Addressing Google Knowledge Graph

[mrengine]

---

System: The following 6 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4755008.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 6:30 pm on Jun 30, 2015 (utc -5)

---

Over the past year i've been reminding people about the knowledge graph, and pointing out that we should be preparing our sites to be ready when the knowledge graph opportunity comes around.
This means there's work to do!

I don't see the knowledge graph as an opportunity but rather another step towards reduced traffic from Google's search results. Good content solves problems, answers questions and satisfies users. When Google displays snippets from our great content, Google's users get concise answers and we get much less traffic. In other more commonly understood terms, we get screwed. To classify the knowledge graph as an opportunity contradicts how it impacts independent websites.

If there is any work to do, I believe it would be best spent trying to prevent Google from snagging snippets off our site, displaying it to their users and taking our traffic with it. The last time I looked on Google they had two buttons under the text field area where we enter our keywords. One button is "I'm feeling lucky" and the other "Google search." If Google is going to serve results as a search engine, then they should use industry standard meta titles and descriptions in what they display. This gives us some level of control over our creations. Any content used in other ways should be licensed by Google to compensate those that made the contribution.

While some may see the knowledge graph as an opportunity, I feel it is an unfair use of our work.

[Leosghost]

^^^I agree with this..

[goodroi]

Knowledge graph = unfair use? Yea I wouldn't argue with that feeling.

You can ignore the knowledge graph and the other ways of connecting with Google users. What do you gain? One of your competition if not many of competition will work with Google. So your lack of participation is not going to make the knowledge graph go away. Personally I favor a more pragmatic view. Use as many ways of connecting with Google users while the faucet of "free" traffic is flowing AND do my best to convert these people into a loyal & returning audience for the eventual day that the faucet of "free" traffic dries up. Getting angry at Google and ignoring potential traffic drivers isn't a good way to generate profits IMHO.

Why not exploit the current circumstances for maximum profit and strategically reinvest those profits to protect your business in the long term?

[Selen]

Regarding knowledge graph, it's clear where it is going:

Google declined to comment publicly on the paper. But two people familiar with the company’s thinking criticized the paper for assuming that more clicks equates to better search results. For example, users searching for “the best pediatrician in Brooklyn” may be more satisfied by Google’s list of doctors with accompanying phone numbers than with links to other websites that they then have to click on and wait for as each one loads.

[bloomberg.com...]

The end game of knowledge graph is to display the maximum content / comprehensive answer without giving an opportunity for users to leave Google. That's what any website owner (including Google) would do - to keep user on their site (and if user must leave - let them leave by clicking on an ad). In result, it is hard to find any sensible opportunity in knowledge graph considering the fact it will not equal to extra visitors to your site. How can Google users connect with your site if they won't even know they consume content from your site?

[Leosghost]

Having Google take your content and put it in the knowledge graph does not "connect you with users"..you really believe that enough people will click on that light grey link that Google put in the knowledge graph to the site that they pilfered the content from to compensate for the number of visitors that the site won't get because the users are content with Google's pilfered precis ?..If so..I have a bridge..:)

If enough webmasters object to the knowledgegraph ..it may well "go away"..
"Google books" ring any bells ?..it was "rolled back" due to objections from authors and publishers..

In Europe, webmasters ( and legislators ) are not so willing to "roll over" for Google, nor to put on the special make/mark up that makes them easier for Google to violate..
But then in Europe, fewer of us webmasters bought shares in the Google IPO,( and we have a more robust legal framework concerning copyright and less of a "take the other guy's content first and claim fair use later via our powerfull and expensive lawyers" ) so we can be more objective and less conflicted in our interests and assessments of what is good for webmasters in general, and our sites in particular..

[glakes]

Getting angry at Google and ignoring potential traffic drivers isn't a good way to generate profits IMHO.

Who in the right mind would get angry at their content being republished and not gaining much, if any, traffic from it? Here's a hint - just about everyone that values the time it takes to create a worthwhile website. KG is not a traffic driver but a way for Google to steal (yes I said steal as it relates to content theft) traffic that would have otherwise went to some website in the actual organic search results. Instead, Google keeps 80% of these visitors so they can click on some paid ads that surround the KG and publishers get the leftover scraps from Google serving the content they as a publisher created. Fair? Absolutely not. Criminal? In my opinion, yes.

It's the erroneous belief that having stolen content appear in Google's Knowledge Graph is good that will help to further diminish publisher rights and perpetuate the decline in revenue that publishers rely on to exist. I would hope that more people would see what Google is doing with the KG as wholesale theft, but apparently this is not the case.

[Leosghost]

This thread has been "cut out"..so creating a new thread, but there appears to be bug ? in that the resulting new thread does not show ( at the time of me posting this ) on the recent threads page..this post is to test if posting to it makes it appear on the "recent threads page"..if not it will risk becoming "lost" to view , to anyone not already posting in it..

Edit ..Yes..now it is showing..apparently unless one posts into cut out thread..the thread shows in the category forum, but not on "recent page"..and risks getting "lost" to anyone not already aware of it..

Could need a "tweak" to te system to make sure threads don't get "lost" when they are "cut out"..:)

[edited by: Leosghost at 11:54 pm (utc) on Jun 30, 2015]

[goodroi]

@glakes Please tell me how you generated profit by getting angry at Google? Since you quoted me, I am interested to hear how getting angry at Google can make me rich.

I hope everyone can agree on the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day.

How we spend those hours is under our control. What and how Google displays on their website is not under our control. So we can spend those 24 hours being angry and complaining. We could also spend those 24 hours learning new ideas and ways of generating profit. Not every idea is going to be a good idea, but personally I would rather experiment with a bad idea that has a tiny chance of profit than spend my time on something that definitely won't make a profit.

What productive thing are you doing to address Knowledge Graph? Are you adding Google markup to your page? Are you blocking Google from your page to stop them scraping content? I don't care if you love or hate the Knowledge Graph I just want to hear what productive steps each webmaster is taking to support their site.

[Leosghost]

Not allowing Google to do this to ones content, stops them taking webmasters content, and visitors..
How does allowing them to use ones content in the knowledge graph make any profit for a webmaster?
The webmaster gets fewer visits than if they would have if the knowledge graph did not exist, and fewer visits even if they are in the knowledge graph..

The only entity that gains from the knowledge graph is Google..which is precisely Google's intention ..
"Productive steps"..?
How about not rolling over to Google's theft of content, how about complaining about it..it worked for the authors when Google tried to take their content with Google books..

That protesting and refusing to accept what Google was doing was very financially productive for authors, but not for Google..

Google books got rolled back..Google's content theft to promote their own properties is getting rolled back in many places..

Helping Google to steal your content by using mark up or just accepting the knowledge graph and trying to kid yourself and others that doing so is helping webites, is not productively supporting anyones website..

[MrSavage]

I need to watch myself in what I say here because this isn't JUST Google. It's Bing also. Partners in hand are much more (much less) accountable. What I truly believe is that the fair use rules are archaic in nature. The copyright laws are written for when mankind wrote on stone tablets. It's all just (you know what) in my mind. Who needs to scan books from libraries when you can simply pluck information with a machine and gets better at grabbing the pertinent information? Under the fair use laws? Sure, when the scope was miniscule. The laws aren't designed for something so global. I laugh at the quote from Schmidt about it where he says just Google weather for city X. You get the weather report without going anywhere! Terrific. I myself can count the times a day when I don't need to click through but get what I need from Google. I don't even do my part in support people's website! I'm a hypocrite. By the same token if I can watch a full UFC event on a video streaming website I will do the same. It's not illegal where I live to stream content. Hosting it? Who cares. There is nothing illegal in me watching streaming video. I'm not downloading. It's viewed, and it's evaporates into thin air.

Wikipedia is being used to keep people in ecosystems. Contributors to those knowledge sites are ultimately contributing or helping these baked in answer tools like Cortana and Google Now that are selling points for...phones, tablets and more! Non commercial use? Nothing to gain from using that information? LOL again. Places like Wikipedia should make it clear that your contributions are going to the benefit of Window OS, iOS and Android/Chrome OS. All that is under fair use? Again, I'm not smart, but I LOL at that fact. If it wasn't valuable, then why is keeping people on your site, in your ecosystem such a holy grail? We are all smarter than that. The laws? Stone age.

My 2 cents. As it stands, I can write. As an investable concept of competing with these corporations when it comes to my hosting of information vs. theirs? People have said become more in-depth and have articles that are not simple answers. Whelp, if I'm not answering something, then how is content useful in the first place? I doubt I'm around when this are shakes down. A lot of what I've spent time on is absolute fools gold. Non investable unless there is a change. For how I view it, the internet is all but getting replaced on a daily basis because of Google, Bing, Apple, etc showing the internet's information on their own platforms.

[edited by: MrSavage at 12:32 am (utc) on Jul 1, 2015]

[goodroi]

Authors made no money complaining about Google Books. They tried to make money when they filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.
Google won that lawsuit - [en.wikipedia.org...]
Google Books is still live [books.google.com...]

I don't like what Google did with Google Books or Knowledge Graph but it is reality.

[MrSavage]

Interesting the book scanning project. I did watch quite a documentary on that. I didn't read about Google having their way on that. I would be interested to learn updates on that saga. People don't own weather forecasts, but somebody employee meteorologists. I really just don't see an end point in it. It's like an addiction. Start with a little, get more and more because damn it's so good! If Google can do the book scanning still, would this further enforce my point about the laws not comprehending the internet and the scope?

[Leosghost]

A lot of books ( which Google had included in "Google books" without the permission of the copyright owners ) were taken out of it..and so the authors made all the money from their readers, without Google taking a cut..
So..they profited from that fight..by any definition of the word "profit"..
Remember that I said "rolled back"..I didn't say it was not "live"..
How "live" it is, depends upon where one is looking at it from..Google ( as I said before ) gets away with a great deal more outside of Europe , with regard to it's cavalier attitude to other peopes intellectual property and creations) What Google does in the USA, is ride roughshod over other people's intellectual property rights, the USA, where Google has been able to buy friends who will speak in Google's favour, and "influence" legislators in Google's favour..

"Reality" is a subjective term, it depends upon the place one is veiwing from..

Google's products and services are not the same in all countries of the world..some are restrained in many countries by laws which Google has managed to have legal or moral restraints "not applied" in the USA..

Remember this is webmasterworld..what applies to your place of veiwing"reality" does not apply to the rest of the ( webmaster's)world..

[Leosghost]

Also re "Google books" ( I do find that name "Google Books" ironic, it sums up google's attitude to other peoples intellectual property .."Google Books" ..like the books were written by or are the property of Google .."what's yours is now ours ( standard Google TOS ), and what is ours we will use or humungous legal team to keep" )..I posted the TOS to Google's photo storage and to their ( 2nd time around code store ) a few days ago..
here it is again..

When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services.

One of these days Google will no doubt tell webmasters ( probably beginning with adsense publishers ) that in allowing Google to crawl their sites..the above TOS will apply..Oh..and they'll make it retroactive..

They may even claim that webmasters using their "mark up" invokes the above TOS..and that all your content now belongs to them..

Proir to the Google Books court case the "snippets" that Google displayed of copyright works could be ( and frequently were ) the total texts and or Illustrations of the books, but cut into "snippets".. a really determined user of Google Books could load "snippet" after "snippet" from the same book, and re-assemble them into the entire book..
After the court case began , Google ceased to make the entire books available as many many snippets..

Pressure , and complaining, and not "rolling over" and not trying to delude oneself and maybe others by trying to "make an oppertunity" out of having ones content stolen by Google ..can work..

In the long term..
Which is what we webmasters are all supposed to be working for..the "long term"..

Of course Google could also just decide to scrap the Knowledge graph ..on a whim..the list of scrapped Google things ( that webmasters were encouraged to jump through hoops to be a part of )is very long..

[toidi]

Is the knowledge graph susceptible to bombing? If so, it might well be doomed.

[glakes]

@glakes Please tell me how you generated profit by getting angry at Google? Since you quoted me, I am interested to hear how getting angry at Google can make me rich.

Having stolen content displayed on another website will not make you rich either. I used to, and still do, file DMCA takedown requests because of this (huge waste of time, lost productivity and money). But because a search engine does this same thing I am supposed to happily smile as I lose traffic and whatever profits I would have made from that traffic? I think not.

Just because Google is a search engine they are not entitled to steal. And that's precisely what Google is doing with the KG.

[goodroi]

@glakes Please tell me how you generated profit by getting angry at Google? Since you quoted me, I am interested to hear how getting angry at Google can make me rich.

[MrSavage]

I can make money through anger because I'm only angry when I see practices that are killing off organic traffic from search. From that, investment into those websites ultimately is a fruitless venture. The time I save? That's profit to me. Not putting more expenses into an investment that has little future with its current/past model for generating income? That's making money in my books. Not wasting money and time is like making money.

The cynical side of me see the "news wave" as balancing out the anger issues that some of the bigger sites might have in the future and or now. It's like a virtual hand shake. People aren't going to complain, me neither, if you take from me and show in KG, but are willing to bump me to the top of the SERPS when keywords/phrases have the most meaning and the most relevancy and thus, sharing the wealth at the most important times? I'm cool with that. I'm very cynical about a certain class (buddies as it were) getting the top spots with a "news" section at the top of the organics when the traffic is at its peak times. I'm going to make a TON more traffic and ad clicks if the two issues work in unison. I won't bitch at all about my content being in the KG so long as I'm raking it in at various times (like lunch hour for a restaurant). So if CNET reviews or key tech info get more inclusion into the KG, but at the same time they see far more traffic because they are part of the "news buddy" system, then why would CNET be angry? It's all good. The only issue for me is that I don't employ a platoon of writers and don't have a 6 or 7 figures invested into my sites.

[EditorialGuy]

To borrow a phrase from netmeg, Google Search "is what it is," for better or for worse.

It's easy enough to block Googlebot if you can't accept what the "is" is.

[netmeg]

Or get out of the game, if you think it's that stacked against you. That's sure what I would (and eventually probably will) do.

There's always *LOTS* of other games.

(I can't wait to see the foofaraw that will arise when 3D printers start becoming consumer-affordable)

[jrs79]

If everyone subscribed to fatalism the world would be a bad place. I am not ready to give in.

I mentioned in another thread that I have seen the KG for transactional B2B terms and I am sure that the company whose link is in it is grateful. I would not build content for the graph, but I would enjoy the "free" traffic while it lasted.

Netmeg - If we aren't at that point with 3d printers now we are very very close.

[MrSavage]

Even though I'm a realist, I'm also smart enough to realize that this is still worth pursuing. For what I do, earning a living would be the greatest business model and existence possible. It's a vast frontier. For me it just takes knowing that a lot of what I've done is disposable. As my accountant said, Yellow Pages used to have business by the you-know-what. What happened to Yellow Pages now? Things change. That's where hope lies for me.

I need to say this regarding how a KG result somehow is terrific for some said company. This is a fact. If people require a click to a site after reading the KG, then for all intents and purposes it has failed. It's not about making more work for the searcher. It's about not having to go anywhere. If you're going somewhere? Then that KG will continue to evolve until the click through rate drops and drops. Considering the KG is text/content from one of the top 2 or 3 results, you want to discuss the traffic from a normal SERP in that instance rather than the KG at the top with your answer showing to searcher on Bing or Google pages? How can any sensible argument be made that it's better? I mean if Google puts a position 10 website content in KG then, and only then would I listen to a positive spin on it. Then again, if you're in spot 10, you're supposed to be less quality than 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.

[EditorialGuy]

Then again, if you're in spot 10, you're supposed to be less quality than 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.

Not necessarily. Relevance to the query counts, too.

[nomis5]

This thread is food for thought indeed.

If you believe that the KG is going to remain, I certainly do, don't burn your brains out fighting it. Fight to make it work for you.

The statement below concerns me because it is most likely true.

They may even claim that webmasters using their "mark up" invokes the above TOS..and that all your content now belongs to them..

If that happens, then, de facto any "marked up" content belongs to anyone, not just the search engines.

[jrs79]

Mr Savage,

I will explain a little more. The term does have more informational queries than transactional so the KG is informative (A "what is?" type of question). I am sure the KG satisfies most of the informational searches.

The transactional searchers use the same short term when looking for the services. Perhaps they feel the word "service" is inferred. Maybe they aren't even clicking on that link for their services. I do know what it is like to be in the top 3 and you get a lot of great visits.

Also, I am not saying that it is better than being number #1 at all, but this is world we live in at the moment and I would happily take the KG link if offered.

The most interesting part to me is that Google will put a site that offers the service instead of an informational or industry standard type of site. I had not seen this up until this point.