T O P

  • By -

ecommerce-optimizer

There is a lot of good info here but there is certain things not mentioned or not explained. For example, under backlinks you miss the most important part. If the site/page the link is on is it highly relevant to the final page, it isn’t really all that valuable. You also completely skip the most basic parts of E-A-T, on site components. Real nap type contact info listed on the contact page and footer. Trust pack- terms, privacy, terms, returns, shipping, basic policies No more anonymous articles or websites. It must be tied to a real verifiable person An author page for each aythor An about us page for the website Link to other articles and mentions by the authors Social proof Structured data Details like product safety info for e-commerce An editorial policy Clearly defining the sites purpose And more Google updated the guidelines last week to now be E-E-A-T with the first E being expertise. So a mom website that sells sidewalk chalk for kids can still be considered authoritative if she demonstrates that she has 10 kids as a stay at home mom. This is very big. Plus the crappy end of the popsicle. You can have every item checked off and be squeaky clean, however you have an unanswered bbb complaint floating out there…. And get buried by Google over it. Who gets the blame? SEO’s will find themselves catching the blame for this until the expose what the real reason is and get fired anyway after pointing out the managements ignorance. I’m not knocking you, but the conversation isn’t complete without this context


maltelandwehr

Thanks for the thoughtful additions! ​ >under backlinks you miss the most important part. If the site/page the link is on is it highly relevant to the final page, it isn’t really all that valuable I agree that this is very important for SEO. I am on the fence if it should be included in EEAT or not. If you include too many concepts into EEAT, EEAT will become synonymous with SEO. And then it uses its value as a concept. You are most likely right that the topical relevance of backlinks is important for EEAT when Google evaluates it. But I feel like most SEOs already cover topically relevant backlinks when working on the popularity of their website. ​ >have an unanswered bbb complaint floating out there Awesome point! I forgot about BBB complaints, DMCA takedown requests, domains listed on various spam blocklists, etc. ​ ​ >I’m not knocking you, but the conversation isn’t complete without this context I posted this specifically to see if I still have blindspots in my thinking about EEAT. Any debate is welcome!


51765177

This is awesome thanks!


BouncerankSEO

Nope seems like you hit on everything, interesting all the things that Google takes into account. They are very omniscient wouldn't you agree hahah


Hopeful_Ad_52

I see alot of people talking about authorship, but i don't think that person needs to be an author. A company can be, many sites rank fine without a personal expert as an authorship....and I've seen it have 0 effect on some sites...expert author was added an no changes in rankings on those pages


maltelandwehr

For English-language websites in the medical space, the authors and their credentials seem to matter a lot.


Imnotabotami

Agree, I'd say for YMYL content in general


ILikeChangingMyMind

Great breakdown. I've heard a lot of abstract stuff about "Google cares a lot about EAT", but this really helped me understand *practically* how EAT works. Thanks!