Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?
-
So I just had this thought, Google returns information boxes for certain search terms. Recently I noticed one word searches usually return a definition.
For example if you type in the word "occur" or "happenstance" or "frustration" you get a definition information box. But what I didn't see is a reference to where they are getting or have gotten this information.
Now it could very well be they built their own database of definitions, and if they did great, but here is where it seems a bit grey to me... Did Google hire a team of people to populate the database, or did they just write an algorithm to comb a dictionary website and stick the information in their database. The latter seems more likely.
If that is what happened then Google basically stole the information from somebody to claim it as their own, which makes me worry, if you coin a term, lets say "lumpy stumpy" and it goes mainstream which would entail a lot of marketing, and luck. Would Google just add it to its database and forgo giving you credit for its creation?
From a user perspective I love these information boxes, but just like Google expects us webmasters to do, they should be giving credit where credit is due... don't you think?
I'm not plugged in to the happenings of Google so maybe they bought the rights, or maybe they bought or hold a majority of shares in some definition type company (they have the cash) but it just struck me as odd not seeing a reference to a site. What are your thoughts?
-
Hi Saijo,
Absolutely! in fact that is exactly what I was looking for in the Information Box, I wanted to see the source of the definition. When citing a source it feels like it would look better to cite Merriam Webster rather then Google, if that makes any sense. But perhaps Google is aware of that perception and this is an effort to change it.
I know there is a difference between Snippets and the Information Box or I think Google calls it "Knowledge Graph", but when I didn't see a source my wheels started turning. I really like the Snippets as you and EGOL point out, they are extremely helpful and can be a valuable source of traffic.
Thanks guys for your thoughts,
Don
-
I have a few pages that rank with featured snippet and they bring in a lot of traffic to the site. I think that even though Google displays the content in the SERP, people click through to these sites.
-
Those boxes do not seem shady do me. I don't know where Google got those definitions. There are plenty of ways as you mentioned... license them, purchase ownership, public domain, hire authors... In all of those cases they can have an "ability" or even a "right" to display them without attribution.
I am sure that these definitions have really damaged the dictionary publishers who used to get a lot more traffic from the SERPs before these boxes started to appear. Other publishers have been hit by these types of innovations by Google, map, calculator, unit convesioin, etc.
What I don't like is Google's flagrant disregard for copyright. Most notable was their books project in which they scanned and gave free access online to millions of books often without regard to their copyright status (public domain, in copyright but out-of-print, in copyright and in-print). Google did this with premeditated strategies and tactics to claim "fair use". Google's publication of these books is not as convenient to use as a hard copy or digital file but lots of people can get information that they need from someone's intellectual property without the need to buy it.
One thing that I do like is featured snippets. These allow webmasters who know how to be placed in them an ability to gain topSERPs position for very difficult queries without the need to battle in the organic SERPs. The featured snippets often go to Wikipedia, but frequently go to other websites. Featured snipped for surety bond.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google Cache
So, when I gain a link I always check to see if the page that is linking is in the Google cache. I've noticed recently that more and more pages are actually not showing up in Google's cache, yet still appear in search results. I did read an article from someone whoo works at Google a few weeks back that there is sometimes an error with the cache and occasionally the cache will not display. This week, my own website isn't showing up in the cache yet I'm still ranking in SERP's. I'm not worried about it, mostly whitehat, but has there been any indication that Google are phasing out the ability to check cache's of websites?
Algorithm Updates | | ThorUK0 -
Does cached duplicate content hurts seo by Google
If we have duplicate content or pages cached in Google which has been indexed months back, still it hurts the original pages? Old URLs with cache can be seen now in Google when we search for the same URLs.
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google Algo Update
Hi I'm trying to look into how the update in Oct - Nov affected our site. It's positive with us ranking for more keywords, but I wondered if anyone knew what had changed. For example, one of our pages ranked for 291 keywords in October, now it ranks for 406 keywords. We've done nothing to this page in that time. I just want to try and understand what's happening with the algorithm a little more (although I'm sure everyone does :). Does anyone have any insights? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
What Ranking Factors Impact Google News Visibility?
I'm just at the beginning of a new analysis involving Google News visibility and ranking factors, and thought I could put the project out to you, dear SEO geniuses, to get your ideas and perspectives. Backgrounder: My company operates over 50 niche, disease-specific daily news sites, covering science, research and advocacy news about specific diseases. Virtually all of them are in Google News. They range in age from 3 years old to 3 months old. Varying degrees of page rank / authority Content on the site is completely niche to specific diseases, and we have a lot of sites for rare and orphan diseases. Most of the content is news, but we also have info/resources pages, blogs, and some short-form posts made for use in social media. The Project: I want to do an analysis of keywords in our news headlines and see how certain keywords correlate with articles that do well -- both in terms of search traffic and overall with users. Going to use our Multiple Sclerosis News Today website. Most of our search traffic comes from Google News. What I hope to gain: I'm curious to see if certain sets of keywords that relate to the disease, to therapies, etc. drive the most traffic. I want to compare these keyword lists to how well we rank in organic search for the same keywords (via news articles or info pages) to see if there is a connection. I want to also create a working keyword list of the best-performing keywords in the news as a way of cross-pollinating content production on our blogs, info pages, social content, etc. I want to increase my knowledge base of ranking factors specific for Google News. The last point is really something I wish I knew more about. I feel like there aren't many knowledge resources out there about Google News. Is it safe to assume that the same on-site and off-site SEO best practices that govern organic search engine visibility are at play in Google News, or are there independent factors as well? I'd love to get your thoughts. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Michael_Nace0 -
Increase in impressions reported by Google Analytics
Because Universal Analytics (and Google Webmaster) only stores SEO data for 3 months, I've been downloading SEO data (from the Acquisition tab of Analytics) to get a record of how impressions, clicks, CTR etc are changing in the long term (our business is seasonal, so these long-term patterns are important). Today, I downloaded data for September, and found a very large increase in the number of impressions compared to previous months. I looked back at the data for August, which I've already downloaded, and found that Analytics is now reporting much higher numbers of impressions than I have in my downloaded data. The total number of impressions has roughly doubled, and the increase for individual URLs varies, with some increasing by a factor of 10. The number of clicks has also increased, by about 15% in total. Because of the 3 month cut-off, I could only look back as far as the 11th of July, but the impressions for the end of July are also much higher than in my downloaded data. I've noticed that Analytics has changed some other details in its reporting of SEO data. For example, the impressions and clicks data is no longer rounded. Could this increase in impressions be a result of those changes? Has anyone else experienced something similar? We can go ahead and use the new data but it will throw our analysis off for past months (which have the lower numbers). If others have experienced something similar it would be good to know, so that we can adjust our historical numbers accordingly.
Algorithm Updates | | MargotLoco20 -
Are Google algos different between .co.uk and .com?
I have a site that is starting to rank well (top 10 to top 50) for dozens of keywords in Google.co.uk but very little traction in .com. Google.com is the primary market. Webmaster tools is set to US, less than 1% of links to the site are the UK TLD or hosted in the UK. Keywords I'm ranking for in UK are medium to high competition with up to 16k exact search volume per month in the US. I just started to get ranked for these keywords in .co.uk in the past week, and I do rank for some long tail keywords in google.com. I have a handful of keywords ranking in google.ca and google.fr as well, but next to nothing for google.com. I have been building links for one month. I can think of a few possible explanations: - There is a delay in updating the rankings for Google.com and the rankings similar to my .co.uk rankings will come soon - Google.com vs .co.uk use a different algorithm - My site is penalized in .com only Of course, there is no way to be sure what the reason is, but what do you think is the most likely? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | kentaro-2569290 -
Changes in Google "Site:" Search Algorithm Over Time?
I was wondering if anyone has noticed changes in how Google returns 'site:' searches over the past few years or months. I remember being able to do a search such as "site:example.com" and Google would return a list of webpages where the order may have shown the higher page rank pages (due to link building, etc) first and/or parent category pages higher up in the list of the first page (if relevant) first (as they could have higher PR naturally, anyways). It seems that these days I can hardly find quality / target pages that have higher page rank on the first page of Google's site: search results. Is this just me... or has Google perhaps purposely scrambled the SERPS somewhat for site: searches to not give away their page ranking secrets?
Algorithm Updates | | OrionGroup1 -
Today all of our internal pages all but completely disappeared from google search results. Many of them, which had been optimized for specific keywords, had high rankings. Did google change something?
We had optimized internal pages, targeting specific geographic markets. The pages used the keywords in the url title, the h1 tag, and within the content. They scored well using the SEOmoz tool and were increasing in rank every week. Then all of a sudden today, they disappeared. We had added a few links from textlink.com to test them out, but that's about the only change we made. The pages had a dynamic url, "?page=" that we were about to redirect to a static url but hadn't done it yet. The static url was redirecting to the dynamic url. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | h3counsel0