• http://twitter.com/tedives Ted Ives

    Danny – seriously, Voyager?  I think you’re a fanbase of one!

    Kirk rules, Janeway drools!

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Nope. Janeway’s the most bad-ass captain of them all. Seriously!

  • daveintheuk

    “Wherever we can get our hands on structured data, we add it.” — This
    is why Google wants you to mark up your data with Schema.org (Google’s
    intent, and attitude towards others and their data are often exposed by wonderful little quotes
    like this – how I miss Schmidt).

    Of course Google dangle the carrot of rich snippets in front
    of publishers, but the simple truth is they want you to make the information you
    have researched, written and curated machine readable so they can steal
    it, aggregate it, serve it and monetise it. As stated in the article above, they intend to do this more and more. This happens at the expense of publishers, it is ridiclous to suggest that it won’t do. Google is slowly bleeding publishers dry.

    It also serves to highlight the continuing hypocracy we see from Google where they lecture websites to produce “compelling” rich content and continue to churn out rubbish themselves (Places, the thin affiliate Credit Card “ads” etc). How does scraping Wikipedia and serving the page up in SERPs add value?

  • http://twitter.com/TINYVOX TinyVox: Tweet Sound

    Not a mention of LIFE IN HELL in the Groening panel ?  What kind of disinformation vector is this ??!   :D   Seriously, this is a fantastic article on a major Google innovation.  U DA MAN

  • http://twitter.com/levi_wardell Levi Wardell

    I have a hard time buying that they won’t show this new feature if there are ads for the fact someone is searching for. I do agree that they will never replace potential money making ads with this box, they will just replace something else…like organic listings that currently show above the fold.

    Danny, did anyone ask about the value the knowledge graph will have/not have on organic optimization? Will results be adjusted to show a diversity related to the box shown to the right?

  • http://www.OfInteresttoMe.com/ Matt

    Oh yay, another cool search feature that’s only available to fucking Americans. 

  • http://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe Joe Youngblood

    So Google is now wikipedia?

  • http://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe Joe Youngblood

    Exactly. Google doesnt want to spend time getting their own data, doing research and building a corpus. They want to take yours from you at the expense of your time, enery and bandwidth. Remember Mocality in Africa? Why is this any different? Because Google is using your data and bandwidth to bolster their engine and cut off traffic to your site? (unless you use paid ads of course) Where is the outcry from Jimmy Wales? Or is he on the payroll for this violation of websites rights?

  • http://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe Joe Youngblood

    Danny,

    My problem with this, even if the supposed impacted sites dont get traffic from Google, is:

    When Google spiders content to determine rankings that can help websites earn traffic and revenue. That content is kept private (to Google) and in most cases on what is asked to be displayed (meta description, title, etc..) is.

    When Google scrapes marked up content to put on their page and not drive traffic it costs the website owner money in bandwidth and lost traffic and lowers their income from organically driven advertising.

  • RussellF

    In the case of the failed “Knol”, Google was at least good enough to offer an ad revenue share program for content providers. I hope that they do the same for this. Wikipedia is a good example. That site’s content (provided by its users) appears on many of the examples of Google’s Knowledge Graph. Wikipedia’s business model involves begging its user base – similar to public radio or tv – to pledge donations. Perhaps Google should at least help Wikipedia cover its costs if not more.

  • Grimmjow

    Google is evolving the way a search engine is expected to evolve. Do you want to see a list of links for the rest of your life or you think wolfram alpha, google and siri all are doing it wrong? This is the way it should be done, people will find other ways or making up for those lost hits.

  • demadrid

    Just as the search engines “inevitably” include more and more stuff harvested from the web into search results without sending traffic back to the original source, more and more webmasters will inevitably start blocking large portions of “harvestable” content from search engines.

    A good rule of thumb: if your page contains a table, you might be better off hiding it from Google and Bing. (WolframAlfa is an easy case because it started out on that premise. So, I am assuming most sensible people blocked it right out of the gate. Google is tricker, but keep working on your scheme, guys and you’ll get there, too!)

    One obvious trick that can be used (feel free to comment, BTW): valuable data – e.g., tabular data – can be turned into an image and that image placed in a directory that is off-limits to Google/Bing. I expect this sort of techniques to become standard practice in the coming years as more and more site owners realize they are being dispossessed of their content and reduced to the role of unpaid interns sifting through and “organizing the world’s information” for Google’s profit.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    I don’t quite get what you’re saying, but I supposed you could just not mark-up your pages.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    They intend to show ads still. They just have different formats for exactly how they are shown, apparently. There was no mention of trying to have the knowledge pane somehow add more diversity to a page.

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

    Danny when i search in Google about 
    Sir Isaac Newton, Knowledge graph not to show

  • http://twitter.com/mosesbet adam

    Danny, do you not think Google is getting too liberal with the content and information that Google is starting to scrape from web masters?  

    Google are bringing out a new hotel finder tool which basically scrape information and reviews from the big affiliate hotel comparison sites.  They have also done this with flights, credit cards and cinema timings from my local (Vue) cinema.  I understand Google wants to provide better results to users, but they seem to just be stealing content from webmasters and packaging it as their own.  They pluck content out of Wikipedia to show up as part of Google Answers.  Bear in mind Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation which relies on contributions from the public to run itself, it is just wrong.

    I’m also a little fed up of how Google employees and Amit Singhal in particular, sugar coats everything like he’s a humanitarian.  He is a stats geek working for an advertising company, yet seems to believe he is working for the greater good.  For example, he said Google decided to provide new-fangled “sponsored” ads for credit card and other information because Google felt the existing results weren’t good enough.  However, Google is not doing their own research for these products like “Which magazine”, they are just scraping information and providing minimalist info in table comparison format.  So they are not doing it for the users, just admit Google is trying to squeeze more money out of the results.

    I read in Larry Page’s recent CEO statement that they have been trying to allow people to share results in the searches since Google began.  So why have you only just launched G+ in the last year?  Google also acts sits behind their G+ product like THEY invented social networking.  But most of the stuff they provide is directly copied from Facebook – including the +1 box and the Google Share box.  

    I don’t mean to be a complete cynic but sometimes I think Google need to stop pretending they’re the perfect company and just admit they are a corporate advertising machine.  Google doesn’t want you to sign up to G+ to improve results.  That will be minimal.  Instead, they want you to sign up to G+ so they can improve their ad targeting just like Facebook does based on your age, region, hobbies, status and gender.

  • http://twitter.com/mosesbet adam

    Amit Singhal was also the same person who publicly criticised Bing in an interview because they were scraping or copying Google’s own results.  Yet he is doing the exact same thing to Wikipedia and webmasters everywhere.  This is the type of hypocrites that I’m getting fed up of from him.  

  • http://ciarannorris.co.uk Ciaran

    Is it just me or is this what Yahoo tried to do with Glue (I think that’s what it was called)?

  • http://twitter.com/ian_williams Ian Williams

    Agree completely.

    I also think – if the knowledge graph is only a ‘baby step’ – then Google might have to readdress its current legal stance of not being a publisher. If you’re putting that much content up on your domain you’re either a publisher, or a thief. So which one are you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=654642661 Jeffrey Preston

    Janeway didn’t have a cool 20th century baseball on her desk.

  • daveintheuk

    It is doing so in an unfair manner though. Just because they *can* “organise the world’s information” it doesn’t make it morally, or legally justifiable to take other people’s content and exploit it for their shareholders gain.

    Google needs to take a step back and realise that the internet, and everything on it does not belong to them and is not there to do with what they want without consent or recompense to those that produce it.

    I don’t know enough about WA/Siri to say where they get their data from – but if they are leaching it from others as Google is then they too are in the wrong.

  • daveintheuk

    Unfortunately, Google is now shackled by the legal obligation it has to maximise the return on the shareholder’s investment. There is no legal obligation for them to act morally. Mocality was a prime example of this; I am sure in time the true story behind that will come out – as it did with the WIFI gathering. I am certain these stories are just the tip of the iceberg.

    It is such a shame what has happened to Google since it went public; they used to be a company to be admired – now they are one to fear.

  • daveintheuk

    In a perverse way, I hope this puts Wikipedia out of businesses.. obviously I don’t want that to actually happen but at least it might attract enough attention that people will realise how publishers are suffering as a result of all these self-serving changes Google is making. The world needs to wake up to what Google is doing to the internet – it is sucking the life out of it.

  • daveintheuk

    I totally agree with this; it is vile the way they act as if anything on the internet is theirs to do with what they want.

    Google has become a soul-less, greedy slave to their shareholders; such a cry from the company so many webmasters used to respect and see as a partner. A a moral vacuum.

    As for Google+, it is a joke – everyone in the industry knows it… Google themselves must known it too deep down (actually, I think most of their staff do).

  • Durant Imboden

    If your site delivers nothing but simple facts (which you probably obtained from other sources), then you need to ask yourself what your “added value” is.

    Simple example: Statistics about the Golden Gate Bridge. Did you measure the bridge’s length, height, width, and how many miles of cable are in the suspension system? Did you count the number of cars that go across in a year? If not, then aren’t you committing the same sin that you ascribe to Google? And wouldn’t it make sense to create a complete package (say, an in-depth illustrated article) that can’t simply be “scraped” by a search engine or by anyone else who wants to throw together a page of public-domain facts about the Golden Gate Bridge?

  • Anthony Long

    Google’s “Knowledge Graph” sounds a lot like Apple’s “Knowledge Navigator” depicted in the video I posted here after the WSJ story broke.  Search is going to be less about keywords and blue links and more about concepts and task completion in the future.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Werner/612913547 Steven Werner

    Lol! I did a double take at that sentence. WTF?!

  • daveintheuk

    Google is just after the low hanging fruit – the simple data that is easy to harvest and requires no understanding or expertise… the simple stuff scrape and automate (sorry, “scale”). Who cares how tall people are anyway… nobody, but it an easy bit of data to capture. This isn’t knowledge, it is data. Sure it may fulfil some people’s query – or at least satisfy their thirst for a few quick facts – but it will stop them learning more and discovering great sites built by passionate, knowledgeable people; and that is shame.

    What is particularly hard to swallow for publishers is that this flies in the face of Panda and everything Google is preaching that websites must provide now to rank… Actually, if you take a step back it isn’t inconceivable that Panda was introduced to harm the sites that Google wanted to stop into the shoes of.

    This is another terrible, self-serving, amoral decision by Google.

  • daveintheuk

     No, Google is a scraper site. Stealing content from others, passing off as its own… Made For Adsense.

  • http://twitter.com/seo33 SEO 33

    Google is using its monopoly status, a backslash is inevitable, 

  • http://rexblog.com Rex Hammock

    Danny, is there any connection between this and Google’s acquisition (acqhiring?) of Apture last year. The “knowledge panels” (knowledge windows?) seem similar to the contextual boxes that popped up when a browser had the Apture extension. I can see Google integrating an option into Chrome that would allow users to hover over any word and have a Knowledge Graph window related to that term pop up.

  • Andrew Gloyns

    So many people think that Google is the web, so to the masses it would seemingly make no difference to them if Google become the web.

    Google has looked longingly at the time on site and ad revenue generated by that at facebook and this is just one more step to recouping the traffic and revenue they miss out on (or have to share) with publishers.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LXM6THXT2HFOXEWY3RN7IA2J64 James

    Only Google could steal content and be proud of it.

  • http://twitter.com/sardire Steve Ardire

    This is a nice development but what’s more important is contextual fusion of Social + Interest graphs ( Google not doing well like with G+ ) + Knowledge Graphs but not just for web ( Google ) also for enterprise information ( Google also very weak here )

  • andrewlea14

    my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85/hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for ten months but last month her payment was $16065 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more ⇛⇛⇛⇛► http://Makecash11.blogspot.com

  • Loki God From Asgard

    Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!Spammer Please Flag !!!!

  • http://www.dwtransport.co.uk/ Megan

    Man tat’s business!

  • http://www.etechmag.com/ David Jeff

    Hi Danny,

    The link which you mention in first line is 404

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not 

    add .html in end of link, thanks for wonderful article,

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

     now it’s showing , sorry, tha page you were looking for this blog does not exiest.

  • http://www.etechmag.com/ David Jeff

    Its mistake of author, who add wrong link (.html) is missing in end of URL)

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

     I know David, Thanks for the reply

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

     i liked this new idea of Google. it’ll help people to find out exact answers of their query according to Mr. Amit Singhal, people will search more and more, nice idea by Google to launce the Knowledge Graph. 

  • http://about.me/syednomanali Syed Noman Ali
  • http://www.cutey.co.uk/ cutey

    Looks good, great feature, quicker information to users.

  • http://searchmonkeys.us/ Karthik kumar

    I see it working in India, Matt. It’s very much there. May be you should try once again.

  • Grimmjow

    What is knowledge and what is not is a matter of opinion. Lot of people feel that Wikipedia is dumbing down the knowledge world. What i feel is that people who  want knowledge are getting fewer and fewer, which is sad. If knowledge is what a person is looking for, they should buy a book written by an author that has experienced things first hand and not just indexed half truth half error articles.

  • Grimmjow

    Google is one of the biggest donaters to Wikipedia.

  • http://www.OfInteresttoMe.com/ Matt

    Google.com is the American site. I live in Canada so I use Google.ca and Knowledge Graph doesn’t work.

  • http://searchmonkeys.us/ Karthik kumar

     I would rather see Google.com as a world-wide site (or universal? as some might say) than just an American site. Well, that’s my understanding.

  • Grimmjow

    Lot of content owners make money solely because of Google & Google Ads. People listed their websites on Google themselves, they did not ask for it, people gave it to them. The point of doing stuff *just* for their shareholders gain does not arise because that is what every user using any search wants.

    What i can agree is that Google should consider giving monetary benefit to the content owners in those knowledge panels in some way to encourage them. Not sure how that would be made to work but none the less that would be a win-win for everyone.