It all started with calls,I haven’t dealt with scams until I bought followers by giving my account info for Instagram in 2019 but more recent is Facebook where fake people messaged me but not as bad.Facebook keeps telling me to provide my identity so one of my accounts is compromised.
Someone tried to use my account to create a Facebook account on an email that I rarely use that is newer than the one I actually use.I created an account under my newer email they tried to use so they wouldn’t plus didn’t confirm the link when tried to finish creating their own Facebook with that email(which happened this year).
Now I’ve been getting emails that someone signed up an account at Kay Jewelers with my email I normally use and created the name according with chase but the routings were different and checked my bank.They seem legit too because got 5 in a row and the email isn’t random like most fake scam emails of winning someone.
I know in the past I would get a iPhone alert that I won something or that a virus has been detected and needed to download a certain security app.I have Yahoo mail rn but these seemed like a pop up.
I’m worried because today I got a empty package from Repolls Survey and there was nothing in there.I know yesterday I got a call that I owed $5,000 from Amazon but an automated message.

Introduction
Hey and welcome to the WikipediaPageCreation subreddit! This is a subreddit dedicated to discovering and exploring various methods and strategies of securing Wikipedia pages for a brand or person. My name is Nikolas Lemmel and I’m the team-lead at a boutique digital agency by the name of Maximatic Media. As we’ve spent the last couple of years dissecting the art of Wikipedia page creation, I’ve decided to open this sub in hopes of sparking a discussion on various impactful and non-impactful factors affecting the creation of stickied Wikipedia pages. I’m hoping to start the birth of this sub off strong so I’m gonna try to provide an in-depth overview of what we’ve learned about creating and stabilizing Wikipedia pages thus far as a company in this post. If you have any experience with either of the components I’ll be mentioning or would like to share one that we’ve yet to cover, please feel free to comment down below.
Page Stickiness
Let’s start this journey by first recognizing the weird word I’ve used like 3-4x in the introduction: “stickied”. This is a word you’ll see appear often the deeper dive into the Wikipedia publishing world.
The concept of "stickiness" in the context of Wikipedia publishing has to do with the longevity and resilience of a newly published Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is an open-source platform that relies on volunteer editors to maintain the quality of content on the site. These editors follow a set of guidelines to decide what content is notable and reliable enough to appear on Wikipedia.
When a new page is created, it undergoes scrutiny from higher-tier editors and admins, who assess whether the page meets Wikipedia's stringent notability and reliability criteria. If they decide that it doesn't, the page can be deleted or heavily revised, oftentimes within a matter of days from its publishing date. This constant monitoring and removal process is part of Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining a high-quality, reliable source of information and minimizing the extent to which Wikipedia is used in an advertorial fashion.
Stickiness, therefore, refers to the ability of a new page to withstand this scrutiny and remain live on the site. A stickied page is one that has been well-constructed, sufficiently sourced with credible references, and clearly meets the notability requirements. The page not only gets published but also stays published, or "sticks.”
Now, this may already be common knowledge to the bulk of you that are actively researching Wikipedia page creation for your brand. However, since we’ve launched our service, we’ve dealt with a lot of clientele who have attempted to create a Wikipedia page for themselves in the past and were hit with this harsh reality check. An alarming percentage of those cases fell prey to freelancers or companies specializing in Wikipedia publishing that charged them anywhere between $600 - $2000 to draft and publish a Wikipedia page, knowing full well that there was absolutely zero chance that the page would actually remain on Wikipedia. Not an outright scam, mind you, but very much bordering on one in my point of view.
The truth of the matter is that 95% of entities seeking a Wikipedia page do not truly warrant one and this statement is corroborated by Wikipedia’s own statistic, stating that a mind-boggling 98% of newly published pages get nominated for deletion. So how do we combat these ridiculously low odds? Well, let’s delve into what’s arguably the biggest factor of all when it comes to page stickiness:
Notability
So diving right into the nitty-gritty of Wikipedia Publishing, we must first cover the concept of notability - the most important aspect out of all of the points I’ll be covering in this guide. Notability in the context of Wikipedia simply means how often reputable, secondary sources are referencing you in their media output. Said references come in many forms, whether it be a full feature article, a short bio in a listicle or just a basic citation. However, not all references are made equal. Some references carry significantly more weight than others, either due to its “comprehensiveness” (i.e. a full feature article with the sole focus being on you) or the “reputability” of the source doing the referencing (i.e. mentioned in Forbes vs mentioned in “Biznes-News-Blog”).
Comprehensiveness
Let’s first delve into the topic of comprehensiveness. The comprehensiveness of your reference can be calculated by just a couple factors: the word count of the article, the keyword density of your entity’s name within said article and whether the entity is being referenced in the title/headline of the article. These three components determine the significance laid upon the entity by the reporting outlet. The more extensive the coverage, the higher the significance in the eyes of Wikipedia (i.e. a full-feature, 750-word article on Forbes vs a 150 word entry in “Top 30 E-Commerce Businesses of 2023” listicle on Forbes).
Reputability
Now that we’ve covered what I mean by “comprehensiveness”, let’s talk about the other component influencing the power of your media coverage: reputability. The concept of reputability is basically as straightforward as it gets. Just about any semi-famous news or media outlet that you can think of is viewed as a “reputable” source by Wikipedia. The likes of Forbes, Mashable, USA Today, etc are all stellar examples of significant coverage that corroborates you or your brand as a notable entity in the eyes of Wikipedia. However, a full feature article on each of those aforementioned sites costs $15,000, $2,400 and $6,500 respectively. If you as an entity see no utility in being featured on these media outlets beyond simply meeting the eligibility criteria for a Wikipedia page, it makes little sense to purchase those placements.
The Role of Domain Authority
This is where a more esoteric metric comes into play: Domain Authority. A DA score is effectively a ranking assigned to a domain which we can use to assess any given site’s authority in comparison to the rest of the web. It is calculated using the domain’s age, the amount of other sites referring to it and the reputability of said referrals. Basically the same criteria influencing the site’s probability of getting their own stickied Wiki page but quantified by a score from 1 to 100. Now let’s return back to three examples of reputable media outlets I’ve given above: Forbes, Mashable and USA Today. Forbes has a DA score of 95, Mashable has a DA score of 92 and USA Today has a DA score of 94. So all in all, all three publications are highly renowned, outpacing the vast majority of other sites on the web with scores of 90 and above. However, if referring back to the pricing of each placement, we see a pretty drastic incongruence with the value derived from each media outlet in the context of GKP creation. Forbes, despite being one measly basis point off of USA Today’s DA score, carries more than a 200% higher price tag. Now sure, Forbes has a significantly higher readership and holds far more clout than USA Today but if focusing solely on its impact in the context of a Wikipedia reference, it really doesn’t warrant the price you pay for it when compared to other viable alternatives.
And these are just the three sites we’ve mentioned so far. Take a look at the following spreadsheet containing 400+ available media placements and keep an eye on the DA column:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SX7bI0YSZeJCWwxaMEZ1LG-QtoiLFnDVJZjW1n-ZvQ0/edit?usp=sharing
As you scroll through, you’ll find that there are a plethora of Google-News-Approved sites that have a relatively high DA despite costing a fraction of what the internationally distinguished media outlets cost. Sites like Village Voice, HackerNoon, Times of Malta, Chiang Rai Times, etc. Now granted, they don’t exactly pack the same sort of punch that Forbes does but in the context of a Wikipedia page, you are considerably better off securing five B-tier placements in comparison to a singular A tier placement. So long as you are not cheaping out by opting for “Biznes-News-Blog” as your referring source and stick to Google-News-Approved publications, a varied list of reputable placements within your references section will take you much further than just one extremely reputable citation.
Reliability
Now that we’ve extensively covered the topic of notability, let’s talk about a factor of media assessment that is unique to Wikipedia: Reliability. Reliability is Wikipedia’s way of determining how trustworthy the source of incoming information is. It’s one of the only ORM services that views this factor as being separate from notability, which makes the process of selecting publications a bit more complex.
As a PR agency, we deal with a lot of ORM requests ranging from Google Knowledge Panels to Wikipedia Publishing to Social Media Verifications on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube. Theoretically, say that we receive a client seeking to get verified on all social platforms, get a GKP and get a Wikipedia page published about them. All in all, the works. Let’s say that they also came to us with a decent bit of pre-existing media coverage and have full feature articles about them published on the Daily Mail, Newsweek, RT News, OK Magazine and E! News.
Now, in the context of GKP Creation and Social Media Verification, we would notify this imaginary client that we are prepared to move forward with their case and are relatively optimistic about their probability of success. Given that their PR stems from highly recognizable publications with DAs in the high 80s/90s, there is little reason to suspect that they’d get rejected on the basis of notability. However, when it comes to Wikipedia, we unfortunately would have to reject this case and I’ll explain why. Despite the fact that each of those publications is considered notable by Wikipedia’s standards (which more or less follow the same criteria as Google and Meta mind you), not a single one of those listed outlets is viewed as a trustworthy source by Wikipedia. Newsweek is viewed as a biased news reporter, RT News is viewed as propagandized and state-run media, and Daily Mail, OK Mag and E! News are all considered low-quality, tabloid-like sources of information. Creating a Wikipedia page with only these articles as citations is basically a guaranteed nomination for deletion waiting to happen.
This is largely why, when purchasing press for Wikipedia, you want to stick to media outlets that are independent, journalistic sources with a good reputation behind them. So going back to the spreadsheet of PR placements, sites like Times of Malta and Chiang Rai Times are good examples of reputable, independent news sites that meet the notability criteria whilst remaining relatively affordable. The cream of the crop, however, would be publications like Wisconsin State Journal, Arizona Daily Star, Sacramento Bee, Miami Herald, etc. Localized, independent news sources that have a significant amount of authority within their local domains while having an international readership similar to that of the NYT and Chicago Tribune.
Lastly, let’s talk about press releases from reputable sites like Yahoo, Bloomberg, Business Insider, etc. Wikipedia views press releases, especially those bought from press release aggregators, with a measure of suspicion, considering them as 'purchased' content. Purchasing these is really like blowing money down the drain since these can only be used as secondary sources. Stay away from these and stick only to editorial articles — those written by the staff of the publication and not distributed through the plethora of press release services out there.
The Question of Quantity
A pretty common question we get asked in our Wikipedia publishing consultations with clients is what amount of references guarantees a stickied page. What is the absolute minimum that I can get away with? And truth be told, we honestly have a hard time answering this question as we don’t truly know. Without foreseeing the future and knowing which admin gets assigned to review the page and what their opinion is on each referring publication, it is impossible to predict the actual amount. In our experience of creating Wikipedia pages over the last couple of years, we’ve found no shortage of BS reasons given for rejecting a specific source. The way Wikipedia is organized, it really just comes down to luck. We’ve witnessed a client get a stickied page with just five references and we’ve also witnessed a client get their page deleted with upwards of 15 strong references.
Having said that though, if taking into account the median number of references across all of our successful cases, a good benchmark to aim for would be roughly 6 semi-strong, corroborating references with a DA of 75 and above. Again, this number is not set-in-stone and may vary contingent on the entity (living persons oftentimes given more leniency than corporate brands) but six is basically the optimal zone. In the event an admin decides to reject one of the citations, the page still has five other references to fall back on, making it difficult to argue a lack of notability within a nomination vote. But if you really wanna take your chances, three strong references is the absolute minimum. Just be aware that you are fully at the mercy of the admin in this scenario.
“Veteran” Editor Accounts
Now that we have finally finished covering the most important factor impacting your Wiki page’s stickiness, let’s move onto what is likely the 2nd most important factor: the Wiki account doing the publishing. Let’s imagine for a second that we have a ready-to-go Wikipedia article that is well-constructed, worded in an objective, non-advertorial manner and contains plenty of citations from reputable sources verifying each and every piece of factual information within the article. Now, let’s imagine that we take this exact same article, word-for-word and publish it from two separate editor accounts. One of those accounts has been around for 7+ years and has made 3,000+ edits across various existing pages alongside the 300+ pages they’ve created and published themselves. The other account was registered three days ago, has zero experience editing other people’s entries, and their very first edit is about to be a brand new page that very few people ever heard of, despite how well-cited it may be.
Assuming they both publish the exact same content, word-for-word with the same references section, who do you think will receive more scrutiny over the brand new page from admins? The guy who’s been around for close to a decade and has a historical track record of quality contributions? Or the guy who literally just made an account on Wikipedia and decided that publishing a page about a little-known entity is a good first step in his life-long Wikipedia journey?
I think that’s really all that can be said about this topic as it's quite straightforward. Aged accounts with a history of edits simply tend to be more trusted when it comes to new page creation than accounts that are brand new. If you have a semi-strong page with somewhat questionable references, the reputation and history of the editor doing the publishing can be the thing that nudges it over the edge of acceptance.
That’s partially why we charge $1,500 for our Wikipedia publishing service. No one should pay fifteen hundred bucks to write a 400 word entry about their brand, that’s obscene. You pay for the privilege of being published by a somewhat renown Wikipedia editor, minimizing the degree to which your entry elicits suspicion and thus, maximizing your chances of success.
Drafting the Page
Now that we’ve covered the two most important aspects influencing your page’s stickiness probability, let’s move onto the last and arguably, least important factor out of them all: the actual writing. Now don’t get me wrong, a poorly written page is still very much a massive red flag when entering the sandbox stage. However, the knowledge required to write an objective, Wikipedia-compliant page is far more prevalent and less clandestine than the knowledge required to make the entity eligible for one.
Just read about a dozen or so pages on living persons and emulate the language and writing style used by the editors to the best degree you can. Assuming that you are a native speaker and don’t have any glaring grammatical errors within your writing, nine times out of ten, the page ends up being eligible for publishing. We’ve had plenty of clients write their own pages that required little to no editing on our side prior to being published.
There’s not much I can add to this that hasn’t already been covered by Wikipedia themselves (which you can read on this link here:). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Aside from the common tidbits of knowledge such as not using promotional language or writing in an informal tone, my one piece of unorthodox advice is to not go overboard with the length of the article. The shorter your page is, the lower the attack surface. The best pages are those that have just a couple of paragraphs in them, ranging between 200 and 350 words. The longer your page is, the higher the chances that you may get flagged for some factoid that didn’t get referenced enough within the sources you’ve cited to be considered “factually verifiable”.
Keep it to a minimum and only write about things that are easily fact-checked and warrant being on Wikipedia. Beyond that, just refer to Wikipedia’s own guidelines for written content and read a couple of pages for a quick inspo-sesh.
Conclusion
Given that we’ve covered each aspect of Wikipedia creation worth mentioning, let’s do a brief overview given that this post ended up being far longer than I had initially anticipated. We've dug deep into the nitty-gritty world of Wikipedia publishing, dissected the perplexing idea of "stickiness", navigated through the labyrinth of notability, comprehensiveness, reputability, and reliability, and peered into the halls of "Veteran" editor accounts.
So, let’s summarize what we’ve learned. Wikipedia's demanding notability and reliability criteria mean you can't simply grab any media coverage and hope it sticks. Quality over quantity, friends. Be discerning in your source selection, aim for varied, reputable sources, and steer clear of low-quality, biased outlets. You need to be strategic and smart about it. A Wikipedia page isn’t a walk in the park, it's a marathon, demanding preparation, skill, and persistence.
Never forget the importance of the account that does the publishing. An aged, trusted account can make the difference between sailing through or sinking like a stone. And remember, Wikipedia is not a billboard. It’s not about shouting your brand or achievements from the rooftops, it’s about providing an unbiased, informative, well-referenced and worthwhile contribution to the collective human knowledge.
We've shared the tricks of the trade, the ins, the outs, and the in-betweens of securing your Wikipedia page and have hopefully proven ourselves to be an above-average service provider of Wikipedia Publishing Services in the process.
Hopefully, y’all found this sub’s first post to be useful and a good introduction into the world of Wikipedia publishing. Myself and my team member, Marcus will be sticking around for an AMA on this post in case people have questions regarding any of the factors we’ve covered in this guide. Don’t forget guys, we started this subreddit out of the desire to make the process of securing a Wikipedia page less daunting and more of a community endeavor. It's a place where we can share our triumphs and challenges, learn from each other, and navigate the Wikipedia landscape together. So whether you’re a newbie trying to secure your own page or a PMarketing professional with years of experience in the field, please do not hesitate to share your journeys along with any factors you’ve found to have an impact that we failed to cover in the guide.
Let’s make WikipediaPageCreation the focal point of every Wikipedian’s self-publishing endeavor!

• Nikolas Lemmel Maximatic Media

Introduction
Hey and welcome to the GoogleKnowledgePanels subreddit! This is a subreddit dedicated to discovering and exploring various methods and strategies of securing a Google Knowledge Panel for a brand or person. My name is Nikolas Lemmel and I’m the team-lead at a boutique digital agency by the name of Maximatic Media. As we’ve recently begun offering Google Knowledge Panel creation services, I’ve decided to open this sub in hopes of sparking a discussion on various working and non-working knowledge graph generation methods for Google. I’m hoping to start the birth of this sub off strong so I’m gonna try to provide an in-depth overview of what we’ve learned about creating and stabilizing Google knowledge panels thus far as a company. If you have any experience with either of these components or would like to share one that we’ve yet to cover, please feel free to comment down below.
The Notability Factor
So diving right into the nitty-gritty of GKP creation, we must first cover the concept of notability; arguably, the most important aspect out of all of the points I’ll be covering in this guide. Notability in the context of GKPs simply means how often reputable, secondary sources are referencing you in their media output. Said references come in many forms, whether it be a full feature article, a short bio in a listicle or just a basic citation. However, not all references are made equal. Some references carry significantly more weight than others, either due to its “comprehensiveness” (i.e. a full feature article with the sole focus being on you) or the “reputability” of the source doing the referencing (i.e. mentioned in Forbes vs mentioned in “Biznes-News-Blog”).
Comprehensiveness
Let’s first delve into the topic of comprehensiveness. The comprehensiveness of your reference can be calculated by just a couple factors: the word count of the article, the keyword density of your entity’s name within said article and whether the entity is being referenced in the title/headline of the article. These three components determine the significance laid upon the entity by the reporting outlet. The more extensive the coverage, the higher the significance in the eyes of Google (i.e. a full-feature, 750-word article on Forbes vs a 150 word entry in “Top 30 E-Commerce Businesses of 2023” listicle on Forbes).
The Influence of Topical Relevance
Topical relevance also plays a role in the equation as the contents of the reference should be somewhat aligned with what other sources are discussing when mentioning your entity’s name. If every article that your entity appears in has a completely different context or is overly-generalized, it decreases Google’s certitude of what it truly knows about said entity. That’s largely why it’s not recommended to always opt for brand mentions or stuff keywords into random guest posts as it can drastically impact what Google thinks it knows about you.
Reputability
Now that we’ve covered what I mean by “comprehensiveness”, let’s talk about the other component influencing the power of your media coverage: reputability. The concept of reputability is basically as straightforward as it gets. Just about any semi-famous news or media outlet that you can think of is viewed as a “reputable” source by Google. The likes of Forbes, Mashable, USA Today, etc are all stellar examples of significant coverage that corroborates you or your brand as a notable entity in the eyes of Google. However, a full feature article on each of those aforementioned sites costs $15,000, $2,400 and $6,500 respectively. If you as an entity see no utility in being featured on these media outlets beyond simply meeting the eligibility criteria for a Google Knowledge Panel, it makes little sense to purchase those placements.
The Role of Domain Authority
This is where a more esoteric metric comes into play: Domain Authority. A DA score is effectively a ranking assigned to a domain which we can use to assess any given site’s authority in comparison to the rest of the web. It is calculated using the domain’s age, the amount of other sites referring to it and the reputability of said referrals. Basically the same criteria influencing your probability of getting a GKP but quantified by a score from 1 to 100. Now let’s return back to three examples of reputable media outlets I’ve given above: Forbes, Mashable and USA Today. Forbes has a DA score of 95, Mashable has a DA score of 92 and USA Today has a DA score of 94. So all in all, all three publications are highly renowned, outpacing the vast majority of other sites on the web with scores of 90 and above. However, if referring back to the pricing of each placement, we see a pretty drastic incongruence with the value derived from each media outlet in the context of GKP creation. Forbes, despite being one measly basis point off of USA Today’s DA score, carries more than a 200% higher price tag. Now sure, Forbes has a significantly higher readership and holds far more clout than USA Today but if focusing solely on its impact in the SEO space, it really doesn’t warrant the price you pay for it when compared to other viable alternatives.
And these are just the three sites we’ve mentioned so far. Take a look at the following spreadsheet containing 400+ available media placements and keep an eye on the DA column:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SX7bI0YSZeJCWwxaMEZ1LG-QtoiLFnDVJZjW1n-ZvQ0/edit?usp=sharing
As you scroll through, you’ll find that there are a plethora of Google-News-Approved sites that have a relatively high DA despite costing a fraction of what the internationally distinguished media outlets cost. Sites like Village Voice, HackerNoon, Times of Malta, Chiang Rai Times, etc. Now granted, they don’t exactly pack the same sort of punch that Forbes does but in the context of a Google Knowledge Panel, you are considerably better off securing five B-tier placements in comparison to a singular A tier placement. So long as you are not cheaping out by opting for “Biznes-News-Blog” as your referring source and stick to Google-News-Approved publications, a varied list of reputable placements within your Schema.org set-up (which we’ll be covering later in the guide) will take you much further than just one extremely reputable reference.
The Question of Quantity
A pretty common question we get asked in our GKP consultations with clients is what amount of references guarantees a panel. What is the absolute minimum that I can get away with? And truth be told, we honestly have a hard time answering this question as we don’t truly know. Without an inside look at the inner-workings of Google’s GKP algorithm, it’s impossible to say what the actual amount is. The variables it utilizes are dynamic and there isn’t a constant sum that can be calculated across all cases. We’ve witnessed a client get a GKP with just three mid-tier references in their Schema and we’ve also witnessed a client fail to get a GKP with upwards of 20 strong references.
Having said that though, if taking into account the median number of references across all of our successful cases, a good benchmark to aim for would be roughly 8 semi-strong, corroborating references with a DA of 70 and above. Again, this number is not set-in-stone and may vary contingent on the amount of “keyword-pollution” (i.e. other entities vying for the same moniker) occurring for your entity’s name along with other factors only Google is cognizant of.
Debunking the Myth: The Wikipedia-GKP Connection
Now, let's clear up a common misconception that I've seen floating around: having a Wikipedia page is not a prerequisite for getting a Knowledge Panel. Our anecdotal experience proves no solid line connecting the two. There is absolutely no need to worry about going through the hoops and hurdles of Wikipedia to earn your spot in the Knowledge Graph.
A Wikipedia page is only useful in the context of adding a short bio within your Knowledge Panel which can only be derived from a Wikipedia entry. Beyond that, nothing else about the panel changes. You can still have your website, your logo/image, your social media links and everything else that makes a panel a useful tool within one’s online reputation management’s arsenal.
Believe it or not, securing a stickied Wikipedia page is far, far more difficult than obtaining a GKP. A source like Daily Mail, a highly reputable reference in the eyes of Google, is seen as an “untrustworthy”, “tabloid-like” source of information in the eyes of Wikipedia. As I’ve explained above regarding the Forbes placement, unless you have a separate need for a Wikipedia page beyond its utility in the GKP context, it makes little sense to go through the effort of establishing it. However, if you’re dead-set on getting a Wikipedia page for your personal or corporate brand, you can check out our separate guide about successfully acquiring a Wikipedia page on WikipediaPublishing.
Schema.org Set-Up
Now that we’ve extensively covered the topic of notability, this brings us to the following component which is the nice and robo-friendly organization of your notability indicators. This is where your Schema comes in. Schema.org is a collaborative initiative started by major search engines, including Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Yandex, to create a shared vocabulary that webmasters can use to structure metadata on their websites. It's basically a form of microdata, a type of HTML specification used to nest metadata within existing content on web pages. When implemented correctly, a Schema markup can significantly improve your presence in the SERPs by helping search engines understand your content more efficiently as soon as it surfaces on the web.
In the context of a Google Knowledge Panel, using a Schema markup eliminates the degree of guess-work involved on Google’s end to determine which piece of content belongs to your entity and which doesn’t. This is what enables Google's algorithm to use this structured data to generate rich, informative search results – the kind that Knowledge Panels are known for. This part is especially crucial to those of you who are competing for the same name in the SERPs.
Here's how you'd go about setting up a Schema.org markup:
Step 1: Identify Your Schema Type
Choose the right type of Schema.org markup that suits your content. There are hundreds of Schema types available, from creative works (like books, movies, and music) to organizations, persons, places, and more.
Step 2: Generate Your Markup
Once you've identified your Schema type, use a tool like Google's Structured Data Markup Helper or JSON-LD Schema Generator to create your markup. These tools are user-friendly and guide you through the process step-by-step.
Step 3: Implement Your Markup
Once generated, this markup needs to be added to the HTML of your website. The placement of the markup will depend on the type of Schema you're using and the CMS of your site.
Step 4: Test Your Markup
After implementation, use Google's Rich Results Test to verify if your markup is correctly implemented and can be read by Google.
Remember, adding Schema.org markup to your site does not guarantee a Knowledge Panel, but it does indeed increase your chances by helping Google better understand and represent your content. It's just one piece of the puzzle in creating an informative, robust online presence that can contribute to your GKP creation.
Conclusion
In bringing this all together, let me say this: carving out your space on the web with a Google Knowledge Panel is a fine-tuned mixture of art, science, and a bit of ol’ fashioned luck. We've talked at length about the importance of building notability, making sure we're being talked about in all the right places and in the right way. We've also stressed the need to take stock of the value each media placement brings to the table, balancing their domain authority and cost to get the most bang for our buck (refer back to the spreadsheet).
We've also established that there's no magic number of references that'll open the GKP gates for us. Like a lot of things in life, it’s not just about quantity but quality and relevance that counts. And although having a Wikipedia page may seem like the golden ticket, it's not the be-all and end-all; you can absolutely secure a GKP without one.
As for structuring our online presence for Google’s scrapers, using a Schema.org markup is a crucial piece of the puzzle. It’s like leaving breadcrumbs for Google's algorithm, making sure it can effortlessly find and understand our content. The detailed steps we've covered should help guide you through this process, but remember, it’s not a guarantee for a panel - just a tool in your arsenal.
At the end of the day, there isn't a foolproof recipe for securing a GKP. The path to success can vary wildly, each one unique and filled with its own set of disadvantages. But with some patience, a touch of strategy, and a deep understanding of how Google's algorithm works, we can certainly increase our odds.
Hopefully, y’all found this sub’s first post to be useful and a good introduction into the world of GKP creation. Myself and my team member, Marcus will be sticking around for an AMA on this post in case people have questions regarding any of the factors we’ve covered in this guide. Don’t forget guys, we started this subreddit out of the desire to make the process of securing a GKP less daunting and more of a community endeavor. It's a place where we can share our triumphs and challenges, learn from each other, and navigate the GKP landscape together. So whether you’re a newbie trying to secure your own panel or an SEO professional with years of experience in the field, please do not hesitate to share your journeys along with any factors you’ve found to have an impact that we failed to cover in the guide.
Thanks for reading!

• Nikolas Lemmel Maximatic Media

I forgot my password so I used my phone number to get into my account, yahoo won't let me through because it wants me to provide ANOTHER recovery phone number and email, please help me because this is driving me insane.

After two days of giving up on all hopes i tried logging in using steam and after i got sent to link my runescape account with steam i ended up with over 10 verification codes one after another on my yahoo mail every time i opened runescape with steam and at the same time i opened the jagex launcher and managed to get in.
Not sure for how long i will be logged in on the launcher or if it will work when i get back but this is best we can do for now. Anyway rs is loading really slow for me on steam and dont want to try playing using steam even on low but this is better than nothing
I suggest anyone that dont want to get stuck outside of the game to only link one account for the golden cape only on the jagex launcher and nothing more and only link them all when Beta is over since this might not be the last time we will experience this sort of problem.

Reds @ Red Sox - Wed, May 31

Game Status: Final - Score: 5-4 Reds

Links & Info

• MLB Gameday
• Game Graphs
• Savant Gamefeed

	Reds Batters	AB	R	H	RBI	BB	K	LOB	AVG	OBP	SLG
1	Newman - 3B	4	1	2	0	0	0	0	.276	.343	.366
2	McLain - SS	5	0	2	0	0	1	3	.361	.426	.541
3	India - 2B	4	1	0	0	1	2	4	.282	.369	.426
4	Steer - 1B	3	1	1	2	1	1	1	.289	.356	.498
5	Stephenson, T - DH	4	0	0	0	0	2	2	.246	.336	.340
6	Fairchild - RF	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	.246	.343	.386
	a-Fraley - LF	2	0	0	0	0	1	2	.248	.337	.399
7	Senzel - CF	4	0	2	1	0	1	0	.270	.341	.405
8	Barrero - CF	2	1	0	0	1	1	3	.231	.314	.347
	Casali - C	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	.154	.254	.154
9	Maile - C	3	0	1	1	0	1	0	.259	.310	.481
	1-Benson - RF	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	.152	.176	.212
	Totals	35	5	8	4	3	13	15

Reds
a-Flied out for Fairchild in the 6th. 1-Ran for Maile in the 7th.
BATTING: 2B: Senzel (8, Paxton); Maile (3, Paxton). HR: Steer (8, 7th inning off Winckowski, 1 on, 2 out). TB: Maile 2; McLain 2; Newman 2; Senzel 3; Steer 4. RBI: Maile (6); Senzel (26); Steer 2 (28). 2-out RBI: Maile; Steer 2; Senzel. Runners left in scoring position, 2 out: McLain; Barrero 2. GIDP: India. Team RISP: 4-for-10. Team LOB: 7.
FIELDING: E: Casali (1, catcher interference). DP: (McLain-Steer).

	Red Sox Batters	AB	R	H	RBI	BB	K	LOB	AVG	OBP	SLG
1	Verdugo - RF	5	0	2	0	0	0	1	.294	.368	.456
2	Devers - 3B	4	0	1	1	1	1	1	.246	.288	.498
3	Turner, J - 1B	4	0	1	0	0	1	4	.263	.351	.404
4	Yoshida - DH	4	2	2	1	0	0	1	.317	.391	.508
5	Refsnyder - LF	4	0	1	0	0	1	1	.284	.408	.383
6	Duran, Ja - CF	4	0	1	1	0	1	1	.292	.340	.467
7	Hernández, K - SS	3	0	0	0	0	1	0	.233	.308	.352
	a-Tapia, R - PH	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.274	.337	.381
	Reyes, P - SS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.273	.314	.364
8	Valdez, E - 2B	3	1	1	1	0	1	1	.250	.302	.450
9	Wong - C	4	1	1	0	0	1	1	.243	.293	.470
	Totals	36	4	10	4	1	7	12

Red Sox
a-Lined out for Hernández, K in the 8th.
BATTING: 2B: Devers (13, Weaver); Refsnyder (5, Weaver); Yoshida (12, Sims); Duran, Ja (15, Sims). HR: Yoshida (7, 2nd inning off Weaver, 0 on, 0 out); Valdez, E (4, 5th inning off Weaver, 0 on, 1 out). TB: Devers 2; Duran, Ja 2; Refsnyder 2; Turner, J; Valdez, E 4; Verdugo 2; Wong; Yoshida 6. RBI: Devers (47); Duran, Ja (21); Valdez, E (11); Yoshida (31). 2-out RBI: Devers. Runners left in scoring position, 2 out: Duran, Ja; Valdez, E; Turner, J 3. GIDP: Yoshida. Team RISP: 2-for-8. Team LOB: 7.
FIELDING: E: Devers (5, throw). DP: (Hernández, K-Valdez, E-Turner, J).

Reds Pitchers	IP	H	R	ER	BB	K	HR	P-S	ERA
Weaver	5.2	7	3	3	0	5	2	97-65	5.36
Gibaut (W, 5-1)	1.0	0	0	0	0	0	0	10-8	3.55
Young, Al (H, 8)	0.1	1	0	0	1	0	0	18-11	2.86
Sims (H, 5)	1.0	2	1	1	0	1	0	28-22	4.15
Farmer, B (S, 1)	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	16-8	2.60
Totals	9.0	10	4	4	1	7	2

Red Sox Pitchers	IP	H	R	ER	BB	K	HR	P-S	ERA
Paxton	5.0	4	1	1	1	8	0	100-68	4.26
Crawford, K (H, 2)	0.2	1	1	1	2	0	0	24-12	3.52
Winckowski (L, 2-1)(BS, 3)	1.1	3	3	0	0	2	1	24-17	2.14
Martin	1.0	0	0	0	0	2	0	14-10	1.23
Pivetta	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	13-8	5.66
Totals	9.0	8	5	2	3	13	1

Game Info
HBP: Newman (by Pivetta).
Pitch timer violations: Weaver (pitcher).
Pitches-strikes: Weaver 97-65; Gibaut 10-8; Young, Al 18-11; Sims 28-22; Farmer, B 16-8; Paxton 100-68; Crawford, K 24-12; Winckowski 24-17; Martin 14-10; Pivetta 13-8.
Groundouts-flyouts: Weaver 6-3; Gibaut 2-1; Young, Al 1-0; Sims 0-1; Farmer, B 1-1; Paxton 2-3; Crawford, K 0-2; Winckowski 2-0; Martin 1-0; Pivetta 1-1.
Batters faced: Weaver 23; Gibaut 4; Young, Al 3; Sims 5; Farmer, B 3; Paxton 20; Crawford, K 5; Winckowski 7; Martin 3; Pivetta 4.
Inherited runners-scored: Gibaut 1-0; Young, Al 1-0; Winckowski 2-0.
Umpires: HP: Alan Porter. 1B: Jim Wolf. 2B: Mike Muchlinski. 3B: Sean Barber.
Weather: 79 degrees, Clear.
Wind: 2 mph, In From CF.
First pitch: 7:12 PM.
T: 3:02.
Att: 32,593.
Venue: Fenway Park.
May 31, 2023

Inning	Scoring Play	Score
Bottom 2	Umpire reviewed (home run), call on the field was upheld: Masataka Yoshida homers (7) on a fly ball to right field.	1-0 BOS
Bottom 3	Rafael Devers doubles (13) on a fly ball to left fielder Nick Senzel. Connor Wong scores.	2-0 BOS
Top 5	Luke Maile doubles (3) on a sharp fly ball to center fielder Jarren Duran. Jose Barrero scores.	2-1 BOS
Bottom 5	Enmanuel Valdez homers (4) on a fly ball to left center field.	3-1 BOS
Top 6	Nick Senzel singles on a line drive to center fielder Jarren Duran. Jonathan India scores. Spencer Steer to 2nd.	3-2 BOS
Top 7	Jonathan India grounds into a double play, shortstop Enrique Hernandez to second baseman Enmanuel Valdez to first baseman Justin Turner. Will Benson scores. Kevin Newman to 3rd. Matt McLain out at 2nd. Jonathan India out at 1st.	3-3
Top 7	Spencer Steer homers (8) on a fly ball to left center field. Kevin Newman scores.	5-3 CIN
Bottom 8	Jarren Duran doubles (15) on a ground ball to left fielder Jake Fraley. Masataka Yoshida scores.	5-4 CIN

Team	Highlight
BOS	Bullpen availability for Boston, May 31 vs Reds (00:00:07)
CIN	Bullpen availability for Cincinnati, May 31 vs Red Sox (00:00:07)
BOS	Fielding alignment for Boston, May 31 vs Reds (00:00:11)
BOS	Starting lineups for Reds at Red Sox - May 31, 2023 (00:00:09)
CIN	An animated look at Spencer Steer's home run (00:00:09)
BOS	Masataka Yoshida's solo home run (7) (00:00:28)
BOS	Rafael Devers' RBI double (00:00:20)
CIN	Luke Maile's RBI double (00:00:27)
BOS	Valdez's solo home run (4) (00:00:29)
CIN	Nick Senzel's RBI single (00:00:17)
CIN	Jonathan India's RBI groundout (00:00:26)
CIN	Steer's go-ahead homer (8) (00:00:28)
BOS	James Paxton K's eight (00:00:58)
BOS	Jarren Duran's RBI double (00:00:32)
CIN	Luke Weaver K's five (00:00:35)
CIN	Nick Senzel records final out (00:00:13)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9		R	H	E	LOB
Reds	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	0	0		5	8	1	7
Red Sox	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	0		4	10	1	7

Decisions

• Winner: Ian Gibaut (5-1, 3.55)
• Loser: Josh Winckowski (2-1, 2.14)
• Save: Buck Farmer (1, 2.60)

Division Scoreboard

TB 4 @ CHC 3 - Final
PIT 9 @ SF 4 - Final
MIL 4 @ TOR 2 - Final
Next Reds Game: Thu, Jun 01, 07:10 PM EDT @ Red Sox
^{Last Updated: 05/31/2023 10:25:34 PM EDT}

Reds @ Red Sox - Wed, May 31

Game Status: Final - Score: 5-4 Reds

Links & Info

• Current conditions at Fenway Park: 79°F - Clear - Wind 2 mph, In From CF
• TV: Reds: Bally Sports Ohio, Red Sox: NESN
• Radio: Reds: WLW 700, Red Sox: WCCM 1490 AM (SP) (es), WAMG 890 AM (SP) (es), WEEI 93.7
• MLB Gameday
• Game Graphs
• Savant Gamefeed

	Reds Batters	AB	R	H	RBI	BB	K	LOB	AVG	OBP	SLG
1	Newman - 3B	4	1	2	0	0	0	0	.276	.343	.366
2	McLain - SS	5	0	2	0	0	1	3	.361	.426	.541
3	India - 2B	4	1	0	0	1	2	4	.282	.369	.426
4	Steer - 1B	3	1	1	2	1	1	1	.289	.356	.498
5	Stephenson, T - DH	4	0	0	0	0	2	2	.246	.336	.340
6	Fairchild - RF	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	.246	.343	.386
	a-Fraley - LF	2	0	0	0	0	1	2	.248	.337	.399
7	Senzel - CF	4	0	2	1	0	1	0	.270	.341	.405
8	Barrero - CF	2	1	0	0	1	1	3	.231	.314	.347
	Casali - C	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	.154	.254	.154
9	Maile - C	3	0	1	1	0	1	0	.259	.310	.481
	1-Benson - RF	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	.152	.176	.212
	Totals	35	5	8	4	3	13	15

Reds
a-Flied out for Fairchild in the 6th. 1-Ran for Maile in the 7th.
BATTING: 2B: Senzel (8, Paxton); Maile (3, Paxton). HR: Steer (8, 7th inning off Winckowski, 1 on, 2 out). TB: Maile 2; McLain 2; Newman 2; Senzel 3; Steer 4. RBI: Maile (6); Senzel (26); Steer 2 (28). 2-out RBI: Maile; Steer 2; Senzel. Runners left in scoring position, 2 out: McLain; Barrero 2. GIDP: India. Team RISP: 4-for-10. Team LOB: 7.
FIELDING: E: Casali (1, catcher interference). DP: (McLain-Steer).

	Red Sox Batters	AB	R	H	RBI	BB	K	LOB	AVG	OBP	SLG
1	Verdugo - RF	5	0	2	0	0	0	1	.294	.368	.456
2	Devers - 3B	4	0	1	1	1	1	1	.246	.288	.498
3	Turner, J - 1B	4	0	1	0	0	1	4	.263	.351	.404
4	Yoshida - DH	4	2	2	1	0	0	1	.317	.391	.508
5	Refsnyder - LF	4	0	1	0	0	1	1	.284	.408	.383
6	Duran, Ja - CF	4	0	1	1	0	1	1	.292	.340	.467
7	Hernández, K - SS	3	0	0	0	0	1	0	.233	.308	.352
	a-Tapia, R - PH	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.274	.337	.381
	Reyes, P - SS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.273	.314	.364
8	Valdez, E - 2B	3	1	1	1	0	1	1	.250	.302	.450
9	Wong - C	4	1	1	0	0	1	1	.243	.293	.470
	Totals	36	4	10	4	1	7	12

Red Sox
a-Lined out for Hernández, K in the 8th.
BATTING: 2B: Devers (13, Weaver); Refsnyder (5, Weaver); Yoshida (12, Sims); Duran, Ja (15, Sims). HR: Yoshida (7, 2nd inning off Weaver, 0 on, 0 out); Valdez, E (4, 5th inning off Weaver, 0 on, 1 out). TB: Devers 2; Duran, Ja 2; Refsnyder 2; Turner, J; Valdez, E 4; Verdugo 2; Wong; Yoshida 6. RBI: Devers (47); Duran, Ja (21); Valdez, E (11); Yoshida (31). 2-out RBI: Devers. Runners left in scoring position, 2 out: Duran, Ja; Valdez, E; Turner, J 3. GIDP: Yoshida. Team RISP: 2-for-8. Team LOB: 7.
FIELDING: E: Devers (5, throw). DP: (Hernández, K-Valdez, E-Turner, J).

Reds Pitchers	IP	H	R	ER	BB	K	HR	P-S	ERA
Weaver	5.2	7	3	3	0	5	2	97-65	5.36
Gibaut (W, 5-1)	1.0	0	0	0	0	0	0	10-8	3.55
Young, Al (H, 8)	0.1	1	0	0	1	0	0	18-11	2.86
Sims (H, 5)	1.0	2	1	1	0	1	0	28-22	4.15
Farmer, B (S, 1)	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	16-8	2.60
Totals	9.0	10	4	4	1	7	2

Red Sox Pitchers	IP	H	R	ER	BB	K	HR	P-S	ERA
Paxton	5.0	4	1	1	1	8	0	100-68	4.26
Crawford, K (H, 2)	0.2	1	1	1	2	0	0	24-12	3.52
Winckowski (L, 2-1)(BS, 3)	1.1	3	3	0	0	2	1	24-17	2.14
Martin	1.0	0	0	0	0	2	0	14-10	1.23
Pivetta	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	13-8	5.66
Totals	9.0	8	5	2	3	13	1

Game Info
HBP: Newman (by Pivetta).
Pitch timer violations: Weaver (pitcher).
Pitches-strikes: Weaver 97-65; Gibaut 10-8; Young, Al 18-11; Sims 28-22; Farmer, B 16-8; Paxton 100-68; Crawford, K 24-12; Winckowski 24-17; Martin 14-10; Pivetta 13-8.
Groundouts-flyouts: Weaver 6-3; Gibaut 2-1; Young, Al 1-0; Sims 0-1; Farmer, B 1-1; Paxton 2-3; Crawford, K 0-2; Winckowski 2-0; Martin 1-0; Pivetta 1-1.
Batters faced: Weaver 23; Gibaut 4; Young, Al 3; Sims 5; Farmer, B 3; Paxton 20; Crawford, K 5; Winckowski 7; Martin 3; Pivetta 4.
Inherited runners-scored: Gibaut 1-0; Young, Al 1-0; Winckowski 2-0.
Umpires: HP: Alan Porter. 1B: Jim Wolf. 2B: Mike Muchlinski. 3B: Sean Barber.
Weather: 79 degrees, Clear.
Wind: 2 mph, In From CF.
First pitch: 7:12 PM.
T: 3:02.
Att: 32,593.
Venue: Fenway Park.
May 31, 2023

Inning	Scoring Play	Score
Bottom 2	Umpire reviewed (home run), call on the field was upheld: Masataka Yoshida homers (7) on a fly ball to right field.	1-0 BOS
Bottom 3	Rafael Devers doubles (13) on a fly ball to left fielder Nick Senzel. Connor Wong scores.	2-0 BOS
Top 5	Luke Maile doubles (3) on a sharp fly ball to center fielder Jarren Duran. Jose Barrero scores.	2-1 BOS
Bottom 5	Enmanuel Valdez homers (4) on a fly ball to left center field.	3-1 BOS
Top 6	Nick Senzel singles on a line drive to center fielder Jarren Duran. Jonathan India scores. Spencer Steer to 2nd.	3-2 BOS
Top 7	Jonathan India grounds into a double play, shortstop Enrique Hernandez to second baseman Enmanuel Valdez to first baseman Justin Turner. Will Benson scores. Kevin Newman to 3rd. Matt McLain out at 2nd. Jonathan India out at 1st.	3-3
Top 7	Spencer Steer homers (8) on a fly ball to left center field. Kevin Newman scores.	5-3 CIN
Bottom 8	Jarren Duran doubles (15) on a ground ball to left fielder Jake Fraley. Masataka Yoshida scores.	5-4 CIN

Team	Highlight
BOS	Bullpen availability for Boston, May 31 vs Reds (00:00:07)
CIN	Bullpen availability for Cincinnati, May 31 vs Red Sox (00:00:07)
BOS	Fielding alignment for Boston, May 31 vs Reds (00:00:11)
BOS	Starting lineups for Reds at Red Sox - May 31, 2023 (00:00:09)
CIN	An animated look at Spencer Steer's home run (00:00:09)
BOS	Masataka Yoshida's solo home run (7) (00:00:28)
BOS	Rafael Devers' RBI double (00:00:20)
CIN	Luke Maile's RBI double (00:00:27)
BOS	Valdez's solo home run (4) (00:00:29)
CIN	Nick Senzel's RBI single (00:00:17)
CIN	Benson scores on double play (00:00:26)
CIN	Steer's go-ahead homer (8) (00:00:28)
BOS	James Paxton K's eight (00:00:58)
BOS	Jarren Duran's RBI double (00:00:32)
CIN	Luke Weaver K's five (00:00:35)
CIN	Nick Senzel catches final out (00:00:13)
CIN	Reds vs. Red Sox Highlights (00:03:08)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9		R	H	E	LOB
Reds	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	0	0		5	8	1	7
Red Sox	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	0		4	10	1	7

Decisions

• Winner: Ian Gibaut (5-1, 3.55)
• Loser: Josh Winckowski (2-1, 2.14)
• Save: Buck Farmer (1, 2.60)

Division Scoreboard

TB 4 @ CHC 3 - Final
PIT 9 @ SF 4 - Final
MIL 4 @ TOR 2 - Final
^{Last Updated: 06/01/2023 12:03:53 AM EDT}

I bought a new charger chord, and I am trying to charge my phone using the plug in the wall socket. It isn't the wall socket. I moved it to another socket where my computer charged up just fine. This phone was mailed to me by ATT when they converted over to the 5G.
I'm on an affordable phone program due to my poverty status and being out of work. Does this mean i need a new phone if it's not charging? I did buy a new charging cord. It was working fine up until yesterday. The phone charged inside my car yesterday.
ATT store employees don't like to offer help unless I'm buying a brand new phone. Since the phone was sent to me for FREE from ATT over a year ago, where do I take my phone to get help? And if in fact I do need to upgrade to a new phone,
Q: What model is comparable? Approximately how much is it out of pocket?
Q: Can ATT employees take my text & photos from this phone that won't charge and transfer it over to a new phone?

I accidentally sent a bunch of my regular e-mails to spam. I immediately went into the Spam folder to reverse what I did. Since then, I am not receiving most of my usual e-mails at all. They are not in spam. They are not in trash. When I go to the Subscriptions tab, I still see them as active. So, I am pretty confident I did not hit Unsubscribe. And when I check my Blocked Senders list, they are not there. They are just not coming through at all. Any suggestions on what to do would be appreciated. Thanks!

I will be eternally grateful to this hacker for her inventiveness and dedication to efficiency and dependability. Despite the fact that I had been a victim of several fake hackers on this platform, I trusted my instincts and hired her. To my surprise, she came through and completed the task in record time. She provided excellent service and was well-organized, trustworthy, and genuine. She is very inexpensive and cost effective.
Get in touch with her using the information provided below.
Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Any social networking platform you can think of, including.
Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Tinder, Snap Chat, TikTok, WhatsApp, Discord, and other social media platforms. She offers a variety of services, some of which include: social media hacks (WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Viber, etc.), incoming call restrictions, GPS location tracking, school grade upgrades, intercepting and retrieving instant messages, credit score upgrades, WhatsApp spying, USSD control commands, Facebook/Messenger spying, Skype spying, hacking into databases of all kinds, internet usage monitoring, calendar monitoring, video game hacking and cracking, and RPG hacking. She also offered me the chance to get a full refund if I found anything wrong with the work, but because she performed an excellent job, I didn't need that option.
Contact: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])