I honestly think this new "about this result" feature is not a big deal (I can be wrong) but with anything new with Google Search, SEOs tend to obsess about it. So now SEOs are concerned about the information within that feature. Specifically, why is most (all) of it coming from Wikipedia and when Wikipedia does not have information, it just shows when Google first indexed it.
First, let's show the two basic kind of information you see today for a normal snippet. Not the local or other types of snippets, like answers you get in search.
Here is this site, which does not have a Wikipedia entry (click to enlarge):
Here is the WSJ, which does have a Wikipedia entry (click to enlarge):
So then you have this debate about it is Wikipedia or Google's first crawl date, why not show data that the site owner can give Google. Why do we have to be subjugated by either Wikipedia or Google for the information about the site we own? Right, it is not fair!
It's not gatekeeping. We show additional information about the source of a result as an *option* people can choose to view *if they want*. Wikipedia is one source; what we know of a domain is another. As a beta launch, we'll be looking to further improve going forward.
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 3, 2021
Danny Sullivan from Google said no, "it's not gatekeeping," he said. "We show additional information about the source of a result as an *option* people can choose to view *if they want*. Wikipedia is one source; what we know of a domain is another. As a beta launch, we'll be looking to further improve going forward," Danny added.
But the conversation gets entertaining; is it or is it not gatekeeping?
It’s not gatekeeping to show a menu option that, if someone wants, they can choose to learn more about a source. It doesn’t prevent them from going to a source in any way. You don’t have to first click on the menu option to reach the source....
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 3, 2021
Again, Wikipedia is not the only source now. As said, we'll continue looking at how to improve. This is a beta launch, a start, in providing additional information about sources.
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 3, 2021
SEOs need to jump into new things and react when we shouldn't?
I'll pass along the feedback. I also understand how SEOs in particular can immediately feel they need to react to something new. I don't think they should be jumping to anything here, nor assume they'e somehow "left in the dust"....
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 3, 2021
It is new and in BETA so relax:
But many sites -- small and large -- cause no issues for searchers to question, from the start. Snippets, existing structured data displayed, plus the nature of the query itself give them plenty of confidence to visit sites....
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 3, 2021
Then I'd suggest holding off on this being a public thing until such options are available. Otherwise you're creating a moat for larger brands and sites who have access to resources smaller sites don't.
— Jack Treseler (@JackTreseler) February 3, 2021
Thing is, the old Danny Sullivan would have pointed out these concerns on Search Engine Land. It is this type of feedback where Google can potentially listen to the feedback and adjust the solution going forward.
Personally, I don't think this feature will last. I don't see searchers, the normal searcher, using it. That is why this does not bother me too much. But I can be wrong. I do think Google can give site owners a way, like they do with knowledge panels in general, to claim them and potentially suggest edits. Of course, I understand why Google does not want to let SEOs control what that says. I can see SEOs trying to inject fun marketing messages and who knows what.
Forum discussion at Twitter.
