Mendel ✍️ » Bhandari
My example was misleading. We could use these keywords instead as they would be more representative of our situation:
Target Page 1: best sites to buy stocks
Target Page 2: best sites to buy testla stocks
Target Page 3: best sites to buy apple stocks
Target Page 4: best sites to trade stocks
Target Page 5: best sites to trade tesla stocks
Target Page 6: best sites to trade apple stocks
In this case (which is similar to our situation), reviews sites rank at the top, always.
Peterson » Truslow
Keeping with the knowledge graph and entity concept. Let's say it's well built out for widgets and blue widgets, but not green widgets. All are types of the same widget but green are different such not to be a interchangeable. So green widget searches are showing blue widgets and even highlights blue widget in the Search Engine Result Page (SERP) snippets.
Have you come across ways to train Google that these things are actually different? We went back and forth on this in a previous thread but was checking some of my keywords today and noticed this lovely behavior.
Would you need to build out the graph stating from what Google seems to understand (blue widgets) and the link out to the other types to expand from there?
In my case if I run same of the searches with double quotes it does pickup my content. Newer site in an "authoritative space" so I'm assuming time is partially a facto with full indexing/keywording.
I also ask because I wonder if some is the same is happening with the OP's post depending on the actual topic.
Truslow 🎓
When it comes to products – it's a bit easier, unless you are the only site on the web with the product. Google learns a lot faster and gets things more accurate if there is corroborating evidence out there.
As for the false positives on the negative (i.e. You sell blue widgets, but not green ones yet Google is sending green widget traffic to you) it can be tricky. I've had a few clients where I've spent hours (and hours) trying to see where Google is getting it wrong. Sometimes it's a lack of understanding and completeness is that neighborhood of the knowledge graph. And other times it seems to come down to the fact that on most other sites, if they sell blue widgets, they also sell green widgets. So Google (wrongly) assumes that you must be too – it just can't quite get the right signals for you. Quite often, though, I can find some sort of confusing or misleading signal – like never mentioning green widgets, but mentioning that blue widgets look great when you install them in your green yard. (There was a similar example of this – since fixed – about six months ago where two mushrooms that are very similar in appearance had a statement on the page that said – and I forget the exact names so I'll bracket them – "<edible> mushrooms, not to be confused with <poisonous> mushrooms, are safe to eat." It then went on to tell you how to identify and tell them apart and all that fun stuff. But, when you asked Google if <poisonous> mushrooms were edible, Google came back with a featured snippet that didn't list the whole sentence. It just came back with a "Yes. <Poisonous> Mushrooms are safe to eat" and it sourced that page.
When it comes to building out the graph from your side… Yes – making connections is exactly how you want to do it. Here's an example I like to use when doing a coaching session on this…
Let's say you created a new brand of pain reliever called "Cylenol" and it's basically Tylenol with organic binders or whatever. Now… you want to promote your product as being able to cure headaches and minor aches and pains.
For Google – this is a tough connection to make. It doesn't know what Cylenol is so it can't make a call as to the accuracy. Accuracy isn't always important, but in some niches (like medical and YMYL where this product lives) it is.
So we need to make some connections. Our active ingredient is Acetaminophen. And Google knows what that is. But another problem here is that Acetaminophen is not known or proven to "cure" or even "eliminate" headaches. The science says that it can help treat those things – but saying "cure" is going to cause some dissonance.
From here we start making the connections.
Cylenol contains the active ingredient Acetaminophen.
Acetaminophen is used to help treat headaches and other mild aches and pains.
Now from this, Google can make the connection that Cylenol helps treat headaches. Without drawing those lines – it's difficult to nudge the knowledge graph.
NOTE: I find it works best, especially if your brand/product isn't already well established and understood, to keep those as two separate sentences each with a single triple. Google understands the two statements on their own, but can get confused if you try to say, "Cylenol contains Acetaminophen which is used to help treat headaches and other mild aches and pains." And really the whole thing would be better with a bullet list of the things Acetaminophen treats. So you'd for the single thing:
Acetaminophen Treats:
– Headaches
– Mild aches and pains
– Fever
– Whatever else.
And yeah – you are correct in that something else could very well be happening with the OPs actual situation. It's always a bit different. When I take on a new client, I'll often spend many hours not only learning about the things they do and their niche – but also in how Google understands that niche (or doesn't understand it, as the case may be). I make special note of areas where Google is starting to make connections that aren't quite accurate because I need to make sure I send EXTREMELY clear signals in those spots lest Google starts to get even more confused about it OR it just decides to not really put anything we say about that into the mix because it is just making it harder to figure this out.
As such, knowing the problem in any specific way comes from knowing what Google knows (or thinks it knows) and also knowing what Google doesn't know about the things you're trying to connect yourself to. And the specific solution is different every single time.
💟👍🏽7
Peterson » Truslow
Thanks. Interesting things to think about there. I've seen this happen with "new" product models/versions. The example I'm fiddling with isn't new but less focused on so specifically I can see where the issue is probably coming from.
Truslow 🎓
You might try creating a blog post or page that is a sort of "How to Choose Between a Blue Widget or a Green Widget".
Then create a table (with proper th headings and all that so it becomes something Google can analyze as data). That table would highlight the common features and the differentiating factors between the two. This way – Google can look at the two entities it's confusing head-to-head (as can your site visitors who may be having similar confusion if the Green Widget isn't well known) and see exactly what is the same and what is different between them.
Mendel ✍️ » Truslow
Hey, thanks for your answer, appreciate you taking so much of your time. I realize the fictive examples I provided aren't descriptive enough of our situation.
Despite this fact, you got one answer right; Out of the 6 pages, we can group them into 3 categories of 2 pages, where these pages serve very similar answers for each category. As a result, it would make sense that Google picks only 3 pages (representing different "intents") out of the 6.
However the second issue is not related to our site not allowing to actually "buy stocks". This is where my examples didn't work; we are an affiliate site and I should have given as an example "best sites to buy stocks" to not mislead you.
Let's put a more abstract example and assume we have published the 6 following pages:
Page X1
Page X2
Page Y1
Page Y2
Page Z1
Page Z2
Where both letters and numbers are variations of 2 different dimensions.
If I search for X1 and X2 on Google, I find largely similar results on Search Engine Result Page (SERP). The top 10 is represented by 8 same pages and 2 different pages. There are also variations in the ranking amongst the 8 same pages. This mostly confirms that Google sees all variations of X (1, 2, 3 …) as covering the same intent.
However, if I search X1, Y1 and Z1 on Google, despite being a clear correlation between the terms X, Y and Z, the top 10 is represented by 8 different results and 2 same results. As a matter of fact, these 2 same results are both represented by high authority parasite SEO guest posts mixing up the terms X, Y and Z as if they were the same (to rank for as many keywords as possible).
This to me seems to confirm that Google, despite the correlation between these terms, considers X, Y and Z as different topics serving different intents.
Another evidence that I have on the above is that we are targeting the exact same topics with another website we run. For this site, we published the following pages:
Page1 covering X1+X2
Page2 covering Y1+Y2
Page3 covering Z1+Z2
This other website managed to rank for the 6 categories of searches represented by the 3 intents described above (X1 and X2 for X, Y1 and Y2 for Y, Z1 and Z2 for Z). Actually, it ranks much more competitively for Y and Z than the other website for which we only rank the homepage.
Therefore, we still have an issue with website I mentioned in my initial post, as we should be able to rank for each of these intents independently, but our homepage just ranks for them all. Remember, this is an issue because although it ranks super competitively for X, it doesn't rank well for Y and Z (i.e. position 40, 80, etc.)
Do you have any other idea as to why this issue may happen?
Truslow 🎓
I haven't really learned much from your modifying the example – it went from something fictitious but tangible that I could analyze to something fictitious and with no context. Not sure there's anything I could add without knowing the specifics. Sorry.
Mendel ✍️ » Truslow
Direct Message (DM)'ed you in case you want the real information.

Mendel ✍️ » Dale
Fair question. It's true that I should question what I think we do right.
Basically, using the initial examples I provided (I updated the examples in one of my comments), this is what we've done: we have considered two dimensions, let's say X (buy), Y (trade), Z (sell) and 1 (all stocks), 2 (tesla), 3 (apple) etc. and linked between each dimensions whenever there is a match with the page. For example:
– Page X1 links to: X2, X3, X4 … | Y1, Z1 b
– Page Y3 links to Y1, Y2, Y4 … | X3, Z3
We standardized internal linking, therefore all anchors are always optimized to the relevant "matching dimension".
For example, for page X1, we use the anchor "2" when linking to page X2, "3" when linking to page X3, "Y" when linking to page "Y1", "Z" when linking to page Z1 …
I hope that makes sense!
Lastly, we made sure that the most important pages (including the 6 pages from my original post) are accessible from the header navigation and that these pages are amongst those receiving the most internal links from our other pages.
Let me know if you have further questions and, most importantly, if our internal linking strategy is missing an essential piece.
Dale » Mendel
Honestly, I have no idea what any of that means. Sorry man.
I'm getting the feeling though that something is off here. I know you are trying to be secretive, but it's made it difficult to give you advice. I can tell you that internal linking definitely isn't that complicated though. I feel like you're overthinking it.
Are your internal links all under corresponding h2 headers? Feel free to PM me for more info if you want it.
Dale » Mendel
Here's another question: how are you choosing the pages you have to internally link to your most important pages?
Mendel ✍️ » Dale
It is true that I am super secretive and it doesn't help. My apologies. I am definitely over complicating the examples by abstracting them (X, Y, Z, etc.) but I believe this last one is understandable 🙂 Anyway will Direct Message (DM) you
Dale » Mendel
Thanks bro