How do I rank inside the knowledge panel in the "people also search for" section?
-
Hello fellow Mozzers,
In Google's knowledge panel there is a section at the bottom that says "people also search for" and a list of competitors is displayed. I'm hoping to get some information I can use to get my client listed there on top of the local organic results. The more SERP presence, the better. Attached image should provide clarity to those who are confused. I suspect I know the answer to this question, but since I can't find a source to verify my beliefs, I'm crowdsourcing. Thanks in advance!
-
Hi Brett!
I've actually been wondering this same thing for awhile now. From what I've found, there isn't a way to specifically manipulate anything on your website with anything (i.e. schema, etc.) that will help get you in this position of the knowledge graph. At the moment, it seems like it is mostly pulling companies that are ranking prominently in the area. That being said, I would focus on getting your website to be one of the most authoritative in the area to improve your chances.
-
Thanks Miriam, you've been super helpful. For the time being I'll close this ticket but if I can get some solid data then I'll happily share the data with the Moz community in one format or another. Cheers!
-
Hi Brett,
This might be of some help https://moz.com/blog/eye-tracking-2016-how-searchers-interact-mobile-serps-desktop but I haven't seen one that focused only on the knowledge panel. I'd love to see one.
-
Thanks Miriam, I don't think there's a ton of value to be had for this one particular client (not enough to make me conduct an extensive study on the matter), but even that is shooting from the hip.
Do you know of a heatmap study that shows how people interact with knowledge panels? If I can prove that X% of users interact with the competitor space on those panels then I may have a case to perform further research. Which if I did, I would share here, because I am a sharing kind of person
-
One of things I noticed when I clicked through some of the profiles was that it was pulling information from Google My Business, which makes me think that the information in there may be tied to it. I have a hard time believing that it truly is as simple as "people also search for (x) website" because I've seen Google posting businesses that are marked as permanently closed in this space, and I can't imagine people are repeatedly searching for a closed business in their area.
-
Hi Brett!
Good question. The People Also Search For results are algorithmic, and like Ria, I've not seen a definitive study on this area of the knowledge graph. What you could do if a client is desirous of making it into that area of the display would be to do competitive analysis of the top businesses currently coming up in this type of result and see if you can find commonalities. For example:
-
What are the local and local-organic rankings for those businesses?
-
What is their proximity to you when you search?
-
What is their proximity to the main business in the knowledge graph?
-
What do their review and link profiles look like?
That's just a start, but it would be how you would need to begin exploring the results of a particular knowledge panel. How much effort you put into this should be dictated by how valuable it would actually be for the client to appear in this feature.
-
-
It seems that the businesses that appear are ones that frequently appear together in the SERPs. I can't imagine that there's much more to it than that. Similar businesses that people also search for by name and businesses that frequently appear together for the same/similar search queries.
I don't think it is necessarily tied to locality, as businesses can appear here that aren't in the local area of the business in the knowledge graph. But obviously if a business is very locally focused then the only businesses that appear there are locally focused too, due to people (for example) not searching for a local plumber and then proceeding to search for a plumber on the other side of the country. Or a local plumber appearing in the same set of SERPs as a plumber on the other side of the country, when they only rank for locally based keywords.
As far as I've seen, there's been no definitive studies on this so I'm just speculating above based on what I've read and seen myself.
-
What an interesting question. I hope someone has the answer.
It has always seemed to me that the businesses I've seen there have been prominent and I've suspected that they get a lot of branded searches.
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
-
Should I get an SSL if my non-SSL site is ranking well?
I have a client with a local divorce law business. He's ranking really well, and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that rank. His site does not have SSL. I feel like it would be good to get rid of the "not-secure" message from Chrome, but not important enough to risk ranks. Would love to get thoughts from this forum on this. Thanks!
Local Listings | | aj6130 -
Has Google Local search algorithm changed in the last 6 months?
My organic search results have increased, but I noticed that my Google local search results have dropped drastically. I haven't changed anything on the local side. I consistently get reviews. In my industry, I have more reviews (all 5 star) than anyone else. It actually shows weird results, like competitors that have no reviews and don't even have all of their information filled out. It is even showing competitors that are out of business. I have a lot of citations with the same NAP. I use Moz local for this purpose as well. So, I am wondering if the algorithm has changed and if I need to update my profile to match it. Thank you in advance!
Local Listings | | CalicoKitty20000 -
Placement of products in URL-structure for best category page rankings
Hi! I have some questions regarding the optimal URL-hierarchy placement of products in a marketplace setting where the end goal is to attract traffic to category pages. Let me start off with some background, thanks in advance for the help. TLDR Goal: Increase category page rankings. Alternative 1 - Products and category pages separated, flat product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/listing-1 Alternative 2 - Products and category pages separated, hierarchal product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/product/category/subcat/listing Alternative 3 - Products placed directly under category page. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/category/subcategory/listing I run a commercial real estate marketplace, which means that our potential search traffic is _extremely _geographic. For example, some common searches are (not originally in english): Office space for lease {City X} Office space for lease {Neighborhood Y} Retail space {Neighborhood Z} And so on... These terms are already quite competitive, where the top results are our competitors geographic and type category pages. For example: _competitor.com/type/city/neighborhood , _is a top result, where the user reaches a landing page that shows all the {type} spaces for lease in {neighborhood}. These users are out to find which spaces are available for lease in these geographical areas, and not individual spaces. I.e. users do not search in the same extent for an individual product, in this case a specific empty space. Our approach has been to place an extreme bias towards a heavy geographical hierarchy. This means that basically any search, resulting in a category page, on our site results in a well structured URL like the following: _oursite.com/type/state/city/district/street, _since we are using Google Maps API's, this is easy and relevant for the user. Our geographical categorization beats our competitors both on extensiveness and usability, especially in long-tail search phrases where our competitors don't care to categorize where we are seeing real search volumes. The hierarchy only extends as far down as the user has searched, for example a lot of our searched just end up being _oursite.com/type/state/city/district. _ Now we are wondering how we should place our products, the empty spaces, in this URL structure. Our original hypothesis was that we should include the products in the original hierarchy, resulting in: oursite.com/category/subcategory/product. Our thinking was that we would both be serving the user with an understandable and relevant URL, and also provide search bots with a logical structure for our site and most importantly content for our category pages. Our landing pages are very dynamic, providing information by relaying graphical information on a map instead of in an SEO-friendly manner. I would however go as far as to say that these dynamic pages provide a ton of value for the user, much more so than our competitors, by describing relevant information about the neighborhood kind of like Trulia, just not in a bot-readable manner. This results in trying to rank them on their own merits being a challenge, whereas we were hoping we could create relevancy by placing products / listings and maybe even blog posts on the topic within the same URL-hierarchy. As of right now our current structure is oursite.com/products/category/subcategory/product. In other words, they are categorized in the same geographical fashion but under a separate URL-path. Our results so far is that we basically only rank for the product pages, and rank extremely poorly for our category pages, which is our ultimate goal to enhance. This is why we developed the above hypothesis. However, what we learned when we did some initial research is that very few e-commerce stores place their products directly below their categories. Most of the major websites we studied, and we looked at quite a few, just go for **alternative 1 **from above. The crux is that most of them choose alternative 1 but simultaneously implement bread crumbs that emulate alternative 3, just without the actual URL's. So, what I'm asking is, what are the actual benefits or downsides of the three alternatives? I feel as if I have a pretty firm grasp on how this could be done, I just need to better understand why most seem to choose to flatline their products or listings in the alternative 1 fashion. Thanks, Viktor
Local Listings | | Viktorsodd0 -
Local Search and Schema.org - Do I need to tag up the "same as" Property to all my citations to help with local rankings?
Hi All, We have implemented Schema.og on our website and this also includes the local business schema for all of our branches.However I've read an article (see below ) which says we should also be doing "same as " property and linking this to ALL of our citations such as google plus page , yelp , bing places, city search etc etc as this will help with citations. I am wondering if anyone has done this ? - And if so , has this helped with local rankings etc - I don't really want to invest the extra costs to get this done if I can't find anywhere that says its made a difference - The article from whitespark - says - "when you create new citations for your business (or for your client’s), it’s a waiting game hoping that Google and the other search engines will find your new citations quickly and make the connection between those listings, the business, and the website. The “sameAs” property can help make that process much quicker _and _easier. Schema.org explains that the “sameAs” property is used along with the “URL of a reference Web page that unambiguously indicates the item's [or business’] identity.” By using the “sameAs” property in your NAP schema markup, you can tell search engines that the business you’ve marked up is the same one found at a certain citation URL Of course, Google+ isn’t the only important citation source. There’s also Bing Places, Facebook, Yelp, Citysearch and a few others. The nice thing about many schema.org properties is that you can use them multiple times in your markup." I am wondering what peoples thoughts were and whether they has implemented this and if so , did it help ? thanks Pete | [sameAs](http://schema.org/sameAs) | URL | URL of a reference Web page that unambiguously indicates the item's identity. E.g. the URL of the item's Wikipedia page, Freebase page, or official website. |
Local Listings | | PeteC121 -
Google Listing showing my map But not showing on google.com search organic.
Hello All again, How are you doing? Please try to help me again. I have big trouble with my google plus business and never back ranking for 2 years. Before 2 years my google plus business #1 page google with any keywords: nail salon pigeon forge tn nail salon sevierville tn pedicure pigeon forge nail salon, nail shop pigeon forge,.... My google plus business: http://plus.google.com/+Sassy-nails/ website:http://sassy-nails.com http://sassy-nails.com after i claimed another page to the same account. I lost all review, stars and scores 2 days ago It was been back again but All ranking losting all. and not Whe I seach google.com organic" My listing " http://plus.google.com/+Sassy-nails/about It is not showing up on google.com oganic ranking but I will showing on my. Please big help for me please. the link i attach here" Sassy nails salon " Under " Hair Expo" and top " Spazzi nails" i am looking farward to here you soon. data=!3m1!4b1
Local Listings | | sassynailsalon0 -
Organic and Local ranking changes UK
Hi, Has anyone seen any major fluctuations in local and organic rankings over the last week? I'm recording some significant changes, cannot fathom why at the moment other than Pigeon is still maybe rolling out... Dan
Local Listings | | SEOBirmingham810 -
Does anybody have any data on what percentage of people actually click on a Google Places / Google+ listing VS call the business direct from the SERPs?
I've had a few SMB clients who have experienced drops in website traffic once their Google Places listing has gone live. It's hard for the average SMB to understand that this may not be a bad thing because they actually may be received more leads direct from the local SERPs. So while I can try to explain this to my clients, it'd be nice to have some broad data on how searchers interact with Google local listings. I'd love to learn what percentage of people call direct from the SERPs instead of clicking through to the business' website link. Obviously, the percentages would vary across different verticals, different devices & depending on whether the search query was branded or non-branded. I'm after some rough average data, so if anyone could point me in the right direction, that'd be great! 🙂
Local Listings | | Dave_Eddy0 -
Change in Google local ranking
So we have a WA construction client that we're working on doing some local SEO stuff. This month all the keywords that we're tracking but one is on the first page. It's easy to say "yay, we're so damn good at what we do", but it seems like there must have been a shift in the way google is ranking local results. Anyone else experiencing this??
Local Listings | | SoleGraphics0