Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?

[donford]

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?

[EGOL]

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.

[Saijo.George]

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.

[donford]

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

[Guest]

This post is deleted!