Thread:SEOkitten/@comment-5175866-20151013205931/@comment-26321732-20151026165640

It seems the info in both instant answers boxes and more detailed knowledge graphs can come from any site&mdash;the exact logic that is used is unknown and there is no mechanism to request inclusion or provide feedback. Google has even started to curate its own data in certain areas.

I have read articles that claim schema or a particular mediawiki markup can help a site be included, but I have not seen compelling research to back those claims. Keep in mind that in order to gain more readers and editors for Biblicalapedia, search users must click through and explore the site; being a part of the instant answers could run counter to this larger goal.

Excellent question about "serpent" and an important distinction: this term has not gained a high position in search, but it still brings as many clicks as terms that have. This could be because there is simply a larger total search volume for this term and/or because search users aren't finding what they need from other sites and click through to Biblicalapedia.

Search engines take note of user behavior such as clicking on a page and bouncing right back to the next result or skipping top rank results to click on a link from a respected domain, so building that reputation for quality can have a direct impact on rankings.