• http://www.seoskeptic.com/ Aaron Bradley

    Thanks Matt – interesting stuff.

    After reading this piece I looped back to the queries where I had this change myself, as one of those queries was “microsoft office” and I was somewhat skeptical that the logo displayed (if there was one) would be linked to a Microsoft Page on Google+.

    The logo did indeed accompany the result, but instead going to a Google+ Page it was linked to Logopedia. So I guess there’s at least the possibility that some of these links may point to some other place than Wikipedia, Google+ or a Google query.

  • http://www.hostingkingdom.com/ Matt @ HostingKingdom

    Just another observation here. I played around with a few queries, most logos point to a G+ profile but on a query for SEO I noticed that Moz logo don’t link to their G+ page or an image/logo site, but it links directly to moz.com (screengrab on http://tinypic.com/r/1zea69g/5)

  • Colin Guidi

    I think this move is pretty crappy on G’s part.

    SEO/brands/webmasters whoever it may be, work on getting their actual webpages to render properly in the SERPs. Now, with this move Google is controlling and adding a layer of links that take the control out of the hands of webmasters, as well as placing links to take traffic away from these organic listings (wikipedia links, several instances of the logos not going to G+ pages…).

    For right now, this is not a move I can get behind.

  • Durant Imboden

    I have a feeling that this new feature won’t be a keeper. It adds more visual clutter to Google’s already busy search results.

    As to whether it’s good or bad for site owners, my guess is that most searchers won’t use it, so it probably won’t have a lot of impact on organic search traffic.

  • http://www.epicnewmedia.co.uk/ Marty Rogers

    To be honest, I don’t think the majority of searchers will even notice it.

    I’m not concerned.

  • http://www.glynndavies.co.uk/ Glynn Davies

    I suppose anyone who clicks away wasn’t that committed to the actual result anyway (with the possible exception of accidental and curious clicks), so may not have clicked through even without this feature.

  • Jim Payseur

    So what I’m hearing is webmasters might create a Wikipedia page for their website to help get a knowledge graph pop-up.
    Certainly not all of the information is being pulled from Wiki, though. For WebMD, it has the little blurb describing the site (from Wiki), then has a Founded date (which is wrong for this company) and Awards (which aren’t mentioned on the Wiki page).

  • http://www.kyleeggleston.com/ Kyle Eggleston

    This feature will probably fizzle out over time. There’s only so much real estate on the SERPs. And won’t this distract searchers from looking at Google ads, the ultimate goal for Google? Maybe after their CTR drops 0.01% they’ll remove it.

  • Andrew Neal Jenkins

    It’s exciting to watch the semantic web develop in front of our very eyes – whether or not this works/fails, it’s neat to see Google testing new ideas. I suspect it won’t be too long before this data (in part or whole) is served along with the meta description (without clicking). Exciting times!

  • Andrew Neal Jenkins
  • Rajesh_magar

    I think these feature quite helpful for business owners at some point. As it’s like extension we using in Google adwords campaign.

    But of-course major post-impact will be like all business owner will start spamming wiki pages and that may become trouble for all search engines and users.

    What you think?

  • Andrew Neal Jenkins
  • http://www.ingenexdigital.com/ Ashlie Forchione

    Interesting. Any info on how to impact or control where the logo links to?