Seven months after Google’s seemingly endless teasers on how Knol was better than other information resources, the tool was finally opened for the internet community. Here is Google’s answer to Wikipedia, the most popular knowledge database online. Everyone is now inclined to believe that Google Knol is the Wikipedia killer as it brings on several different improvements that the latter is still lacking. For instance, the authors in Wikipedia are unknown whereas Knol features accountable and verified providers of information. For instance, the medical articles were produced by actual health care professionals.

“Knols” – as the articles are called – can only be edited by the person who wrote them. Other people can only propose or request improvements on the work but it’s only the author who gets full control over the material. While Google itself doesn’t edit the materials, the authors may allow the search engine to post ads onto their articles, still on their discretion. For its part, revenue from the ads will be shared with the authors.

With this in mind, there seems to be a conflict of interest brewing. Since Google appears to be making money from these materials, it only seems logical that they may have the tendency to give these knols a higher rank than other sites – including Wikipedia. The search engine claims otherwise, of course, so Danny Sullivan, editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, tested thirty Knols and searched them to find out about their placements. Take note that this happened on the day after the Knol beta was made public, and it was too early to get a decent ranking at this point (especially for competitive terms that have been targeted my more established websites for a long time).

Only a third of the knols got on the first page for Google’s search results for their title. “It’s proof that being in Knol is NOT an automatic ride to the top rankings. But then again, knowing that 33% of your stuff will rank within a day is a pretty good track record,” says Sullivan.