• daveintheuk

    These units do not contain knowledge (look it up in a dictionary) – they simply contain data.

    Does Google add significant value to this data? Would a “knowledge graph box” pass the same demanding and constantly changing set of rules that webmasters content has to get to rank post Panda? I very much doubt it.

    The reason Google has been lecturing publishers that they must add value and build deep sites is because they have decided to go after the “low hanging fruit” and carve off all the queries that can be answered by scraping/automation themselves.

  • http://www.maxminzer.com/ Max Minzer

    I find Knowledge Graph very relevant. Don’t understand the criticism.
    Don’t see a point of including official homepage there.

    Definition of Knowledge Graph: a huge collection of the people, places and things in the world and how they’re connected to one another.In other words – social.

  • MichelleRobbins

    Extremely disingenuous to call this a “knowledge graph” when they certainly know they are not populating the results with the most relevant information. They should be more transparent and call it the “Google Graph” as they are no longer simply organizing the world’s information, but are also rather subjectively deciding which information the users need to see, based on their own corporate goals. I agree with Matt – it’s their sandbox, we can all take our toys and go home at any time. However, to position itself as the authoritative search engine when it comes to relevancy while providing such subjective “knowledge” is specious.

  • MichelleRobbins

    If social is the key – why does the Mariners logo link to their Google+ page, where only 4,000 people have the Mariners in their circles and they have 4,100 +1s vs. the Mariners’ Facebook page? Where almost half a million people have liked them? In reviewing the activity on both platforms, the average FB post gets in excess of 500 likes (many in excess of 1-2,000); the average G+ post gets less than 10 +1s or shares.

  • http://www.maxminzer.com/ Max Minzer

    Michelle, did you read my last paragraph?

  • http://www.rustybrick.com/barry Barry Schwartz

    I see it as Google attempting to bring in web results, structured data and social data all into one picture.  Calling it a knowledge graph, well – whatever.  But this UI will be changing a ton in the next 3 years – that is for sure. 

  • http://twitter.com/Nathan_Safran Nathan_Safran


    Good post.

    “…will users expect to get links to search results there? or will they expect to be linked to the official Safeco Field page? or, since Wedge doesn’t have an official site, will they expect to be linked to his Wikipedia page or his bio on the Mariners website?I don’t know the answers to those questions.”Yes you do :-).  Users expect to get to a web page, not G+.

  • MichelleRobbins

    That last paragraph was not there when I made my comment. Also, Google can and does index public data on Facebook & Twitter. Do some searches at Google (eg “max minzer on facebook” or “max minzer on twitter”) and you’ll see. 

    I don’t dispute that they have the right to show whatever they wish in their results – or to rank things as they see fit. I simply think they should be honest about that – that they are not objectively showing the best quality, the most relevant. 

  • http://www.maxminzer.com/ Max Minzer

    I do know that they index things that they can on Facebook and Twitter (and Facebook/Twitter profiles normally rank better than Google+ – referring to recent outcry that they are not).

    However, if you were following 2011 social news you’d know that Facebook, and Twitter for that matter, blocked Google to index people’s public posts on their networks. 

    So, when I publish something publicly on Facebook, Facebook doesn’t let Google index that public post, which is stupid.
    Hence, no social data for Google which makes no sense from search engine standpoint today. Which forced Google to hurry up with Google+. 

    My point is (with that last paragraph of mine) – this is much larger issue than Google+ has 4000 and Facebook has 500k. That’s just a tiny piece in the huge picture which will take a lot of time to elaborate on and it’s not for this post. Might want to research that more.

    I’d love to see Facebook & Twitter in Knowledge Graph as well but Facebook & Twitter boycotted Google, blocked all the data they could for the past year or so and made that move impossible.

  • Leena Seo


    SEO Company

    SEO Company Increase your Ranking with Best SEO Guaranteed Ranking
    in 1 SEO Service Company, Website Promotion, On page and off page
    optimization Service.

  • Leena Seo
  • Scott McKirahan

    I am continually amazed at people who think that Google has any obligation to show anything in their results pages. It’s just a website, albeit an HUGE one that has taken the world by storm. Nobody has to use Google; there are numerous competitors.

    The alluded to federal lawsuit is ridiculous. How in the world the federal government has ever gotten to the point where they think they have a right to tell a business what it can and cannot promote “out of fairness” is an affront to liberty.

  • MichelleRobbins

    Thank you for taking the time to reply to me with insults . It’s helpful. I do keep up, and my point is that with the data Google does have available, it could provide better, more relevant “knowledge” – it is choosing not to. The reasons that it is choosing not to do so do not matter where the issues of relevancy, and best data available  are concerned. And that was my point.

  • http://www.maxminzer.com/ Max Minzer

    Michelle, I honestly didn’t intend any insults. If you felt insulted or it sounded like it – I’m sorry.

    That’s just a discussion/opinion on topic that doesn’t make much change; not worth any insults.

  • totnuckers

    “Mariners logo link to their Google+ page ”
    Ask Facebook to open their data to Google. They open it to Bing why not to Google? You’re an obvious Google hater.

  • robthespy

    Google+ has been replaced by Google$.  Why display UGC when you can send searchers into a continuous loop of Adwords ads?  ;)

  • MichelleRobbins

    Google has access to lots of Facebook data. As I recommended to Max above, doing a few cursory searches will show you that. I’m not a Google hater – I personally know quite a few incredibly bright human beings that work there, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for many of accomplishments of the ‘plex. But I’m neither a Google sycophant, and I think they’ve lost the mission.

  • http://twitter.com/sidetweet Side Tweet

    the link to mariners.com is on the left where the search results are.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    And on the right, the link from the logo in the box leads to the Mariners on Google+. That’s kind of the point — if you’re going to point occasionally outbound from the knowledge box, it’s not crazy to think you might point to the official site too.

  • http://twitter.com/BIGELLOW Bob Bigellow

    You know that the information in the Knowledge Graph boxes aren’t paid for, right? Those aren’t ads.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cwtct Chris Tucker

    must be fun to be able to play around like that…

  • robthespy

    It’s all about keeping users on Google.

    The KGB links aren’t paid…but they often lead to SERPS w Adwords. Do you think that will increase or decrease over time?


    Could it be a case of Trademark?  Google is following the link to the location of the picture.  I’m not sure they can pull those pictures from official sports teams’ websites.

  • http://www.gg2.net/ Garavi Gujarat

    Welcome for Knowledge Graph.

  • http://www.easterneye.eu/ Eastern Eye

    Google+ is still playing it’s role in SEO.

  • http://twitter.com/AlesiaKrush Alesia Krush

    As for me, even though I wasn’t at all thrilled by SPYW, I like the Knowledge Graph idea. I think it will be similar to the video suggestion feature on YouTube or the movie suggestion feature on Netflix. I find that very helpful, because it lets you discover things you’d probably never discover, since you don’t even suspect they exist and don’t know the names for them. 

  • http://twitter.com/Zen2Seo Giuseppe Pastore

    Google+ links are completely unuseful. What a great user experience visiting Zuckemberg empty google+ profile!

    Anyway it only mantain searchers on Google pages increasing chances they can click on an ad during the search session

  • http://www.facebook.com/seo.jaipur Seo Jaipur

    I live in India Knowledge Graph is Not Live

  • Aditi Datta

    Thanks Matt for providing this useful information with us!! I did not know about this before and right from this post, I have come to know about this knowledge graph. I think it is good. Getting Google+ results aside in the search box will help to get the attention of the searched people. But somehow, this knowledge graph is also very relevant. Thanks once again for the share!!
    Aditi Datta

  • robthespy

    A search for “White Sox” displays the official team site “below the fold” on my iPad.

  • http://twitter.com/SocialJulio Julio Fernandez

    The knowledge “panels” are useful when you are searching for local content. The links under “points of interest” when you search for a city are a great discovery tool, even if they take you to another Google search query. During our tests, we found several local attractions that are part of the “people also searched for” results and if you click their panel, you reach a new panel with Google Places data. Let the Knowledge Graph Optimization begin ~ KGO is the new SEM!

  • ClaytonEsperanza

    my neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $60 hourly on the laptop. She has been without a job for six months but last month her paycheck was $15408 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more CashLazy.&#99om

  • David Hitt

    You write: “… I do know that, when a Knowledge Graph box about the Seattle Mariners doesn’t contain a single link to Mariners.com, and has several internal Google links instead, critics have an opportunity to continue accusing Google of promoting itself at the expense of relevancy…”

    I see your point but I’m sure Google would respond that, in the case you cite and in most cases. the link to the relevant homepage is the first organic result (I’m also getting rich snippet scheduling information to boot, which are linking out MLB…) So, I think Google’s answer is that they are supplementing organic SERPs with relevant information. And, for me at least, referring out to another organic search doesn’t seem as blatantly self-promoting…

    Really nice article; it is a brave writer to author a post on topics that Google seems to change the relevance of so frequently!

  • KramerEdward77

    my buddy’s step-mother makes $62 hourly on the internet. She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $20978 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more here ====>> ⇛⇛⇛⇛► http://enternet-Job.blogspot.com

  • john2004

    Easipedia would like to congratulate Google for their introduction of the Google Knowledge Graph
    in their search results. We like their Knowledge Graph because it will
    give internet users quicker and wider access to all kinds of
    information. We also like it because we’ve been doing the same thing since 2009. See Easipedia in action at:http://easipedia.net/index.html