Free · No sign up · Nothing stored

One search. Every source that decides who you are.

Google's Knowledge Graph, Wikidata, Wikipedia and Google Books are the records that search engines and AI assistants read before answering a question about a person. Check all four at once, and get the entity ID that almost nobody ever sees.

Knowledge Graph Wikidata Wikipedia Google Books
Field guide

How to read what came back.

Most people run a search, see a number and have no idea whether it is good. Here is every field, what produces it, and whether it is worth caring about.

The source rowfour checks
Whether each of the four records holds anything for this name. A green Knowledge Graph light on its own is the common healthy state. Four greens is unusual and means you are a fully resolved public entity that machines can answer questions about.
Match strengthresultScore
How strongly the entity matched the exact words you typed, put on a readable scale. Searching a fuller name moves it. A high figure means Google is confident this is the primary meaning of those words. A cluster of entries all sitting at the same low figure means the opposite. It is not a trust rating and it cannot be optimised directly, whatever anyone tells you.
Entity type@type
What kind of thing Google believes this is. Person, Organization, Book, Place. If your own name returns Organization rather than Person, Google has merged you with your company, which is a real and fixable problem rather than a cosmetic one.
Entity ID/g/ or /m/
The identifier. An entry with an ID is a thing. A name with no ID is text. Identifiers starting /m/ are older records inherited from Freebase, the database Google bought in 2010, and usually indicate an entity that has existed for many years. Newer ones start /g/.
Statements and sourcedWikidata
How many facts the Wikidata record asserts and how many carry a citation. The percentage matters far more than the total. Twenty statements with two sources is a record living on borrowed time. Fourteen with nine is a record that survives scrutiny.
Knowledge Graph ID on WikidataP2671
The most telling field in the whole search and the one almost nobody checks. When Wikidata records a Google entity ID, the two systems have publicly agreed they describe the same thing. Its absence is the most common gap on otherwise decent records.
Published worksGoogle Books
Books indexed against this exact author name. An ISBN creates a permanent, structured, third-party record, which is the strongest single accelerator available to a private individual. If your books are split across two spellings of your name, this is where you will see it.
Diagnosis

Four things you might see, and what each one means.

Nearly every search lands in one of these four states, and the right next move is completely different in each.

Outcome one
One strong entry with a description
Google has resolved you. There is a real chance a panel is already showing and you have simply never checked while logged out. An identifier exists, which means there is something to claim.
Do this nextSearch your name in a private window. If a panel is there, claim it this week through the three dots on the panel itself. Claiming is free and takes minutes.
Outcome two
Several entries, all weak, none described
Fragments. Google has met your name in several disconnected contexts and built a thin partial record for each without concluding they are one person. Very common after a change of role, city or name spelling.
Do this nextStop creating new profiles. Make every existing one identical: same spelling, same photograph, same first line, all pointing at one personal site. Consolidation, not addition.
Outcome three
A strong entry, but it is not you
A namesake holds the meaning of your name. An actor, an athlete, an academic. This does not make a panel impossible, but your evidence has to be unambiguous about context: your city, your field, your organisation, beside your name everywhere.
Do this nextChoose one distinguishing form of your name and use it without exception, middle initial included. Then make sure occupation and location sit beside it on every source.
Outcome four
Nothing at all
The most common result and the least informative. This index is partial and lags the live graph, so plenty of people with healthy panels return nothing here. It may equally mean Google genuinely holds no entity for you.
Do this nextCheck in a logged-out browser first, since that settles it. If there is genuinely nothing, the work starts with one personal site and two or three independent mentions, not with a tool.
Background

What the Knowledge Graph actually is.

Google launched it in 2012 with a line that explained the whole idea: things, not strings. Before it, the search index was a very good filing system for documents. It could find pages containing the characters you typed without having any notion that those characters referred to a person who holds a job, was born somewhere and wrote a book.

Much of the original data came from Freebase, a community-built database Google acquired in 2010 and later retired, folding its contents inward. That inheritance is still visible today: identifiers beginning /m/ are Freebase-era records, while newer entities carry /g/. When Freebase closed, much of that community work migrated to Wikidata, which is a large part of why Wikidata carries the weight it does now.

The practical consequence is the part worth understanding. Ranking and being known are two different achievements. You can rank first for your own name and still not exist as an entity, which is exactly the position most senior people are in. Their site ranks. Their identity is nowhere. And because AI assistants lean on resolved entities rather than on documents, being a string rather than a thing is now the difference between being named in an answer and being absent from one.

This tool queries the public interface Google offers onto that graph. Worth knowing: Google itself now describes that interface as being replaced by a newer enterprise product, and it has always been a partial view rather than a live mirror. That is not a flaw in the tool, it is the nature of the data, which is why every result here carries the caveat openly rather than hiding it.

Reading the number

What match strength means at each level.

The raw figure Google returns runs from near zero to several thousand and means nothing on its own, so it is put on a readable scale here. The scale is logarithmic, because the raw numbers are. What follows is what each band tends to indicate, and what to do about it.

80–100
Google treats this as the primary meaning of the name
Type the words and this is what is meant. Usually carries a description and often a live panel. If this is you, the work is claiming and maintaining, not building.
60–79
A well established entity, clearly resolved
Google is confident who this is, though the name may be shared. Frequently the state of an accomplished person who has simply never claimed anything.
45–59
Recognised, not dominant
You exist as an entity and somebody else owns the name in Google's view. The plan has to include a qualifier: field, city, or a consistent middle initial.
Below 45
A weak record, usually a fragment
Especially when several entries return at the same low figure with no descriptions. That pattern is not several people, it is one person Google has failed to assemble.

One thing the number will not do. It will not rise because you want it to. It reflects how the wider web currently uses those words, which is why it cannot be optimised directly and why anybody selling you a higher score is selling you nothing.

Honest limits

What each source can and cannot tell you.

Four sources, four different blind spots. A tool that hides these is more dangerous than one that admits them, because you end up acting on results you should have discounted.

Source one
Google Knowledge Graph
The closest thing to Google's own view of who exists. Returns the identifier, the type, the description and a match figure, which together tell you whether Google has resolved a name into a thing.
The blind spotA partial, lagging copy of the live graph, and Google's own documentation says this interface is being replaced. People with full panels return nothing here every day, so absence proves nothing.
Source two
Wikidata
The structured spine search engines and language models read. Uniquely it can hold an explicit link to a Google entity identifier, the clearest public evidence that two systems agree about a subject.
The blind spotAnybody can create an item in ten minutes, so presence alone means little. The number that matters is the share of statements carrying a citation, which is why that is shown rather than the total.
Source three
Wikipedia
Checked because an article is a strong signal and because its absence is so often misread as failure. Returns the opening extract and a link where one exists.
The blind spotOnly English is checked. Somebody with a substantial article in another language appears absent here, and most panels exist with no article at all, so treat a blank as genuinely neutral.
Source four
Google Books
Books indexed against this exact author name. Included because a book with an ISBN is the strongest single accelerator available to a private individual, and because the check surfaces a problem nothing else does.
The blind spotIt matches on the name string. An author published under two spellings sees their shelf split in half here, which is diagnostic rather than a fault and is worth acting on.
Beyond one name

Four ways people actually use this.

Most arrive to check themselves once. The comparison, the type filter and the export exist because the tool is more useful than that.

Use one
Yourself against a competitor
Put both names in and read the columns side by side. The gap is rarely about talent. It is usually one of them holding an entity identifier and a couple of structured records while the other holds none.
What to look forWhether they have a Wikidata item and you do not, and whether their entry carries a description while yours is blank.
Use two
Sizing up a namesake collision
Search your name, then the famous holder of it. Seeing their figure beside yours makes the scale concrete, and tells you whether the realistic target is the bare name or the name plus a qualifier.
What to look forHow far above you they sit, and whether Google's description of the name matches them rather than you.
Use three
Vetting somebody before you engage
Useful before hiring an advisor, accepting an introduction, or agreeing to appear alongside somebody. A person whose public claims outrun their resolvable record is worth a second question.
What to look forClaims of prominence with no entity record, no third-party sources and no published work behind them.
Use four
Auditing a whole roster
Run each name, export each result, and put them in one spreadsheet. Agencies, membership bodies and speaker bureaus use this to see at a glance who is resolvable and who is invisible.
What to look forWhether your most senior people are also your least visible, which is more common than it sounds.
Plain English

The words this field hides behind.

Entityconcept
A thing treated as an object rather than as characters. You are either an entity or you are text, and everything else follows from which one you are.
KGMID/g/11abc123
Knowledge Graph Machine ID. Google's internal reference number for an entity. Never shown on the page, retrievable through the API, and the thing you ultimately claim.
Freebase/m/ ids
The community database Google bought in 2010 and later closed. Its records seeded the Knowledge Graph, and identifiers starting /m/ still betray that origin.
WikidataQ-numbers
A structured public database of things, machine-readable, that both search engines and language models draw on. Lower bar than Wikipedia, but records still need real citations to survive.
P2671property
The Wikidata field holding a Google Knowledge Graph ID. Filled in, it means both systems have publicly agreed they describe the same thing.
resultScorematch
How strongly an entity matched the exact words typed. Relative to the query, not an absolute rating, and routinely mis-sold as a confidence or trust score.
sameAsmarkup
The list declaring which other web addresses refer to the same subject. The mechanism by which scattered profiles become one identity.
Entity homeyour site
The single canonical page unambiguously about you as a person, on a domain you own. Not a company about page and not a social profile.
Fragmentsthe failure
Several weak partial records for one person, held apart because Google has not concluded they are the same. Shows as multiple low-scoring entries with no descriptions.
Claimingverification
Proving to Google you are the subject of a panel, which earns you standing to request corrections. Requires identification and only the subject can do it.
Frequently asked

Have questions? Straight answers.

No hedging and no upsell hidden in the footnotes.

Does an empty result mean I have no Knowledge Panel?
No. This reads Google's public Knowledge Graph index, which is partial and lags the live graph badly. People with full panels, image stacks and book carousels return absolutely nothing here. A result is meaningful evidence. An empty result tells you only that this index has not caught up. Search your name in a logged-out browser to know the truth.
What is the ID that looks like /g/11abc123?
The Knowledge Graph Machine ID, Google's internal reference for a thing. If a name returns one, Google has begun treating it as an entity rather than a string of letters. It is the hook everything else hangs on, and it is what you eventually claim. You can paste one straight into the search box above.
Is match strength a Google trust rating?
No, and this gets sold dishonestly all over the internet. It comes from resultScore in Google's Knowledge Graph API, which measures how well an entity matched the exact words you typed. It moves when you change the query. Useful as a directional signal, worthless as a trust metric, and anyone presenting it as a confidence score either does not know or is hoping you do not.
Why do I see several results for one name?
Because Google is holding several unmerged fragments of one person, or genuine namesakes, and has not decided which is which. Several weak entries at identical low scores with no descriptions usually means fragments rather than different people. Merging them into one entity is real work.
Why check Wikidata, Wikipedia and Books too?
Because those are the machine-readable records that Google and the language models read when deciding what a person is. Wikidata is where an entity can be explicitly tied to a Google Knowledge Graph ID. Books create permanent third-party records against an author name. Between them they explain most of why one person has a rich panel and another has none.
Do you store what I type?
No. Google lookups pass through this site so the key stays on the server, and answers are cached briefly so repeat searches do not burn quota. Wikidata and Wikipedia are called straight from your browser. Nothing is logged against you and there is no email capture anywhere on this page.
If the result came back thin

A thin record is information, not a verdict on you.

It usually means the evidence exists but sits scattered, unlinked and unreadable by a machine. That is a fixable problem, and it is most of what the work actually consists of. If it means the evidence genuinely does not exist yet, the honest answer is to go and earn some first, and we will tell you that rather than take your money.

See how a panel gets built →