Search predictions come from:
– The terms you’re typing.
– What other people are searching for, including trending searches. Trending searches are popular stories in your area that change throughout the day. Trending searches aren’t related to your search history.
– Relevant searches you’ve done in the past (if you’re signed in to your Google Account and have Web & App Activity turned on).
Note: Search predictions aren’t the answer to your search, and they’re not statements by other people or Google about your search terms.
Search Results for: entity
Google is organizing more and more things in its index based upon entity numbers. I have a couple of examples for you that show how they are being used.
It’s possible that you may have missed a reference to Freebase Entities in a Google Research Blog post from 2013. I missed it myself. The post is
Improving Photo Search: A Step Across the Semantic Gap.
In the post, the author (Chuck Rosenberg) tells us how they improve image searching at Google by labeling images with entities, rather than text strings. The entities they used are entities that you would find at a source such as Freebase. He tells us that they use Freebase Machine ID numbers for those labels:
As in ImageNet, the classes were not text strings, but are entities, in our case we use Freebase entities which form the basis of the Knowledge Graph used in Google search. An entity is a way to uniquely identify something in a language-independent way. In English when we encounter the word “jaguar”, it is hard to determine if it represents the animal or the car manufacturer. Entities assign a unique ID to each, removing that ambiguity, in this case “/m/0449p” for the former and “/m/012×34” for the latter.
The “Buy” Button is coming to Google shopping Results, according to Recode which reported that Google Confirms ‘Buy Button’ Is Coming. (For more about a Buy Button, see also Barbara Starr‘s Google+ Post Actionable items in GOOGLE SERPS and the “buy button”). You may have seen the Moz White Board Friday this week where Rand Fishkin asked, and answered the question, Is Brand a Google Ranking Factor?
I left a comment at Moz, part of which, after some research, I’d like to retract some of. I wrote:
Added 11:48 AM (pst) May 3, 2015, H/t to Natzir Turrado, incoming news is that Google+ is introducing a new feature they are referring to as Collections, and that announcement from The Windows Club features the word “curation” prominently as do the two Google patent applications I write about in this post. Here’s how Susannah Lindsay in The Windows Club article uses the concept:
Google Plus users will get an opportunity to curate pieces of content into their collection, with others holding the permission of viewing, sharing, and following those collections as they please.
Added 12:15 Pm (pst) More on the rumored Collections feature at Google+: Google+ is Testing a New “Collections” Feature That Seems to be Part Pinterest, Part Blogging
A Google patent application explores how Google may answer factual questions from unstructured Web pages and results rather than from more structured sources such as Freebase or Wikipedia. The processes described in the patent are pretty interesting, and they might be more familiar to an SEO trained audience than a Semantic Web one, like a result that ranks well because of a “query deserves freshness” approach.
They also avoid a problem for the search engines that I’ve been thinking about for weeks.
The problem was one that came to me when I attended The Semantic Web Business and Technology 2014 conference around a month or so ago. In a presentation by Yahoo!’s Nicolas Torzec, he discussed Yahoo!’s relatively new Knowledge Graph, and was asked a question by someone from the audience about
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.