Google’s John Mueller answered whether content author experience is important to the Google algorithm because this plays an important role in quality manufacturer guidelines. John replied that he assumed there was some indirect work done on the author’s expertise, but noted that it was “a hazy area”.
EAT and Google algorithm
Google’s Quality Manufacturer Guidelines have already been established as guidelines for standardizing how third-party reviewers score search results that are tested by Google.
The purpose of the Guidelines for Quality Evaluators is to achieve a certain degree of objectivity in judging the research results being evaluated for their usefulness.
John Mueller discusses the author’s experience
So, rather than the raters using their own judgments, Google provides guidelines for them to use in order to standardize their judgments.
Google has recommended the guidelines as a way for publishers and SEOs to objectively judge websites, which some have taken to mean that the factors described in the document are in the algorithm.
As a result, the question lingers if some of these factors that are emphasized as important in the quality raters guidelines are important in the Google algorithm as well.
EAT, that is, experience, authority, and trustworthiness, is one of the factors that the SEO community cares about.
Author expertise and Google algorithm
This specific question relates to the content author’s expertise.
Ask the person asking the question:
I have a few questions about EAT.
In the guidelines for quality raters, the author’s expertise is important.
Do you think it is important for the real algorithm? “
John Mueller asked for an explanation of what he meant.
The person asking the question explained:
“I mean EAT is just mentioned in the manufacturers quality guidelines.
But I want to know if real algorithms also care about eating factors such as author experience.”
An indirect approach to the author’s expertise
John Mueller has not emphasized that there is a direct focus on the author’s expertise with the algorithm. He only said that he assumed an indirect action of determining experience.
John Mueller replied:
“I suppose there is some kind of indirect work done to try to do similar things, yeah.
I mean, we’ve put this into the guidelines so that we can instruct the quality testers to double check these things, and if we think this is important, I would assume that the people on the…search quality side are also working to try to understand in a more algorithmic way.”
EAT is not an algorithm result
John then cautioned against thinking of eating as a ranking factor or measure.
Follow Mueller:
“But I don’t see that there is such an EAT score that you have to get a ‘5’ or something.”
Content expertise
Mueller then came back to the subject of the author’s expertise and said it was more like trying to understand how content fits into the rest of the web.
Understanding how something fits into the context of the rest of the web is something Mueller has mentioned a lot lately.
Mueller explained:
“It’s like trying to understand the context of content on the web.
This is a very mysterious area. “
Content expertise
It is interesting how Mueller begins his answer by talking about discovering author experience indirectly and then ends by talking about the idea of content-related expertise itself with reference to understanding the context of content on the web.
How important is the author’s expertise?
Perhaps we should ask, what determines the expertise, author credentials or what content they publish?
For example, let’s consider a hypothetical case of a website full of medical misinformation posted by a doctor.
How important is the doctor’s expertise compared to the expertise, authority, and credibility of the content itself?
In theory, an expert author should be able to write expert content.
But is it proof of expertise in the author’s credentials or is it the quality of the content itself?
As John Mueller said, It is a very blurry area.
the quote
Is the author’s experience important to the Google algorithm?
Watch at 10:36 a.m. Mark:
