The idea that something is not a ranking factor that nevertheless plays a role in ranking websites seems to be logically irreconcilable. Although it sounds like a paradox that cancels itself out, SearchLiaison recently published some commentary that helps understand how to think about EEAT and apply it to SEO.
What a Googler said about EEAT
Marie Haynes posted a video clip on YouTube of an event that a Googler spoke at, essentially doubling down on EAT.
Here’s what he said:
“You know this hasn’t always been there at Google and it’s something that we developed about ten, twelve, thirteen years ago. And it’s really there to make sure that along the lines of what we talked about earlier is that it’s really there to ensure that the content people consume will be…not harmful and useful to the user.These are principles we live by every day.
And EAT, that template of how we rate an individual site based on experience, authority, and trustworthiness, we do that with every query and every result. So it’s actually very pervasive in everything we do.
I will say that the YMYL queries, the queries about your money or your life, like you know when I’m looking for a mortgage or when I’m looking for the local emergency, those are the ones that we pay special attention to and we pay a little more attention to those inquiries because they are clearly some of the most important decisions people can make.
So I would say that EAT has a little bit more impact there, but again, I will say that EAT applies to everything, to every query that we really look at.”
How can something be part of every search query and not be a ranking factor, right?
Background, Experience and Experience at Google Circa 2012
Something to keep in mind is that back in 2012 Google’s senior engineer at the time, Matt Cutts, said that experience and expertise bring a measure of quality to content and make it rank-worthy .
Matt Cutts comments on experience and expertise they were made in an interview with Eric Enge.
Discuss whether the website of a hypothetical person named “Jane” deserves to rank with articles that are original variations of what is already in the SERPs.
Matt Cutts observed:
“While they are not duplicates, they do not bring anything new to the table.
Google would seek to detect that there is no real differentiation between these results and show only one of them so that it can offer users different types of sites in the rest of the search results.
They have to ask themselves what their added value really is? …they have to find out what… makes them special.
… if Jane is just preparing 500 words on a topic she has no training, experience or expertise in, a searcher might not be that interested in her opinion.
Matt then cites the example of Pulitzer Prize-winning film reviewer Roger Ebert as someone with the background, experience and knowledge to make his opinion valuable to readers and the content deserves a ranking
Matt did not say that the background, experience and expertise of the author of a web page are ranking factors. But he said these are the kinds of things that can differentiate one web page from another and align it with what Google wants to rank for.
He specifically said that Google’s algorithm detects if there is something different that makes it stand out. That was in 2012, but not much has changed because Google’s John Mueller says the same thing.
For example, in 2020, John Mueller said that differentiation and being compelling are important to getting a web page noticed and ranked by Google.
“So with that in mind, if you’re focused on this small amount of content that’s the same as everyone else, I would try to find ways to significantly differentiate yourself to make it clear that what you have on your website is significantly different from everyone else the millions of other ringtone websites that have the same content.
… And that’s the same recommendation I would have for any kind of website that essentially offers the same thing as many other websites.
You really have to make sure that what you’re providing is unique, compelling, and high quality so that our systems and users in general say, I want to go to this particular website because they’re offering me something that’s unique on the web and I don’t just want to go to some other random website.”
In 2021, regarding getting Google to index a web page, Mueller also said:
“Is this something the web has been waiting for? Or is it just another red widget?”
That being compelling and different from other sites is something that has been part of Google’s algorithm for a while, as the Googler said in the video, as Matt Cutts said, and exactly as Mueller has said too.
Are they talking about signals?
Signals of the E-EA-T algorithm
We know that there is something in the algorithm that relates to the experience and background of someone Google is looking for. The table is set and we can delve into the next step of what it all means.
A while ago I remember reading something Marie Haynes said about EAT, she called it a framework. And I thought, now that’s an interesting thing that he just did, he’s conceptualizing EAT.
When SEOs talked about EAT, it was always in the context of what needs to be done to demonstrate EAT. So they looked to the Quality Assessors Guide for guidance, which makes sense since it’s a guide, right?
But what I’m suggesting is that the answer isn’t really in the guidelines or anything that quality assessors are looking for.
The best way to explain this is to ask you to think about the biggest part of Google’s algorithm, relevance.
What is the relevance? Is it something you have to do? It used to be about keywords and that’s easy for SEOs to understand. But it’s not about keywords anymore because Google’s algorithm has natural language understanding (NLU). NLU is what allows machines to understand language as it is actually spoken (natural language).
So relevance is just something related or connected to something else. So, if I may ask, how can I quench my thirst? The answer may be water, because water quenches thirst.
How relevant is a site to the search query: “how can I quench my thirst?”
An SEO would answer the relevancy problem by saying that the web page must have keywords that match the search query, which would be the words “satiate” and “thirst”.
The next step the SEO would take is to extract the related entities to “satiate” and “thirst” because every SEO “knows” that they have to do entity research to understand how to make a web page that answers the search query , “How can I do it.” quench my thirst?”
Hypothetical Related Entities:
Thirst: water, dehydration, drink, quench: eat, satisfy, satiate, satisfy, appease
Now that the SEO has their entities and keywords, they put it all together and write a 600 word essay that uses all of their keywords and entities to make their web page relevant to the search query, “How can I quench my thirst?”
I think we can stop now and see how silly that is, right? If someone asked you, “How can I quench my thirst?” You answer, “With water” or “a refreshing cold beer,” because that’s what it means to be relevant.
Relevance is just a concept. It has nothing to do with entities or keywords in current search algorithms because search queries are understood by the machine as natural language, even more so with AI search engines.
Similarly, EEAT is also just a concept. It has nothing to do with author bios, LinkedIn profiles, it has nothing to do with making your content say that you handled the product being reviewed.
Here’s what SearchLiaison recently had to say about an EEAT, SEO and ranking:
“…just making a claim and talking about a ‘rigorous testing process’ and following an ‘EEAT checklist’ does not guarantee a higher ranking or somehow automatically make a page better.”
Here’s the part where SearchLiaison ties in the gift of EEAT knowledge:
“We talk about EEAT because it’s a concept that aligns with how we try to rank good content.”
EEAT cannot be included in a checklist
Remember how we established that relevance is a concept and not a bunch of keywords and entities? The relevance is just to answer the question.
EEAT is the same. It’s not something you do. It’s closer to something that you are.
Search Liaison developed:
“… our automated systems don’t look at a page and see a statement like, ‘I tried this!’, and I think it’s better for that alone. Rather, the things we talk about with EEAT are related to what people find useful in the content. Doing things in general for people is what our automated systems aim to reward, using different signals.”
A better understanding of EEAT
I think it is now clear how EEAT is not something that is added to a web page or that is demonstrated on the web page. It’s a concept, just like relevance.
A good way to think about it is if someone asks you a question about your family and you answer it. Most people are knowledgeable and experienced enough to answer this question. This is what EEAT is and how it should be handled when posting content, regardless of whether it is YMYL content or a product review, the experience is how to answer a question about your family, it’s just a concept.
Featured image by Shutterstock/Roman Samborskyi
[ad_2]
Source link
