{"id":423,"date":"2026-10-16T00:50:21","date_gmt":"2026-10-15T16:50:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amarajeweiry.com\/moissanite-shopping-feed-attributes\/"},"modified":"2026-10-18T17:42:34","modified_gmt":"2026-10-18T09:42:34","slug":"attributs-flux-google-shopping-moissanite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amarajeweiry.com\/fr_fr\/moissanite-shopping-feed-attributes\/","title":{"rendered":"Google Shopping pour les bagues moissanite : les attributs que Google accepte vraiment \u2014 et les champs Amazon \u00e0 cesser de copier"},"content":{"rendered":"

Short answer:<\/strong> Google Shopping does not require a different attribute set for moissanite rings; it requires the same attributes used more precisely. Google Merchant Center has one attribute for material, and on a ring it carries the metal only, written the way a jeweler writes it \u2014 925 silver<\/em>, sterling silver<\/em>, 14K white gold<\/em>. Moissanite has no Google attribute of its own: it belongs in the title, in the description, and in the optional product_detail<\/em> name-and-value pairs. Ring sizes are submitted as variants through item_group_id<\/em> together with the size, color and material attributes. The fields most feed advice teaches for Google \u2014 Metal type, Gem type, Ring size \u2014 are Amazon jewelry template fields, and none of them exists in Google Merchant Center.<\/p>\n

Which attributes does Google Merchant Center actually have for a ring?<\/h2>\n

Google’s product data specification is a vocabulary list, not a questionnaire. Every attribute on it is a product-level field or a variant field, and the jewelry data a supplier usually wants to send \u2014 gem type, metal type, carat weight, clarity, setting \u2014 is not on the list under those names.<\/p>\n

The product-level set is short: id<\/em>, title<\/em>, description<\/em>, link<\/em>, image_link<\/em>, availability<\/em>, price<\/em>, brand<\/em>, condition<\/em>, google_product_category<\/em> and product_type<\/em>. A second set describes how the item looks: color<\/em>, size<\/em>, material<\/em>, pattern<\/em>, gender<\/em> and age_group<\/em>. Variation is declared separately, with item_group_id<\/em> linking the variants of one ring and product_detail<\/em> holding everything the specification has no field for. What is missing from all of it: Metal type, Gem type and Ring size.<\/p>\n

Is “Metal type” a Google Shopping attribute?<\/h3>\n

No. The metal goes in material<\/em>, submitted as one value. For our own rings that value would read 925 silver<\/em>, matching the wording on the product page; on a vermeil ring the 18K gold is a finish over that silver, not a second material, so it goes in product_detail<\/em> with any alloy detail you want filterable. For precious metals the practical habit is to state the metal in both material<\/em> and color<\/em>, because a white gold and a yellow gold ring are the same material and different colors to a shopper scanning a grid.<\/p>\n

Is “Gem type” a Google Shopping attribute?<\/h3>\n

No. There is no gemstone attribute anywhere in the specification. A moissanite ring, a diamond ring and a cubic zirconia ring all use the same attribute set; the stone is carried by free text in the title and description, and by product_detail<\/em> pairs when you want the grade to be structured. Copying Amazon’s Gem type column into a Google feed produces a field Google never reads.<\/p>\n

Is “Ring size” a Google Shopping attribute?<\/h3>\n

No \u2014 the attribute is size<\/em>. Ring size is the value, not the field name. A moissanite ring that comes in six sizes is six rows, not one row with a list. This is the single most common structural mistake in supplier-built jewelry feeds, because a spreadsheet template copied from Amazon has a column labelled Ring size and nothing that maps to the variant logic Google expects.<\/p>\n

What exactly goes in the material attribute for a moissanite ring?<\/h2>\n

The metal, and only the metal. 925 silver<\/em>, sterling silver<\/em>, 14K white gold<\/em>, platinum<\/em> \u2014 one value per item, with the predominant metal first if a piece genuinely mixes metals. A finish is not a metal: a gold vermeil ring is submitted as the 925 silver<\/em> beneath the 18K gold, and the phrase “18K gold vermeil” belongs in product_detail<\/em>, not in this value. Never combine metal and stone into one value: “925 silver and moissanite” is not a material, and it destroys the filter it was meant to serve.<\/p>\n

Two habits keep the attribute clean. Write the value the way your landing page writes it, because feed-to-page mismatches are what buyers get flagged for. And let color<\/em> carry the finish, not material<\/em>: white, yellow and rose belong in color, while rhodium plating and 18K vermeil are finish descriptions that belong in product_detail<\/em>. Gold vermeil is the useful test case, because it is a legal term rather than a marketing one \u2014 a distinction we set out in our gold vermeil guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Front<\/p>\n

Where does moissanite actually go in a Google Shopping feed?<\/h2>\n

Three places, in descending order of value: the title, the description, and product_detail<\/em>. The word moissanite itself is the disclosure \u2014 it is the honest name of the stone and it is what stops the listing reading as a diamond offer.<\/p>\n

The title carries the stone, the metal and the size<\/h3>\n

A title that survives review looks closer to a specification than a slogan: Moissanite Engagement Ring \u2014 925 Sterling Silver, Round Brilliant D\/VVS1, Size 6<\/em>. Metal, stone, grade and size in the order a buyer reads them, with no superlatives and no “diamond alternative” phrasing. Describing a moissanite as a diamond substitute in the title is not a keyword decision; it is a disclosure problem covered in the section below on natural, lab-grown and simulated stones.<\/p>\n

The description carries what the title cannot<\/h3>\n

Say the stone is lab-created silicon carbide, give the grade you actually grade to, name the setting, and list the metal and size range available. Our own production standard shows the level of detail worth including: D colour, VVS1 clarity, 3EX cut, laser-inscribed girdle, documented under a GRA certificate \u2014 the same facts we publish on the moissanite ring range<\/a> and support with laboratory paperwork on the certifications page<\/a>. No feed copy should promise a grade the certificate does not carry.<\/p>\n

product_detail is where the grade becomes structured<\/h3>\n

The product_detail<\/em> attribute takes a section name, an attribute name and a value, and it exists precisely because Google has no field for stone data. Used on a moissanite ring it might hold pairs such as material \/ metal purity = 925, stone \/ stone type = moissanite (lab-created silicon carbide), stone \/ total carat weight = 1.00, stone \/ cut = round brilliant 3EX, stone \/ clarity = VVS1, stone \/ colour = D, setting \/ setting type = prong, certificate \/ reference = GRA, and, on a vermeil piece, finish \/ finish type = 18K vermeil over 925 silver. Two honest caveats: the attribute names are yours to choose, so Google validates the structure rather than the vocabulary, and the whole attribute is optional \u2014 which is exactly why a competitor’s stone data often shows up in the free text and nowhere else.<\/p>\n

How do you submit moissanite ring sizes as Google Shopping variants?<\/h2>\n

One item_group_id<\/em> per design, one row per sellable combination, and the variation declared in the attributes Google recognises: size<\/em>, color<\/em> and material<\/em>. A ring offered in US 5, 6, 7 and 8 in both silver and gold vermeil is eight rows under one item group, all sharing the item_group_id<\/em> and google_product_category<\/em> while keeping their own id<\/em>, size<\/em>, color<\/em>, link<\/em> and image_link<\/em>. What separates the silver rows from the vermeil ones is color<\/em>, together with the 18K vermeil finish named in product_detail<\/em>; material<\/em> reads 925 silver<\/em> on all eight.<\/p>\n

Two details save a week of troubleshooting. Write sizes in one convention throughout \u2014 US 6 and US 6.5, not 6 and “size six” \u2014 and declare the size system so a bare number is unambiguous across markets. Then keep the size set identical to what the landing page offers; a variant a customer cannot add to the cart is an availability problem.<\/p>\n

Why does so much advice teach Amazon jewelry fields for Google?<\/h2>\n

Because Amazon’s jewelry classification is the most widely documented jewelry field list on the open web, and language models trained on it will describe Metal type, Gem type and Ring size as jewelry feed attributes without naming the platform they came from. On Amazon those fields are required; in Google Merchant Center they do not exist \u2014 and that mistake is now being repeated at scale by AI assistants.<\/p>\n

The cost is small at setup and large at scale. Columns Google does not read mean stone and metal data never reach filters. Worse, a “Ring size” column of values gets pasted into a description field or dropped entirely, the variant structure collapses into one oversized product, and the size filter shows nothing.<\/p>\n

How do you disclose natural diamond, lab-grown diamond and moissanite without getting disapproved?<\/h2>\n

Start from the legal layer, because it is the one with actual wording attached. Under the FTC Jewelry Guides, a laboratory-created or simulated stone may not be described with a gem name unless a qualifying term “immediately precede[s] with equal conspicuousness” the stone name \u2014 laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, imitation or simulated \u2014 and “faux” is not an adequate disclosure, as 16 CFR 23.25<\/a> states. The FTC’s guidance to diamond marketers<\/a> repeats the requirement for diamonds.<\/p>\n

Translated into feed work, three rules do most of the job. Never use the word diamond for a moissanite ring, in a title or in a product_detail value. Keep natural diamonds, lab-grown diamonds and moissanite in separate item groups with separate titles, so no automation can merge them into one filtered set. And make the feed claim identical to the claim on the page and on the certificate \u2014 the accuracy requirement behind most jewelry disapprovals is simply that the data describes the product a customer receives.<\/p>\n

One caution for lab-grown diamonds: if you sell them alongside moissanite, “cultured” alone is not a disclosure \u2014 16 CFR 23.12<\/a> requires laboratory-created or laboratory-grown wording saying plainly the stone is not mined.<\/p>\n

Fashion jewelry versus a moissanite ring: what actually differs?<\/h2>\n