Google Launches Knowledge Graph To Provide Answers, Not Just Links

Hinted at for months, Google formally launched its “Knowledge Graph” today. The new technology is being used to provide popular facts about people, places and things alongside Google’s traditional results. It also allows Google to move toward a new way of searching not for pages that match query terms but for “entities” or concepts that the words describe.

Knowledge Graph? “Graph” is a technical term used to describe how a set of objects are connected. Google has used a “link graph” to model how pages link to each other, in order to help determine which are popular and relevant for particular searches. Facebook has used a “social graph” understand how people are connected. “Knowledge Graph” is Google’s term for how it is building relationships between different people, places and things and report facts about these entities.

Big Change, Subtle Appearance

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal wrote about the coming change. At the time, I felt what was described seemed more an extension of things Google had already been doing rather than a dramatic shift. Now having seen it first-hand, I stand corrected. The WSJ had it right. This is indeed a big change in line with other major launches like Search Plus Your World last January and Universal Search in 2007.

Big change, but I don’t think it’ll be a shocking change to most Google users who will begin seeing it over the coming days on, if they’re searching in US English.

Google will still look largely the same as it does now. Knowledge Graph information flows into new units — they have no official name (and I did ask), so I’ll call them “knowledge panels.” These panels appear to the right of Google’s regular results, rather than disrupt those familiar links:

Knowledge panels don’t always appear, only showing up only when Google deems them relevant. But when Google does think they’re relevant, they’re a pretty cool search exploration tool. When the head of Google Search, Amit Singhal, let me play with the new system following his keynote talk at our SMX London show yesterday, I couldn’t help but think of it like a form of StumbleUpon or channel surfing for search.

Fact Surfing

A search for Star Trek brought up a panel that included a reference to Star Trek: Voyager, my favorite of all the series. Jumping to explore that, the Voyager box included a reference to Babylon 5, another favorite sci-fi show of mine. Jumping to that box, there was a reference to Claudia Christian, who wonderfully played one of the main characters in Babylon 5, Susan Ivanova. I surfed over for a look.

If you’ve ever started reading a Wikipedia page and then gotten lost jumping from one topic to another, that’s the experience I think many are about to discover with Google. You’ll not only discover answers to factual questions, but you’ll likely quickly explore more than you had planned and have fun doing it.

3.5 Billion Facts About 500 Million Objects

Google says it has compiled over 3.5 billion facts, which include information about and relationships between 500 million objects or “entities,” as it sometimes calls them. In general, entities are persons, places and things. You know, nouns.

In particular, these are just some of the categories of objects Google has facts about:

  • Actors, Directors, Movies
  • Art Works & Museums
  • Cities & Countries
  • Islands, Lakes, Lighthouses
  • Music Albums & Music Groups
  • Planets & Spacecraft
  • Roller Coasters & Skyscrapers
  • Sports Teams

Again, those are just some of the categories. The relationships are also as important as the facts. The relationships allow the Knowledge Graph to know which actors to list for a particular movie or which spacecraft have visited  a planet.

The Most Popular Facts

How do you keep from getting overwhelmed with useless facts? Google picks out the facts for each object that are most sought in relation to that object.

“We are showing all the things that people look for in a given query,” Singhal told me.

Consider these two knowledge panels, one for Simpson’s creator Matt Groening, the other for architect Frank Lloyd Wright (you can click to enlarge):

For both, you’re told when they were born and where they were educated. After that, the remaining facts shown differ.

Only Groening has facts about his parents and siblings listed. Why? Look closely at the names: Margaret (Marge), Homer, Lisa. Groening named characters after his own family. Looking at searches related to Groening, Google can tell these are commonly sought answers.

For Groening, the books he’s authored are listed. For Wright, his famous buildings are. That makes sense. People are far more interested in structures by Wright than by books by him. Indeed, Google’s autocomplete suggestions — which are based on the most popular terms related to a core search topic — reflect this:

I found it fascinating to see what was shown, as I ran through various classes of searches. For Disneyland, popular rides were shown. For a ride like Space Mountain, the duration was shown (really, only 3 minutes?). For an astronaut, I was shown the missions and overall time they’d spent in space (how cool to have that as a fact about yourself). For Buckingham Palace, the size of floor space was listed. For Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg, their estimated net worth was shown.

Each knowledge panel has a “People also search for” area at the bottom which lists related people, places or things. Again, the relationships are determined by looking at search data. People who search for Groening, for example, often search for David X. Cohen, who co-created Futurama with Groening.

For search marketers, or anyone interested in how people search, these panels have become another great discovery resource along with keyword research tools like Google Trends, Google Insights, Google Correlate or the AdWords Keyword Tool.

Facts But Not Actions

One thing I found lacking was that the knowledge panels I saw often lacked links to let people take actions related to these objects. For example, one of the popular things people want in relation to Buckingham Palace is to book tickets for tours. However, the panel had no options for this.

In contrast, the new “Snapshots” announced (but still about a week from going live) as part of Bing’s relaunch last week are heavy on trying to help people do things like book tickets or reservations.

Why not have actions?

“We will, of course, explore that, but right now, we just want to take it out and see how it works,” Singhal said.

Occasionally you can take actions via the links to some of the source providers of facts, as with some music searches that might credit Songkick or StubHub.

Which Andromeda Did You Mean?

For some searches, there may be more than one entity that Google has facts for related to a search. In these cases, rather than make the wrong guess, Google will put up a “See results box” as shown below for Andromeda:

Andromeda could mean, in Google’s Knowledge Graph, the galaxy, the TV show or the Swedish band. This box, also known as a disambiguation box, allows people to make the right choice.

Where Do The Facts Come From?

How does Google know any of these facts? Google Squared was an initial attempt in 2009 to extract facts from the web. Google still has that technology, but the service was never that impressive on accuracy and closed as standalone site last year.

Rather, it was Google’s purchase of Metaweb in 2010 that really jump-started the Knowledge Graph. Metaweb was building both the relationships and, though Freebase, a database of facts.

Since that time, Singhal said Google’s massively grown the fact database. Contributions happen with Freebase, but data also comes from publicly-available sources like Wikipedia and The CIA World Factbook and even information out of Google Books. Beyond that, Google also licenses data from others.

“Wherever we can get our hands on structured data, we add it,” Singhal said.

Fixing Bad Data

Drawing from Wikipedia and other public sources means that there’s no guarantee that the facts are accurate. That’s why the knowledge panels on Google all have a “Report a problem” link at the bottom.

If you click on that, you can then indicate if any particular fact is incorrect. Singhal said that Google will use a combination of computer algorithms and human review to decide if a particular fact should be corrected

If Google makes a change, the source provider is told. This mean, in particular, Wikipedia will be informed of any errors. It doesn’t have to change anything, but apparently the service is looking forward to the feedback.

“They really are excited about it. They get to get feedback from a much bigger group of people,” Singhal said.

Will Publisher Traffic Drop?

Search engines have increasingly moved toward showing direct answers in their results over the years. Such efforts have worried some publishers, leaving them wondering if they’ll be left out of receiving search traffic. After all, if search engines provide answers right within their results, why would anyone click away?

Google’s Knowledge Graph is going to massively increase the number of direct answers shown, which will almost certainly renew concerns.

Singhal’s response is that publishers shouldn’t worry. He said that most of these types of queries, Google has found, don’t take traffic away from most sites. Part of this seems to be that the boxes encourage more searching, which in turn still eventually takes people to external sites.

Still, some are going to lose out, he admits. But he sees that as something that was going to happen inevitably, anyway, using a “2+2″ metaphor. If people are searching for 2+2, why shouldn’t Google give a direct answer to that versus sending searchers to a site? By the way, Google does do math like this already and has for years.

Below, you can hear Singhal talk more about this when asked by a member of the audience at SMX London yesterday:

YouTube Preview Image

My concern is what happens if publishers have compiled great information that someone at Wikipedia or Freebase harvests into a database. For example, if a Disneyland fan site has organized a list of ride durations by doing original legwork, what credit do they get if that data is used? Facts can’t be trademarked, at least in the US, so anyone can help themselves assuming they don’t duplicate the exact format or presentation.

Google does list credit links to places like Wikipedia. In turn, Wikipedia does give credit (albeit in a way that doesn’t help search rankings) to the sources it draws from. But that puts actual source material two clicks away from the searcher, assuming the searcher wants to go beyond the fact they already received.

This is one that has to be watched closely. As I wrote before, it seems likely the Knowledge Graph will impact a relatively small set of sites that focus on facts, sites that already likely exposing answers in their listing descriptions and so not getting traffic anyway. But we’ll see.

It’s also important to remember that the “main” results aren’t disappearing. Consider again the Frank Lloyd Wright search, this time with the knowledge panel in context with the regular results:

As you can see, links to sites outside of Google remain to the left and in the most viewed area of a search results page.

Being Included

What if you want to be part of the new knowledge panels and Knowledge Graph in general? Singhal said that at the moment, there’s no mechanism designed for sites to do this. IE, if you run a site about Frank Lloyd Wright, there’s no way to be associated as some type of suggested source for the Frank Lloyd Wright panel.

Potentially, you could head over Freebase, open an account and contribute. Of course, I’m pretty sure adding your blog to a horrible list of blogs like this isn’t going to help. Maybe other categories might be more successful, but I’d hold off, for the moment.

Tagging parts of your pages with commonly used schema might be helpful, though I wouldn’t do this solely in hopes of getting your facts into the Knowledge Graph. The articles below have more about using schema:

Ads, Mobile & Tablet Formats

Anyone familiar with Google’s ads will immediately wonder what happens when the panel shows.

Singhal said that if there are also ads along with a knowledge panel for any search, the ads will still display. Google also has different formats for when a query has a few, many or no ads. I haven’t seen these, but I’ll try to update as they become visible after the launch.

In addition, Google also uses special formats to make the panels work well on tablet and mobile devices, he said. They aren’t restricted to just desktop search, so that’s good news for those of you who want an easier time to cheat at pub and bar quiz nights.

Sadly, there’s no way to just search the Knowledge Graph directly. It only appears with regular Google Search.

The Competition

Google’s not alone in having a knowledge graph, of course. Wolfram Alpha, launched in 2009, has continued to refine its service. It got a big boost being picked as a search partner by Apple to help power Siri (even though that recently embarrassed Apple on a particular search about smart phones).

As for Bing, it has a partnership with Wolfram Alpha plus owns Powerset technology that, somewhat similar to the Knowledge Graph, tries to deeply understand the meanings of words, rather than just really match patterns of letters.

But Bing hasn’t really seemed to capitalize on either its Wolfram partnership nor Powerset. Really, the Knowledge Graph seems to be going more head-to-head with Wolfram Alpha. Does it?

“Wolfram is far more computational,” Singhal said, explaining that Wolfram Alpha’s goal seems to be finding ways that you can effectively use facts in computations.

For example, you can enter cars in california / california population into Wolfram Alpha to have it take those two facts and come up with an average (about 1 car for every two people, by the way, using 2009 data).

Google’s not trying to perform these types of calculations. The focus is instead on providing popular facts.

The Future

The big picture, of course, is that some day the Knowledge Graph won’t just be used for facts. Instead, if Google can better tag actual web pages to entities, then it can better understand what those pages are about and related to, which might increase the relevancy of its regular results.

That’s down the line, as are many other changes to the knowledge panel themselves. Today represents only a start.

“This is just a baby step, in my view, to expose this to our users,” Singhal said.

To learn more about the Google Knowledge Graph, see coverage from others across the web organized here on Techmeme, the official Google blog post, plus the official video, below:

YouTube Preview Image

Related Articles

Related Topics: Channel: SEO | Features: Analysis | Google: Knowledge Graph | Google: Web Search | Search Features: Direct Answers | Top News | Wolfram Alpha


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn


Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  


Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • Ted Ives

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

    Kirk rules, Janeway drools!

  • 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 (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?

  • 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

  • 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?

  • Matt

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

  • Joe Youngblood

    So Google is now wikipedia?

  • 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?

  • Joe Youngblood


    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.

  • Danny Sullivan

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

  • 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.

  • Seo Jaipur

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

  • 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.

  • 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.  

  • Ciaran

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

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • SEO 33

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

  • 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.

  • James

    Only Google could steal content and be proud of it.

  • 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 ⇛⇛⇛⇛►

  • 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 !!!!

  • Megan

    Man tat’s business!

  • David Jeff

    Hi Danny,

    The link which you mention in first line is 404 

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

  • Garavi Gujarat

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

  • David Jeff

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

  • Garavi Gujarat

     I know David, Thanks for the reply

  • 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. 

  • Syed Noman Ali
  • cutey

    Looks good, great feature, quicker information to users.

  • 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.

  • Matt is the American site. I live in Canada so I use and Knowledge Graph doesn’t work.

  • Karthik kumar

     I would rather see 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.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest


Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States


Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech

Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!



Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide