Do your forum threads identify themselves as community discussions to AI?
Confirms forum thread pages emit DiscussionForumPosting markup with author, date, and replies.
What this signal tests
We check whether your forum or community discussion threads emit DiscussionForumPosting structured data. The required fields are the author of the original post, the datePublished, and the content (the body of the post, which may include text, images, or video). Replies are emitted as comment entries, each itself a Comment object with author and content.
Why it matters for your visibility in AI
Google launched a dedicated Discussions and Forums search feature that surfaces community content for questions where lived experience matters (best running shoes for flat feet, anyone tried X medication). It indexes exclusively from DiscussionForumPosting markup. Without it, your forum content cannot appear in that feature regardless of how strong the discussion is. The broader value is letting AI tools distinguish your first-party editorial content from community contributions. An AI quoting a forum post should attribute it to the user, not to your site, and the markup makes that distinction explicit. Without it, AI tools sometimes attribute community claims to your organisation, which can be misleading or damaging when those claims are unverified user opinions. Marking forum content correctly protects your editorial reputation while still letting community content be discoverable.
Pass criteria at a glance
| Criterion | Passes when |
|---|---|
| All three required fields present. |
How we test it
We crawl pages that match a forum thread pattern (a top-level post followed by replies, on a forum or community URL) and look for DiscussionForumPosting structured data. We confirm author has a name, datePublished is ISO 8601, and content (text, image, or video) is present. Replies should be in a comment array of Comment objects with the same fields. Missing any of the three core fields fails the signal.
Show technical detection method
@type DiscussionForumPosting with required fields.
If your site fails: how to fix it
- Identify your forum or community discussion template. This applies to platforms like Discourse, Vanilla, custom community forums, and integrated community features on your site.
- Add DiscussionForumPosting JSON-LD to each thread page. The author should be a Person object with name (and ideally url to their profile page). datePublished must be ISO 8601 with timezone. Content can be plain text or include image and video objects.
- Emit replies as a comment array of Comment objects, each with its own author, datePublished, and text. Nested replies can use further comment arrays.
- Include interactionStatistic for view count, like count, or reply count if your forum tracks these. They help AI tools rank threads by community engagement.
- Make sure the markup updates as new replies are added. Stale comment arrays missing recent replies reduce the value of the markup for AI freshness assessment.
- Validate one thread URL in Google's Rich Results Test under the Discussion Forum test type.
Quick facts
| Maturity | ESTABLISHED |
|---|---|
| Weight | low |
| Category | Structured Data |
Primary sources
Related signals
Frequently asked questions
Should I use QAPage or DiscussionForumPosting for community Q&A?
Use QAPage for single-question pages where users submit one question and others answer it (Stack Overflow style). Use DiscussionForumPosting for open discussion threads without a single question (Reddit style, community forums). The structures are similar but the intent differs, and AI tools treat them differently in answer extraction.
Do I need to protect user privacy when emitting forum markup?
Only declare what is already publicly visible on the page. If users post under usernames, use the username as author.name; do not expose email addresses or other private information through the markup. The markup is the structured version of what visitors already see, not a backdoor to private data.
Will this make my forum content appear in Google's Discussions feature?
It makes you eligible. Appearing depends on Google judging your forum to have authentic community discussions with real users. Spammy or thinly-populated forums may emit the markup but still be filtered. Genuine, active communities with the markup are heavily favoured in the Discussions feature, which can be a substantial traffic channel.
Run your own scan
Run a free scan and see how your site grades across all 155 AI-readiness signals.