Surprising Facts About E-A-T & SEO

Want to know what Google wants?
Google recommends that publishers review their quality raters guidelines.
SEO professionals have been doing that for years, looking for any clues to unlock some secrets of Google’s algorithm.
But here’s why much of what you’ve read about optimizing for E-A-T may need an update.
What Is E-A-T?
E-A-T is an acronym for Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. It is a concept created by Google for third-party quality raters as a standardized method for judging search results.
Google also recommends it to publishers as a way to measure the quality of their content.
The reason Google created E-A-T is strictly for measuring the quality of content, particularly for third-party quality raters.
According to Google’s Search Quality Guidelines:
Unless your rating task indicates otherwise, your ratings should be based on the instructions and examples given in these guidelines.
Ratings should not be based on your personal opinions, preferences, religious beliefs, or political views.
Personal opinions would make the ratings submitted to Google unreliable. That’s why the concept of E-A-T was developed.
The search quality raters guidelines and the concept of E-A-T reflect the kinds of sites Google’s algorithm attempts to rank.
E-A-T As Ranking Factors – Is It Possible?
There are no actual patents or research papers that establish the existence of those three concepts (expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness) as ranking factors.
What Google has admitted is that there are signals that indicate that a site is trustworthy but Google has never said what those signals are.
It must be repeated that the Quality Raters Guidelines do not provide hints for what those signals may be.
If the guidelines instruct the rater to review a page for an author, that does not mean that Google uses an “author signal” in the algorithm.
It is asking the rater to do that in order to be a better judge of website authority. That’s all.
There are concepts represented by E-A-T that can be expressed in real factors like links.
Expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness are not actual ranking factors or ranking metrics in use by Google.
How Does Google Know if Content Is Authoritative?
There are real factors like links that have traditionally been used to establish expertise and authority as well as understanding what users want to see.
If a webpage receives many links, particularly from webpages about similar topics, then the webpage receiving the links can be understood as being authoritative for that topic.
There is no actual metric called “authority” that Google uses. Authority is simply a quality of a webpage that Google can guess at based on (undisclosed) signals.
Links are pretty much the only signal that we know about that can indicate that a webpage is authoritative.
But it’s not the only one. In April 2021, Google disclosed that AI is used to identify if the content is authoritative or not.
Google Uses AI to Understand Expertise and Authority
Did you know Google relies on AI technologies to understand the content better?
Google is using AI to weed out low-quality content related to shopping and product reviews.
“…we wanted to make sure that you’re getting the most useful information for your next purchase by rewarding content that has more in-depth research and useful information.”
According to that statement, Google is using AI to understand if web content is superficial or if it has the contours and features typical of “in-depth research” and other qualities typical of sites that are useful to users.
Google Research & E-A-T
Ultimately, Google’s search results pages are about showing users what they expect to see.
Many of Google’s patents and research papers that describe link analysis, content analysis, and natural language processing all revolve around understanding what users want and understanding what webpages are about.
- Links can communicate what page is expert.
- AI helps Google understand what webpages are authoritative.
- Content analyzed by AI and links communicate which webpages are trustworthy.
- On-page signals may indicate expertise, authoritativeness, and authority… as well as their opposites.
How the E-A-T Concept Translates to Better Ranking
E-A-T is an abstract idea created to teach the quality raters how to judge a site.
The search quality guidelines do not provide clues to ranking factors.
The concepts of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness need to be defined in order to be understood.
Once E-A-T is understood, publishers will have a firm idea of how to improve and optimize content.
Expertise
Qualities of Expertise
Expertise is the quality of competence and technical skill. Expertise demonstrates a mastery of the topic, depth of knowledge, and hands-on experience.
As an example, when a webpage is about curing an ailment the topic must generally be approached from a scientific point of view in order to qualify as an expert.
An expert page teaches, reveals, and provides knowledge. An expert webpage will demonstrate qualities of depth of knowledge that can be signaled by the subtopics it raises or maybe by the citations it makes to other work.
Depth of Knowledge Is Not Comprehensiveness
Do not confuse depth of knowledge with being comprehensive. Depth of knowledge means that a topic is deeply understood.
Comprehensiveness is concerned with how broad the scope of the content is.
When evaluating a webpage for expertise, it may be helpful to ask, how does this webpage signal that it communicates a depth of knowledge?
Content is expert if a topic contains a specific kind of information for a given topic. For example, it is almost required for an article about headaches to mention aspirin.
Understand Depth of Knowledge in Order to Understand Expertise
Adding “expertise” to an article is more than the laughably simplistic practice of adding an author box with the author’s academic credentials.
Expertise in webpage content is the expression of the depth of knowledge and experience.
One can’t simply cannot add an author biography and expect it to magically become an expert article.
The first step toward adding expertise to webpages is understanding what depth of knowledge actually is.
What Is Expertise?
Expertise has been studied in a number of disciplines. Some researchers state that “expertise results from practice and experience, built on a foundation of talent, or innate ability.”
The educational field has a system for measuring student’s depth of knowledge called Webb’s Depth of Knowledge. In it there are four levels of depth of knowledge.
The beginner level starts with the ability to remember facts. The fourth level consists of the ability to bring together facts and ideas from different areas and stitch them together into a coherent thesis.
A scientific research organization called Global Cognition states that there are two kinds of expertise. One kind of expertise (Routine Expertise) is the ability to solve problems using similar routines and solutions over and over.
The second kind of expertise is called Adaptive Expertise. Adaptive Expertise is characterized by the ability to formulate solutions for problems that are changing or not previously seen before.
In both cases the results are:
“…the thinking and qualities that lead to consistently superior performance.”
Expertise is generally defined as the result of:
- Practice.
- Feedback.
- Analysis.
What Does It Mean to Have Content With Expertise?
Given what is known about expertise and depth of knowledge, it can be said that expert content contains evidence that the author physically handled the object of the article, has actual experience in the topic, provides analysis, measurements, and comparisons.
Example of Expertise in Content
I wrote an article about structured data. None of the top-ranked articles on the topic mentioned that structured data is a markup language (like HTML is).
Google’s machine learning (and whatever else they use to understand a topic) probably knew that and may have responded favorably to that expert observation.
It’s not that my observation was good because it was different than the top-ranked pages. It’s that my observation demonstrated a deep understanding of what Schema.org structured data is.
Authoritativeness
Being authoritative is not the same thing as being comprehensive. This is a common mistake that publishers make when attempting to create authoritative content.
The Difference Between Authoritativeness and Comprehensive
- Authoritativeness has to do with being reliable, trustworthy, and accurate.
- Comprehensiveness has to do with the quality of having a wide scope.
Accuracy (authoritativeness) and a wide scope (comprehensiveness) are not the same things.
Elements of Authoritative Content
So when reviewing content for authoritativeness, go back to the definition of authoritativeness and review the content for qualities such as accuracy, soundness of ideas, and validity.
Can You Optimize for Authoritativeness?
What is authority? Metrics for authority can be the links that point to your site. That’s pretty much what is known and confirmed for authority.
But authority and authoritativeness are just concepts and are not actual ranking factors or metrics that Google uses. There is no “authority” metric at Google unless you call PageRank an authority metric.
So if you talk about “optimizing for authority,” in a way you’re really talking about how to optimize for PageRank, which is kind of silly. One does not optimize for PageRank. PageRank is something that is accumulated by a webpage.
Related: The Three Pillars of SEO: Authority, Relevance, and Trust
Trustworthiness
People will link to your page, talk about your site on social media, and cite a wide range of pages from your site if your webpages satisfy users on a consistent basis.
That kind of user satisfaction on a wide scale can cause individuals to regard your site as a trustworthy source of information, services, or products.
It is generally understood that Google does not use social signals for ranking purposes. If Google uses them for anything it’s not something that is known.
But social signals can be the smoke that tells you there’s a fire raging that indicates you are doing something right.
Optimizing for Trustworthiness
Googlers have made references to the trustworthiness of a website. Research papers and patents have made references to trustworthiness.
Interesting research into trustworthiness relates to link analysis (Read: Link Distance Ranking Algorithms for more information).
Another line of research is Knowledge-based Trust. But Bill Slawski, an expert on Google patents, said it’s unlikely that Google uses it.
Google likely does not use Knowledge-Based Trust as a Ranking signal for Google Results. Xin Luna Dong posted the following slide in a presentation (https://t.co/R4tfgUabn8) which show low accuracy site are often popular sites, and high accuracy sites are often unpopular ones. pic.twitter.com/b30nMALAIL
— Bill Slawski ⚓ (@bill_slawski) September 9, 2019
A specific trustworthiness metric where a site accumulates “trust points” to indicate trustworthiness isn’t something that Google has researched.
Link distance ranking is the closest thing that Google might be using that approximates trust, but there is no actual trust score. Link distance ranking can identify spammy sites as well as quality sites.
Aside from being careful about where you get links (which you should be doing anyway!), there’s no way to “optimize” for trustworthiness.
You just have to be a reliable and trustworthy source of information. If people notice then Google might also notice, perhaps by the way other sites link to your webpages.
E-A-T Is Not an Algorithm
In October 2019 at Pubcon Gary Illyes confirmed that E-A-T was not an algorithm.
Gary Illyes was asked about E-A-T point-blank and everything he said matches up with what Googlers have been saying about the QRG and E-A-T.
As Gary also said, there are lots of Baby algorithms that taken together approximate something like EAT. This may seem like semantics. To a degree it is, if they don’t have one large adult algorithm that looks for EAT signals. The baby ones probably need to be fed too.
— Bill Slawski ⚓ (@bill_slawski) October 11, 2019
Optimizing for E-A-T
You can build expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness using all of the above approaches that focus on excellence.
Expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness in content are more than just descriptions and perceptions of your site. They are qualities that your content can contain.
So it makes sense to think hard about what those words expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness mean and apply your insights to every webpage that you publish.
Featured image: Paulo Bobita/SearchEngineJournal
Google Brings Bard Students Math and Coding Education in the Summer

Google is stepping up its AI efforts this summer by sending Bard, its high-profile chatbot, to summer school. The aim? To boost the bot’s math and coding smarts. These developments are excellent news— when Bard first debuted, it was admittedly not a finished product. But Google is steadily plugging away at it, and have now implemented implicit code execution for logical prompts, and handy Google Sheets’ integration to take it to the next level.
Thanks to implicit code execution, Bard can respond to inquiries requiring calculation or computation with Python code snippets running in the background. What’s even more amazing is that coders can take this generated code and modify it for their projects. Though Google is still apprehensive about guaranteeing the accuracy of Bard’s answers, this feature is said to improve the accuracy of math and word problems by an impressive 30%.
In addition to this, Bard can now export directly to Sheets when asked about tables. So, you don’t need to worry about copying and pasting, which comes with the risk of losing formatting or data.
From the company’s I/O keynote address, it is clear that they are focused on making the most of what Bard can offer. As they continue to speak highly of the chatbot, we’re sure to expect more features and capabilities when the summer comes around.
Google Bard vs. ChatGPT: which is the better AI chatbot?

Google Bard and ChatGPT are two of the most prominent artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots available in 2023. But which is better? Both offer natural language responses to natural language inputs, using machine learning and millions of data points to craft useful, informative responses. Most of the time. These AI tools aren’t perfect yet, but they point to an exciting future of AI assistant search and learning tools that will make information all the more readily available.
As similar as these chatbots are, they also have some distinct differences. Here’s how ChatGPT and Google Bard measure up against one another.
Which is better, Google Bard or ChatGPT?
This is a tricky question to answer, as at the time of writing, you can only use Google Bard if you’re part of a select group of early beta testers. As for its competition, you can use ChatGPT right now, completely for free. You may have to contend with a waitlist, but if you want to skip that, there’s a paid-for Plus version offering those interested in a more complete tool the option of paying for the privilege.
Still, when Google Bard becomes more widely available, it should offer credible competition for ChatGPT. Both use natural language models — Google Bard uses Google’s internal LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), whereas ChatGPT uses an older GPT-3 language model. Google Bard bases its responses to questions on more recent data, with ChatGPT mainly trained on data that was available prior to 2021. This is similar to how Microsoft’s Bing Chat works.
We’ll have to reserve judgment on which is the more capable AI chatbot until we get time to play with Google Bard ourselves, but it looks set to be a close contest when it is more readily available.
Are Google Bard and ChatGPT available yet?
As mentioned, ChatGPT is available in free and paid-for tiers. You might have to sit in a queue for the free version for a while, but anyone can play around with its capabilities.
Google Bard is currently only available to limited beta testers and is not available to the wider public.

What’s the difference between Google Bard and ChatGPT?
ChatGPT and Google Bard are very similar natural language AI chatbots, but they have some differences, and are designed to be used in slightly different ways — at least for now. ChatGPT has been used for answering direct questions with direct answers, mostly correctly, but it’s caused a lot of consternation among white collar workers, like writers, SEO advisors, and copy editors, since it has also demonstrated an impressive ability to write creatively — even if it has faced a few problems with accuracy and plagiarism.
Still, Microsoft has integrated ChatGPT into its Bing search engine to give users the ability to ask direct questions of the search engine, rather than searching for terms of keywords to find the best results. It has also built it into its Teams communications tool, and it’s coming to the Edge browser in a limited form. The Opera browser has also pledged to integrate ChatGPT in the future.
ChatGPT | Google Bard |
Accessible through ChatGPT site. Only text responses are returned via queries. | Integrated with Google Search. You only need to change a Google setting to get your regular search results when using Google Bard AI, and vice versa. |
ChatGPT produces answers from its trained database from 2021 and before. | Google Apprentice Bard AI will be able to answer real-time questions. |
Based on GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). | Based on LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications). |
Service has a free and paid plan option (called ChatGPT Plus). | Service is free. |
Has built-in plagiarism tool called GPT-2 Output Detector. | No built-in plagiarism detection tool. |
Available now | Still in beta test phase |
Google Bard was mainly designed around augmenting Google’s own search tool, however it is also destined to become an automated support tool for businesses without the funds to pay for human support teams. It will be offered to customers through a trained AI responder. It is likely to be integrated into the Chrome browser and its Chromium derivatives before long. Google is also expected to open up Google Bard to third-party developers in the future.
Under the hood, Google Bard uses Google’s LaMDA language model, while ChatGPT uses its own GPT3 model. ChatGPT is based on slightly older data, restricted in its current GPT3 model to data collected prior to 2022, while Google Bard is built on data provided on recent years too. However, that doesn’t necessarily make it more accurate, as Google Bard has faced problems with incorrect answers to questions, even in its initial unveiling.
ChatGPT also has a built-in plagiarism checker, while Google Bard does not, but Google Bard doesn’t have the creative applications of ChatGPT just yet.
Google to pay $391.5 million settlement over location tracking, state AGs say

Google has agreed to pay a $391.5 million settlement to 40 states to resolve accusations that it tracked people’s locations in violation of state laws, including snooping on consumers’ whereabouts even after they told the tech behemoth to bug off.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said it is time for Big Tech to recognize state laws that limit data collection efforts.
“I have been ringing the alarm bell on big tech for years, and this is why,” Mr. Landry, a Republican, said in a statement Monday. “Citizens must be able to make informed decisions about what information they release to big tech.”
The attorneys general said the investigation resulted in the largest-ever multistate privacy settlement. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, said Google’s penalty is a “historic win for consumers.”
“Location data is among the most sensitive and valuable personal information Google collects, and there are so many reasons why a consumer may opt out of tracking,” Mr. Tong said. “Our investigation found that Google continued to collect this personal information even after consumers told them not to. That is an unacceptable invasion of consumer privacy, and a violation of state law.”
Location tracking can help tech companies sell digital ads to marketers looking to connect with consumers within their vicinity. It’s another tool in a data-gathering toolkit that generates more than $200 billion in annual ad revenue for Google, accounting for most of the profits pouring into the coffers of its corporate parent, Alphabet, which has a market value of $1.2 trillion.
The settlement is part of a series of legal challenges to Big Tech in the U.S. and around the world, which include consumer protection and antitrust lawsuits.
Though Google, based in Mountain View, California, said it fixed the problems several years ago, the company’s critics remained skeptical. State attorneys general who also have tussled with Google have questioned whether the tech company will follow through on its commitments.
The states aren’t dialing back their scrutiny of Google’s empire.
Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was filing a lawsuit over reports that Google unlawfully collected millions of Texans’ biometric data such as “voiceprints and records of face geometry.”
The states began investigating Google’s location tracking after The Associated Press reported in 2018 that Android devices and iPhones were storing location data despite the activation of privacy settings intended to prevent the company from following along.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich went after the company in May 2020. The state’s lawsuit charged that the company had defrauded its users by misleading them into believing they could keep their whereabouts private by turning off location tracking in the settings of their software.
Arizona settled its case with Google for $85 million last month. By then, attorneys general in several other states and the District of Columbia had pounced with their own lawsuits seeking to hold Google accountable.
Along with the hefty penalty, the state attorneys general said, Google must not hide key information about location tracking, must give users detailed information about the types of location tracking information Google collects, and must show additional information to people when users turn location-related account settings to “off.”
States will receive differing sums from the settlement. Mr. Landry’s office said Louisiana would receive more than $12.7 million, and Mr. Tong’s office said Connecticut would collect more than $6.5 million.
The financial penalty will not cripple Google’s business. The company raked in $69 billion in revenue for the third quarter of 2022, according to reports, yielding about $13.9 billion in profit.
Google downplayed its location-tracking tools Monday and said it changed the products at issue long ago.
“Consistent with improvements we’ve made in recent years, we have settled this investigation which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago,” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said in a statement.
Google product managers Marlo McGriff and David Monsees defended their company’s Search and Maps products’ usage of location information.
“Location information lets us offer you a more helpful experience when you use our products,” the two men wrote on Google’s blog. “From Google Maps’ driving directions that show you how to avoid traffic to Google Search surfacing local restaurants and letting you know how busy they are, location information helps connect experiences across Google to what’s most relevant and useful.”
The blog post touted transparency tools and auto-delete controls that Google has developed in recent years and said the private browsing Incognito mode prevents Google Maps from saving an account’s search history.
Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees said Google would make changes to its products as part of the settlement. The changes include simplifying the process for deleting location data, updating the method to set up an account and revamping information hubs.
“We’ll provide a new control that allows users to easily turn off their Location History and Web & App Activity settings and delete their past data in one simple flow,” Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees wrote. “We’ll also continue deleting Location History data for users who have not recently contributed new Location History data to their account.”
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
-
SEARCHENGINES6 days ago
Google Merchant Center Automatically Creating Promotions
-
SEARCHENGINES7 days ago
Google Bug Sends Notice To Some Advertisers That Their Ad Accounts Were Suspended
-
SEO5 days ago
Google Discusses Fixing 404 Errors From Inbound Links
-
SOCIAL3 days ago
Musk regrets controversial post but won’t bow to advertiser ‘blackmail’
-
SEO7 days ago
Is Alt Text A Ranking Factor For Google Image Search?
-
MARKETING6 days ago
3 Questions About AI in Content: What? So What? Now What?
-
MARKETING6 days ago
10 Advanced Tips for Crafting Engaging Social Content Strategies
-
SEARCHENGINES5 days ago
Google Search Console Was Down Today
You must be logged in to post a comment Login