Thoughts on “EAT is Not in SEO”| Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness (EAT)

Discussion 2: Thoughts on “EAT is Not in SEO”| Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness (EAT)
Rienzi
Thoughts?
[filtered from 29 💬🗨]
Twitter @schachin
E-A-T is NOT #SEO.
Expertise, Authoritativeness, & Trust. It’s conceptual. It’s a way to conceptualize the Quality Raters qualities of the sites Google hopes to surface with its algorithms. Quality Raters Guide? The goals of the algorithms, not the algorithms themselves.

thoughts on eat is not in seo
🔗🏹
💬🗨

Mew 👑
Do EAT guidelines help your overall search engine optimization campaign?
If the answer is yes then it is definitely SEO.
I can think of many ways it helps with optimization of search, personally. 👍🏽🤭9

Shawn Hill 🎓 » Mew
💯 agree!!
Mike
It's core to search engine optimization (SEO).
Jane » Mew
we optimize many health websites so EAT is a critical SEO tactic.

Mark
She’s completely right. It’s a concept, not a set of explicit instructions or actions 👍🏽3

Mew 👑 » Mark
– That is not entirely true if you read Googles patents 🙂
Mark » Mew
educate me sir. I’d love to add a sprinkle of trust, expertise and authoritativeness.
Mew 👑
Well, let’s break it down.
Expertise, authoritative and trust – isn’t this what PageRank is based entirely off of?
While it’s not a new concept the patents are evolving.
Your backlink profile is a designation of authority, is it not? What’s changing is how Google interprets the authority and if it’s relevant to your in niche EXPERTISE.
EAT is nothing new and it’s always been there, it’s becoming refined in the evolution of backlink vetting (among a few other things)
There’s new patents surrounding these concepts as they are always evolving but are intrinsically the same. 👍🏽2
Mark » Mew
so, it’s a concept..? 😛 Not something you can explicitly add or remove, and not a direct ranking signal in any way. If you’re doing all the basic SEO stuff then you should be ticking all these boxes anyway.
Mew 👑 » Mark
– PageRank is no concept and either is the AI that controls how much expertise and authority Rank Brain thinks you have. Definitely defined by math equations.
Mark » Mew
I haven’t mentioned pagerank or AI. Specifically how does ‘EAT’ give us anything explicit to work with when it’s so subjective? How can expertise be defined and quantified? What about authoritativeness? And trustworthiness?
While it’s possible and probable that google are taking data (likely based on human review) and turning that data into numbers / building up an ideal picture based on averages of thousands of factors, EAT is still a concept. 👍🏽1
Mew 👑 » Mark
– I mentioned PageRank as the whole PREMISE of PageRank is to determine Expertise and Authority signals
Mark » Mew
ok. EAT isn’t a signal you can act on. It can loosely provide a framework for you to work with based on your own thinking, but ultimately it represents ranking signals conceptually and not factually / scientifically.
Mew 👑 » Mark
– I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Google can certainly determine if your company is more trustworthy in your niche based on tons of available data, including PageRank and where trust flow comes from (trust worthy websites or not)
Interesting that you would think otherwise but I do value the input for sure!
Mark » Mew
your point mostly agrees with what I’m saying, right up until the part where you say ‘it’s a ranking signal’ 😂 EAT isn’t a signal you can act on. Right there you’re describing links, not EAT. 👍🏽1
Mew 👑 » Mark
– I don’t think EAT is a signal? It’s a ton of signals 🤔 👍🏽1
Mark » Mew
but you know specifically what Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness are comprised of?
Mew 👑 » Mark

PageRank is authoritativeness as described in Googles own paper on their search engine.
Expertise is based on sentiment analysis vectors more than likely (measuring how other platforms talk about you and what words they use around your website to create a data cloud of “beliefs”)
And trustworthiness is a combination of both the above and more.
There’s literally tons of patents that support algorithms for these words as concepts.
Mark » Mew
‘is’ for sure, or you just think it is? I haven’t seen any of this stuff. Would appreciate references to actually clarify if you can?
Isn’t pagerank just it’s own factor as it has been for years? Specifically what is trustworthiness in terms of a signal you can act on? Where in the patents are the specific components of each of these ‘signals’ (I won’t say concepts as I’m happy to be proved wrong) 👍🏽1
Mew 👑 » Mark

I’ll collect the resources for you when I make it to a computer.
PageRank is an algorithm that changes yearly. They create algorithms for the algorithm in a manner of speaking to make sure that the page flow is truly authoritative in the expertise of a niche. They do this through mathematical vectors.
For example in 2014 a backlink from anywhere was just a backlink. Today, if a backlink has words that are placed around it that help Google understand the sentiment of its use in conjunction with an in niche website that is also credited as a valuable resource the weight of the backlink is now higher than a backlink off a website without the aforementioned.
You can act on this by saying: I am getting backlinks from websites that are in my niche and will provide a solid review with words that provide sentiment value in the same sentence.
There for “Visit the best plumber in Los Angeles”
Becomes
“Looking for a trustworthy and honest plumber in Los Angeles? Acme Plumbing has been the best in the business since 1932.”
The cloud of words in the second example tells Google way more than the first example. All Google has to do is look for these common words on other websites in relation to your own to form a machine learned “opinion”.
And yes there are patents that discuss this that are available to the public.
Mark » Mew
just to explain my point in a different way…
“Build some links” < an example of a signal which could improve my rankings
“Add some keywords” < a signal
“Increase my expertise” < a concept made up of any number of unknowns
“Improve quality” < a subjective concept made up of any number of unknowns
Anyway mate let me know on those patents. Won’t get chance until the morning but would be intrigued to read! 👍🏽1
Malhi
This is how we EAT and optimize one of our client sites .. it's a health site and gets tons of traffic around 30k month.. core helath topics for doctors..totally research oriented..we roped in qualifies doctors who are trustworthy and have authority as well, each article is written and verified by those, included as authors on posts, relevant schema added, citations added to medical research and scholar sites at the end of post . Replicated across all posts..BOOM .. easily gets ranked solely coz of expertise of writers involved and their trustworthiness based on those writers/doctors own background authority (got solid profiles in edu, gov sites) … That's how we EAT.and Google's sees this and ranks us at par with WebMD, health-line .. how's that 😀

👈📰
Shawn Hill 🎓
Although EAT is a concept, it would be really hard to ignore the premise when building any given site.
Every site shows some level of EAT. Albeit, not every site is built intentionally trying to perfect the EAT concept.
When diving deeper, it does seem there are certainly MORE factors to SEO than EAT when compared to a total SEO spectrum.
(Admittedly, this comment was a self-serving test of my own stance on the matter.)
I think it’s like the phrase “a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.”
EAT is SEO but SEO is not EAT. 👍🏽4

Chris » Shawn Hill
well said ✌️ 👍🏽1

Tica
I agree with her statement 100%. They are probably trying to reverse engineer EAT plentiful sites by looking at patterns. Sure, it might be partially implemented in some verticals, therefore the correlation between EAT improvements and ranking changes. 👍🏽1

Mark » Tica
this I agree with. Turn all the subjective human rater data into numbers, look for patterns and implement them into the algorithm. 👍🏽1

Mike
I totally agree with her, but I'm perfectly fine with the idea of other SEOs chasing their tails over this stuff. 👍🏽3

👈📰

This may satisfy you: To Know Whether a Person is Really Good in SEO | Search Engine Optimization
Discussion 1: SOPs around optimizing content for Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness (EAT)
Chris
Any SOP's around optimizing your content for E-A-T?Is it even worth it? Would you consider it a ranking factor?
I see mixed messages, its strange but all rankings revolve around Expertise, Authority and Trust, but usually I get these signals from backlinks.
How do you AUTHORITIZE your content?
I seen this in a Ranking Checklist post for 2020 and I just thought, Huh, EAT your content … sure.
15 👍🏽 3 🤭 18
[filtered from 42 💬🗨]

👈📰
💬🗨

Robert
It is so not another silly catch phrase. A lot of people think that, but check out the episode on SEO Fight Club related to it. Amazing stuff presented by Kyle that intuitively makes sense and I'm sure they're testing it if they haven't already.
Here's an example, say you have a team page, and all of your team members are listed. Usually what you see, in about 99.9% of cases, it's just a picture of somebody, what their name as a caption. But what if you were to include their LinkedIn profile? And their Facebook profile? And their Twitter profile? Do you think that's going to help with trust? What about their cell phone number? What about their email address? Of course it is. That's just one of the things that Kyle talks about with respect to the Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness (EAT) algorithm update
💟1

Chris » Robert
I'll check it out I love fight club!!

Roger
There is no such thing as an EAT Algorithm Update. That never happened. That is 100% misinformation.
The concept of E-A-T was created to standardize the ratings that 3rd party raters contributed.
There are no actual patents or research papers that talk about establishing those three as actual metrics.
There are things like LINKS that have traditionally been used to establish expertise and authority as well as understanding what users want to see.
Ultimately, Google Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs) are about showing users what they expect to see. All metrics and algos like links and content analysis and Natural Language Processing (NLP) all revolve around understanding what users want.
E-A-T was something SEO users extrapolated from the Quick Response Graphic (QRG) but that document does not tell you how the algorithm works or what the algorithm is looking for. It's to standardize ratings for third party raters.
REMEMBER: The algo is looking to understand queries and match them to web pages. That's what all that NLP research and BERT and RankBrain has all been about.
Everything SEO users say about E-A-T is a mistake based on using the QRG for information that is not there.
I have been saying this for the past couple years:
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-john-mueller-e-a-t/322455/
It wasn't until October of 2019 that Gary Illyes confirmed it:
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-eat-score-28356.html
Google's John Mueller is Asked About Links and E-A-T – Search Engine Journal
💟👍🏽4

Chris » Roger
Thanks I'll check out the articles, I keep seeing stuff on EAT pop up and I just needed to double check my sanity for a moment.
Roger » Chris
Yeah, I mean, Gary Illyes was asked about that point blank and everything he said makes sense and matches up with what I've been pointing out and what Mueller's been saying about the QRG. He said there is no such metric or specific EAT algo.
There are no ranking hints in the QRG. The QRG is just meant to put the raters on the same page, to use the SAME methods for evaluating example SERPs. That's all.
Expertise and authority, those are implicit in things like links. Mueller's said a bunch of times that they don't use on-page factors like your author bio because it's so easy to game that, to make it up. It's incredibly naive concept. That's something SEO users invented.
Mercola's site still hit the fan even though he's a doctor, has a bio and has a ton of links. Why? Because Google's algo determined what users want and it's not Mercola's "alt" medical solutions.
As I said above, if you want to figure out why Google is doing something, start with what something means to users because a large part of the recent changes are focused on understanding user queries and on-page content.
That on-page E-A-T stuff, there is NOTHING to support that.
💟2
Chris
I find it funny that SEJ would publish exact opposite SEO information. From my references above https://www.searchenginejournal.com/improve-google-eat-score/270711/
5 Things You Can Do Right Now to Improve Your Google E-A-T Rating
Roger » Chris
I do too! 🙂
But you know, everybody has their opinion and it's up to every digital marketer to read it and judge it and make up their own mind.
I am not going to ask the editor to remove something to make it conform to my opinion. And I'm not going to say that someone is specifically wrong, never.
Everyone has a voice and is free to share their opinion. I only discuss ideas, not people. 😉
💟👍🏽2
Chris
Your article https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-john-mueller-e-a-t/322455/
Google's John Mueller is Asked About Links and E-A-T – Search Engine Journal
Chris
everyone likes getting links from SEJ ..
🤓 I heard it increases your EAT score?! Lol jk 🤭
🤭1
Roger
Well… this gave me something to write about, so thanks! 🙂
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/e-a-t-and-SEO/342449/
Surprising Facts About E-A-T – Search Engine Journal
💟1
Chris » Roger
Lol that was f a s t… I have a read through this today 😉

👈📰

This may satisfy you: How do You Know if the SEO Assistant You are Paying for Is Good?

RELATED POSTs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.