|Knowledge Graph mistakes - How do you correct?|
As most of you know google introduced the Knowledge graph for many search results recently. Basically, google adds a brief infographic on to the right of the SERP's.
The issue is that for more minor/uncompetitive terms, google is getting this COMPLETELY wrong. I don't want to use the exact terms I am seeing this for...but say you do a search for 'cityname' painter...and a McDonalds shows up...that is is analogous to how bad this is.
Does anybody know what the 'SEO' is behind this? What are the variables that determine what "knowledge graph" entity appears for what search terms? And is there a way to fix this?
click on the link at the bottom right of the box that say s"Feedback / More info"
I haven't seen one of those boxes with 100% correct info yet.
In several cases, I see wikipedia credited but the information not match that shown by wikipedia; however I do see the wrong information being discussed in a wikipedia talk page and noted as a common myth or misconception.
Collect screenshots - we can all lol later.
Well, I guess it's less fun when none of them are 100% accurate. I feel badly for wikipedia, Google is basically taking their site and breaking it up into pieces and is the leading cause of Google not sending you as much traffic moving forward.
|I feel badly for wikipedia |
I don't see how anyone can feel badly for wikipedia. Almost eveything on it was scraped from other sites, except that it's slightly re-worded as if somehow that makes the scraping okay. Many of the articles gradually accumulate errors (Or intentionally added mis-information) because anyone, no matter how ignorant or how biased, is allowed to edit them. But no matter how inaccurate, or how copycat, a wikipedia article is, Google automatically boosts it to the top of the rankings anyway.
At least a dozen of my articles have been scraped (but slightly re-wored) in order to create new wikipedia articles. In every case the wikipedia article soon displaced my article at the top of the SERPs and started taking most of the traffic.
Thx rustybrick...didn't see that LOL. Seems like they are at least processing my request.
Those Wikipedia articles have been imported into freebase. Are you sure they are not taking the info from freebase?
Knowledge graph is designed to keep users on Google and off websites that don't pay to be at the top of SERP's. Pushes them to Google reviews and away from Yelp and TripAdvisor. Pushes them to Google maps. Pushes them to Google plus. Webmasters are getting pushed you know where.
For anybody curious, I submitted two feedback submissions per Rustybrick's advice..and within a couple of days two of the incorrect knowldge graphs were cleaned up.
Kudos to google for their prompt response. Now if only the search engine quality and spam teams had such nice prompt customer service for inaccurate rankings...
|Now if only the search engine quality and spam teams had such nice prompt customer service for inaccurate rankings... |
Personally I'd be happy if Google In Your Language answered e-mail with something other than an automated response directing you to a forum whose last visible post dates from 2008. (This is really true. And I don't mean December 2008, either.)
Hypothesis: They've only got one really good response team, which is assigned to whichever project currently has top priority. So I guess that's the Knowledge Graph.
Happy that smithaa02 got his issue resolved, but ... it's not always that easy.
Trouble is that clicking the "Feedback / More info"-link (displayed below the Knowledge Panel) causes the UI to enter a Feedback-mode, which only allow marking/flagging a piece of information as incorrect. There is no way there to provide any feedback about what the marked/flagged information SHOULD be.
If the information, you're reporting as wrong, doesn't have an obvious right to it (to whomever inside Google who's handling feedback), then ... you can only hit Google's WebSearch support forum, and hope for help on getting it corrected.
* F&M : Wrong image in knowledge graph [productforums.google.com]
* SOAS: Trying to get our Google search results updated [productforums.google.com]
As to: Wikipedia scraping(?) No! In fact the only thing I ordinarily, and nearly always, see (displayed in Google's Knowledge Panel) from Wikipedia, is the µAbstract (which ends with a "Wikipedia"-link to the source, i.e. Wikipedia article).
If only Google did use Wikipedia as the primary source, then there'd be fewer errors in the Knowledge Graph.
Another example: Had Google used Wikipedia data, then Orlando Thomas would never have been declared dead:
* Orlando Thomas: Orlando Thomas ISN'T Deceased [productforums.google.com]
Note, There's is one bright side:
The Knowledge Panel is "hot news" for Google (and it does, at least short-term, serve a purpose of preventing Ad-blindness - preventing right side of SERP always being "just ads")
So, the Knowledge Panel does currently garner attention from Google.
In contrast to "yesterday news" like Google Movie Search [google.com]
* Wrong Showtimes being listed for our theater [productforums.google.com]
* Wrong marker for Light House cinema in Dublin [productforums.google.com]
* How can we get listed for cinema program on google.com/movies? [productforums.google.com]
|Knowledge graph is designed to keep users on Google and off websites that don't pay to be at the top of SERP's. |
I don't see it that way. The amount of bogus information on regular websites is astounding and much harder to get fixed than Google's Knowledge Graph is. Just starting to keep bad information out of the SERPs is what the Knowledge Graph is really about.
I know I'm a bit of a rebel in our community here on this issue, but I never thought Google's job was to reward the best SEO work. The fact that they often do has given me an income for many years, but that's still not why they are in business,
[edited by: tedster at 1:45 am (utc) on Feb 18, 2013]
|I know I'm a bit of a rebel in our community here on this issue, but I never thought Google's job was to reward the best SEO work. The fact that they often do has given me an income for many years, but that's still not why they are in business, |
This is going a little OT but I think the OP has been answered so I guess it's OK....
I don't see you as a rebel tedster, just a pragmatist. The conspiracy theories will always exist and it's understandable; human nature. The bottom line is that every business exists to make money for themselves. We do, Google does. Here's my opinion...
A successful business model should position itself to recognise and adapt to the ever-changing environment, minimising risks along the way. If a business fails or revenues fall, it isn't anyone else's fault other than the business for not recognising and nullifying those risks. If it's not possible, or reliant on "circumstances beyond our control", the business plan is most likely flawed. Mine's flawed. I've minimised many of the risks over the years but I can see things that could do big damage. There are probably more risks I haven't identified yet that a more astute businessman would have.
Running a business isn't supposed to be easy but IMO we are very lucky to exist early in the digital cycle where everyone is still in "pioneering" mode and opportunities exist. I suspect one day - perhaps not too many years away - operating an online business will be a far more exclusive domain, just through a process of evolution and gradual lessening of opportunities. I suspect that those who can adapt throughout that cycle may well survive.