How might Google decide upon Who Creates Authoritative Content?
At Google and Bing, both search engines have been experimenting with relevance and search. Both have shown profile photographs of people whom you may be connected to at places such as Google+ (for Google) and at Facebook (For Bing) in search results that include them. Both may have changed rankings for those pages as well.
Google was showing authorship photos in search results for some authors who had set up authorship markup on their Google profiles and their web pages. Google also showed profile pictures in search results for some pages authored by some people that didn’t actually contain any authorship markup as long as those pages or domains were linked to by the author’s Google profile page as “contributors to”.
The author profiles would sometimes appear in front of articles appearing in search results for content written by specific authors from those “linked to” sources.
Continue reading “Has Google Decided you Create Authoritative Content for a Query?”
At Google, when you asked a question, you could sometimes get a response providing answers to questions such as:
“When was George W. Bush’s birth-date?”.
We knew that Google could answer some questions like that, even if it might have been challenging, but we didn’t have much of a clue regarding the existence of something like Google’s Knowledge Graph until 2011. The answers we would see would sometimes be regular snippets where a word such as “birth-date” might be bolded.
Our set of 17 “related patents” that I first saw mentioned in a patent I wrote about this past Tuesday, and which was granted on August 19th, appear to have been created by a team under Andrew Hogue who was tasked to create “an annotation framework” to index more objects and facts associated with them on the web, which he would discuss more deeply during the presentation The Structured Search Engine, which is highly recommended.
He also oversaw the acquisition of MetaWeb by Google and the introduction of 25 former Meta-Web staff members from the company into Google.
Continue reading “Google’s Browseable Fact Repository – an Early Knowledge Graph”
Not everything we read in a paper or in a patent from a search engine is something that happens in real life; but sometimes it is.
I like coming across a patent now and then that is dated but does a good job of describing something that happened as set out in that patent or paper.
The patent I’m writing about tonight was originally filed in 2006 and granted in 2010, and it provides a description of processes that I’ve seen first hand, and have used first hand to help people increase the number of visits they get to their offices or phone calls they get from future clients.
Google Maps a Proof of Concept of Knowledge Extraction
Continue reading “Was Google Maps a Proof of Concept for Google’s Knowledge Base Efforts?”
During a civil or criminal legal case, the prosecuting side needs to present evidence to a judge or a jury. Each individual piece of evidence doesn’t have to prove the innocence or guilt of the party being tried by itself, but the combination of that evidence has to meet a certain standard. For a criminal case, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. For a civil case, it’s a standard of more probable than not. So, criminal cases tend to require higher levels of confidence.
When Google collects information on the Web about an entity, for their knowledge vault, they want that information to be as trustworthy as possible.
If you’ve read anything about Google’s introduction of the knowledge vault, one of the points about it that stands out is that there’s a high level of confidence in the information listed. There is more confidence in the facts that are associated with entities than there might have been in the Knowledge Graph.
Continue reading “Looking at Peer Document Titles and Anchor Text when Collecting Facts about an Entity”