The New Scientist reports that Google is building a version of the knowledge graph that expands its knowledge through algorithms at mass scale – Google calls it the Knowledge Vault.

I honestly thought the knowledge graph was not by hand either. Dumb me. Okay, I am not that dumb. The knowledge graph was by no means by hand. I am confident Google didn’t hire armies of people to copy and paste content into a database for them.

The Knowledge Vault, in my opinion, is just better at the automated part. As Google continued to revamp and improve the knowledge graph, it became better and picking off content from your web site and storing it in a more structured fashion, which Google can then use as answers without credit.

A statement like this from the article makes me go wow:

Really? That cannot be accurate.

I find this hard to believe.

Google used algorithms to pick off data from sources such as “Wikipedia, subject-specific resources like Weather Underground, publicly available data from Freebase.com, and Google search data.” In fact, on that page, Google says Google gets data for the knowledge graph in an “automated” fashion, so there can be problems and they want them reported.

I assume the Knowledge Vault is simply better at crawling, indexing and borrowing content from more sources, in a more automated fashion, than the Knowledge Graph.

So are you concerned now? When does this become more than a swiss army knife and leave you out of the equation?

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Image credit to BigStockPhoto for vault