Knowledge Graph shows related searches for some businesses but not others?

[Mark Stone]

Is there no consistency to what knowledge graph shows on a result page?  Seems awfully unfair that related searches are listed at the bottom of one business listing and not another, almost an advantage when there is no competitor to click over to?

[David Deering]

Actually Mark, the reason that the other KG information is not appearing for National is likely because they haven't "fed" enough information about themselves to the Knowledge Graph, whereas Google probably has much more structured data for Office Resource Group.  So on one hand, National gets more real estate on the search results page than Office, but that additional info includes links to competitors.  So, I guess there's pros and cons to both types of results.  Personally, I'd still want the full KG result for my business, regardless.  But that's just me.

David

[Mike Bergman]

I don't believe that the amount of structured data is the criterion at all. Google (and any other search engine) has its own criteria for what it considers worthy of KG inclusion or treatment (actually, I believe the structure is recorded; the question is really about display). My own web site, for example this article, http://www.mkbergman.com/1847/shaping-wikipedia-into-a-computable-knowledge-base/, has oodles of schema.org structured data, as does my entire site, and it does not display. Mind you, I don't begrudge whether or how the search engines make these decisions. The fact they are supporting it is a good thing.

Mike

[Tom Morris]

I have no inside knowledge, but I'd be surprised if "'fair' to publishers" were a design criterium.  "Good for searchers," or, more cynically, "good for paying advertisers," are more likely optimization criteria.  Besides, who's to say that it's not the late night UHF TV infomercial-style name of "National ... Liquidators" that's dinging the company's listing.

Tom