E-E-A-T

​[Google added "Experience" to the existing E-A-T requirements](=). E-A-T stands for "expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness." It's now E-E-A-T or Double-E-A-T. I like E-A-T Squared. "Experience" is added to an already redundant set of Google quality rater guidelines. Keep in mind this is set out in the "quality rater guidelines" which come into play when a website rater visits your site. There's no mention that the algo can pick it up. Other signals, yes. By content alone, doubtful. We could get all cutesy about these guidelines but raters won't be amused. For example, must content possess all four or just one? If it's just one and I write authoritatively, even though I know ziltch about the topic, is that okay. After all, machines write authoritatively. At the end of the day raters probably apply a sniff test to a site along with a checklist of requirements. They check out a pile of articles, the About page and determine relatively quickly whether the site has passes Double E-A-T or not. I believe a rater checklist was leaked some time ago. It was extensive. I'd be surprised if every rater went through every item in it. Regardless, they go through some form of checklist. It's brutal to think that whether your site passes E-E-A-T boils down to one rater. What if that rater woke up on the wrong side of the bed and had a bone to pick with everything? That sucks. On any other day they might be more generous. That's how life goes. Court cases are decided on the whims of a single person being the judge. I have a great deal of respect for judges and believe most are objective most of the time but they're human too. Dang, this email is turning out like it was written by a lawyer paid by the word. I should really get to the point. The point is this. Regardless how you produce content, you should take steps to improve Double E-A-T. There are many things you can do. You need not do all of them but do as much as you can. I recently consulted an SEO who said one of the best things you can do for E-E-A-T is strengthen the knowledge graph of your writers. This is assuming your content is decent to start with. This means that each article has an assigned writer. Those writers have author pages and a write up with headshot on your About page. Ideally, your writers have links to various social media profiles. This is not possible for all but do what you can. In fact, a nice added touch is that your writers post links from their social channels to the articles they write. Again, this not possible to require for every writer but when possible, it's good. In a nutshell, check out top-tier publications and observe exactly how they present their writers. For example, Forbes places the writer's name at the top. When you click the name, their brief write-up shows up in the sidebar. Many have links to their Twitter profile. For a long time I didn't pay much attention to any of this but it's important now. While it's probably been a good thing to do for a long time, it's doubly important now because of AI content. Google wants to see "proof" in the form of these writer signals that content is written by people with one, some or all four of the Double E-A-T criteria. That just covers your writers. Then there's the content itself. I've long been a proponent of publishing good content. The more authentic, the better. It's not rocket science. Publish content that demonstrates E-E-A-T. That includes: - Personal experience; - Your own media (photos, videos, GIFs) - Clear expertise as in you know what you're talking about. Nuance on the topic is key. - primary research - polls, data etc. - Serves the search intent. I'm not naive to believe all topics require a full workup. Some content is simple and requires a simple write-up to address the topic. That said, when you can demonstrate authenticity, even if a simple topic, do so. One person who I've known for years and does a great job writing comprehensive content and teaching is [Aisha Preece](=). She shares the url of her travel website [here](=) which is also the landing page of her currently discounted course. Does doing all this mean you can't use AI content? No. I know many of you are and will use AI content. I use it for ideas and brainstorming. I don't copy and paste though. That's too risky IMO for sites I care about. In fact, the fiction of it all, especially establishing a knowledge graph for writers does not mean writers aren't using AI. Just because a person is wearing a police uniform doesn't mean they're a cop. Personally, I think AI content is pretty good. Dry and boring but it does relay good info. With some polish (rewriting and additional research), it can be solid. The currently free ChatGPT tool is pretty cool (really cool actually and it's just the beginning). One current failing is can't produce current info because it does not access the Web. That's why for more current info which I use for content ideas and sub-topics, I prefer [this AI writer](=). It's as good as the ChatGPT but taps the Web so includes up-to-date info and news. It also supports voice-commands. It still doesn't pass [Originality.ai detection]() which is fine by me because I use it for ideas. Does on-page still matter? Yeah, it does. Google algo is still a machine and you must communicate to the machine what your page is about. If your article is about training poodles, using an SEO title such as "Good doggy" isn't the smartest move. You still want to use an SEO title that makes it clear the article is about training poodles. What I infer from this simple example is that on-page is still very important. That means good titles, sub-headings and all the rest of it that gives your article the best chance to rank (that's in your control). To this date, the best on-page info I learned is [this course](=) (half off for a very limited time). Everything set out in this course is based on testing. It's the step-by-step guide for solid on-page SEO. None of this is new It's interesting but I believe Google has long wanted all of the above done well content it ranks at the top. The problem for Google is it's tech has never been good enough to do it perfectly. The tech is still not good enough but it gets better all the time. The army of quality raters somewhat fills in the gap. People being people, me included, we often take the path of least resistance. If doing a bit less works, we do a bit less. I certainly have. It's also fair to say that content quality across all publications has improved over the years as Google's tech improves. I'm sure top-tier publications put in a bigger effort today than they did 5 and 10 years ago. I know I do it better today than 5 years ago. 5 years ago I did it better than 10 years ago. This business, like most, constantly evolve. Another option is to throw caution to the wind, fire up your favorite AI content machine and blast out content as fast as you can. I'm sure this will work for some although I fail to see a clear path to it succeeding in the long term. But in the short term, it just might be profitable. I prefer doubling down on better content, more robust knowledge graphs and overall better websites that stand a chance to earn well for years. Thanks for reading. Jon Fatstacksblog.com Please note that all links above except to Google's EAT documentation are affiliate links. I asked Google if I could be an affiliate but I never heard back. [Unsubscribe]( | [Update your profile]( | 2016 Hill Drive, North Vancouver, British Columbia V7H 2N5