obscure optional properties on low-traffic pages are low priority — fix errors first, then work through warnings systematically.
Testing Fixes Before Deploying
Use the Schema Markup Tester to validate any page's JSON-LD before deploying the fix to production. This catches formatting errors and missing properties before they show up as GSC errors a week later when Google next crawls the page.
- Enter the URL (or paste raw JSON-LD directly into the tester)
- The tester extracts all schemas and validates against 18 type rules
- Errors and warnings are shown per property with the exact issue description
After deploying fixes, confirm them in GSC:
- Go to GSC → URL Inspection → enter the affected URL
- Click "Test Live URL" — this fetches the page as Googlebot would see it right now
- Click "View tested page" → Rich results tab — this shows whether the schema now passes validation
- Once confirmed, click "Request indexing" to push the fix into GSC's validation queue
Note that GSC's Enhancements reports update on a delay — typically several days after Google re-crawls the affected URLs. The URL Inspection tool gives you immediate feedback; the Enhancements graph catches up later.
Common Structured Data Patterns That Cause GSC Errors
Nested type without @type. author: { name: "Sunny Pal Singh" } will produce a warning because the nested object lacks "@type": "Person". Google's parser can usually infer it, but being explicit prevents the warning.
Single FAQPage question. A FAQPage with only one Question in mainEntity may not qualify for the FAQ rich result (Google typically requires at least two Q&A pairs visible on the page). Always match the count of FAQ structured data items to the count of visible Q&A items.
BreadcrumbList without full URLs. Using relative paths like "item": "/blog/" instead of absolute URLs like "item": "https://www.example.com/blog/" causes validation errors. BreadcrumbList item values must be absolute URLs.
Multiple conflicting schemas. If a page has two Article JSON-LD blocks (e.g. one in a CMS template and one injected by a plugin), GSC will flag both. Each page should have exactly one block per schema type, or use @graph to combine them cleanly.
Test Your Structured Data Directly
Free, no signup. The Schema Markup Tester extracts and validates JSON-LD, Microdata, and RDFa against 18 schema.org types — showing the exact same errors you'll see in GSC before you deploy.
Try the Schema Markup Tester Free →Affiliate disclosure: Some links on this page may be affiliate links. We only mention tools we've personally used and have an honest opinion about. Affiliate revenue helps keep ByteWaveNetwork's tools free and maintained. We are not paid by any of the tools compared in this article for favorable coverage.