Star ratings in Google

Stars in a Google result come from structured data on the page being reviewed, about a specific thing, served from the domain of whoever is being reviewed. That means your domain, your product page, your HTML. A testimonial page hosted by us, on our domain, cannot put stars next to your listing — not because we have not built it, but because that is not how the mechanism works.

So Laudiance generates the block and you paste it. Go to Share in your dashboard, name the product, course, book, app or event being reviewed, give its address on your site, and copy the snippet into that page. That is the whole feature.

The reviews have to be visible on the page you paste into. Structured data describing content a visitor cannot see is the definition of misleading markup, and it is what gets a site penalised. Embed the widget on that page too, or paste the testimonials in as text. Do both and you are fine.

Only include reviews about that thing. If somebody praised your support team, their words do not belong in markup that claims to review your scheduling app. The filters in the generator exist so you can pick the right slice.

Every competitor in this category will happily emit an aggregateRating— a machine-readable claim that says "4.9 out of 5, from 128 reviews". Laudiance does not, anywhere, on any surface, and this is a permanent decision rather than a missing feature.

The reason is simple enough to check yourself. Your published testimonials are the ones you approved. The inbox has an approve button and a reject button, and you use both, correctly — that is what moderation is for. An average over the set that survived that process describes your editorial taste. An aggregateRating claims to describe what customers think. Those are different statements, and only one of them is true.

No threshold fixes it. A minimum of fifty published testimonials is still fifty testimonials you chose. A disclosure does not fix it either, because the disclosure is for humans and the claim is for machines. Including the rejected ones would fix it in theory and is impossible in practice: we hard-delete on request, so the honest population no longer exists.

There is also a self-interested reason, and we would rather state it than pretend to pure motives. A manual action for spammy structured markup lands on the domain that serves the markup. Wall of Love pages are served by us, so one bad graph would degrade every customer at once. We are not putting your search visibility behind a number we know to be shaky.

Google's review snippet documentation excludes what it calls self-serving reviews. The wording matters, so here it is close to verbatim: reviews about a business are not permitted for the LocalBusiness and Organizationtypes when they are placed on that business's own site, whether directly in its structured data or through an embedded third-party widget.

That last clause describes this product category exactly. It is why the snippet we generate reviews a product and never your company as a whole, and why our embed widget injects no structured data into your page at all. A widget cannot know what your page is about, it renders whichever slice you configured rather than everything, and markup added to your DOM after the fact puts our bytes behind a claim nobody at your company approved. A static block you can read before you paste is better on every axis.

Nothing, by default. Your Wall of Love is noindex until you switch search visibility on in Settings, which is a paid feature. Markup on a page search engines are told to ignore is decoration.

When you do switch it on, the page carries two nodes and no more: an Organization pointing at your own website, and a CollectionPage saying what the page is and who it is about. No reviews, no ratings. That helps search engines and AI crawlers understand that this page belongs to your business, and it makes no claim that could be wrong.

One thing to expect so that nobody later reports it as a bug: paste an opted-in wall URL into Google's Rich Results Test and it will say no items detected. That is the correct result. Rich Results Test only reports markup eligible for a visual search feature, and an honest Organization plus CollectionPage is not. The Schema Markup Validator will show both nodes with zero errors, which is the check that applies.

A product page on your site, with real testimonials visible on it, carrying the Review block from the Share page. Collect enough of them that the page is genuinely useful, keep the markup matching what a visitor sees, and let Google decide. Nobody can promise you a rich result — any vendor who does is selling you the promise, not the result.