[DISCUSSION] Is Google E-A-T Actually a Ranking Factor?

[Roger Marquez]

Been reading a lot lately about E.A.T. and its impacts on ranking and got around this article on Moz I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it here as an "ice breaker" and potentially induce some kind of debate around the topic.

Thoughts?

 

[Nargil]

I've never seen SERPs being this fucked up in my life, so considering SHIEAT as a ranking factor is an equivalent of running out of Chocapic, while there are nuclear missiles flying over your head.

 

[Deleted member 1313244]

Is it not one of those where if you try to rank using E-A-T you will rank even though E-A-T is not in itself a ranking factor?

 

[bahus]

"Google's John Mueller said on Twitter that Google Search does not explicitly measure E-A-T in search. John was asked about which signals does Google use to measure E-A-T and John said "that's not something we'd explicitly measure for Search -- it's a concept we wrote about in our Quality Rater's guidelines."

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-explicitly-measure-eat-29653.html

 

[jeffro89]

I think EAT is real as a ranking factor and I will optimize for it if I am to go into a niche that needs it.​

Here is a Trello board that will help anyone wanting to start optimizing for EAT!

(https://trello.com/b/FiHXRDxe/e-a-t-factor-checklist-template)

Thank me later​

 

[JetBlack101]

Yah, this is interesting. I am a full believer in E-A-T. Not that I think it is better, but that I think Google is right that it is most important to focus on the user's experience.

I like how the article mentions the study on Medical Sites and the sites with affiliate links and CTAs do worse. This makes sense to me and I am glad that it shows it. If I am searching for medical information the last thing I want is someone to sell me something through an affiliate link. eww.

Spamming CTA and affiliate links is only appropriate if the user expects it based on the link. Review sites, is a good example. I fully expect that stuff on them and are not bothered because I am already in the mindset to buy.

 

[Deleted member 657006]

E.A.T that because google wants google to be perfect.

it like google want proof-writing info with no adds or mistakes.

convert google into the holy grail of information and research.

 

[Roger Marquez]

"Google's John Mueller said on Twitter that Google Search does not explicitly measure E-A-T in search. John was asked about which signals does Google use to measure E-A-T and John said "that's not something we'd explicitly measure for Search -- it's a concept we wrote about in our Quality Rater's guidelines."

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-explicitly-measure-eat-29653.html

Damn, I missed that article by seroundtable, thanks for sharing it.

 

[fraudboi]

EAT is fake just like many of the other lies in the SEO world. its just a marketing ploy to get you to buy into services, courses, and consultants

 

[dandan594594]

EAT is a ranking factor in my opinion, and common sense dictates if everything else is equal the website determined the most trustworthy or has verifiable experts onboard will rank higher.

The problem most people have with the concept is that it has to be built in to a website from day one to have any significant effect, and is very difficult to "buy" for established sites, therefore has no resale value, unlike the new yearly shiny link type.

 

[Zshan]

I have seen many sites ranking in health niche without any E.A.T

 

[Preon]

Been reading a lot lately about E.A.T. and its impacts on ranking and got around this article on Moz I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it here as an "ice breaker" and potentially induce some kind of debate around the topic.

Thoughts?

Backlinks are a form of EAT, so it's very much a measurable component.

The stuff about author authority, about us pages and all that cr*p is likely bullsh*t.

 

[WIZDAHL]

EAT is a major ranking factor these days especially in certain niches. I am seeing sites with legitimate authors with expertise along with Linkedin profiles get a major boost in the SERPs.

 

[blasterweb]

Google has 10K+ contractors who are rating websites based on the Search Quality Rater Guidelines, in which E-A-T is a very important factor. SQR guidelines are a real thing and a ranking factor, so yes, E-A-T is indirectly a ranking factor.

 

[Bread]

Google has 10K+ contractors who are rating websites based on the Search Quality Rater Guidelines, in which E-A-T is a very important factor. SQR guidelines are a real thing and a ranking factor, so yes, E-A-T is indirectly a ranking factor.

Source?

 

[blasterweb]

Source?

https://searchengineland.com/library/google/google-search-quality-raters

 

[HeleneOnWheels]

The company I work for is in the health niche, it's a patient support community. The SEO consultant (whose skills I question) says it needs more content from medical experts. But my question is, how would Google know whether an expert is legitimate? Can’t someone just decide to create John Smith, MD, and write a bunch of articles under his name?

I believe this update is real and that Google is looking for authority, but I just don’t know how they could actually do that as anybody can pretend to be anything on the Internet.

 

[WIZDAHL]

Can’t someone just decide to create John Smith, MD, and write a bunch of articles under his name?

It's not that easy to fake EAT, you will also need to create reputable social profiles.

 

[AKQJ10]

If you read their Quality Rater’s Guidelines and the examples you will see that EAT is hard to measure and I believe G hasn’t figured out a way to fully understand all the factors. Also John said they don’t measure those factors ‘explicitly’. I think this is partly true because of the reason above. But they are trying to do so so we better optimize our pages for it to prepare.

For some sites that are not in YMYL niches, a contact page with an email address can be considered sufficient enough for Trustworthiness, so why not? It’s also good for users.