Top Google EEAT Examples

Despite its stated goal of promoting high-quality, reliable information, there are instances and criticisms that highlight how Google EEAT can appear “nonsense” or lead to problematic outcomes. These often stem from the challenges of objectively evaluating these subjective qualities, especially at scale, and the potential for unintended consequences.

Here are some examples and criticisms that illustrate why some might view Google’s E-E-A-T as “nonsense”:

1. AI-Generated Content Misinformation and “Hallucinations”:

• Fabricated Information: A significant criticism revolves around AI Overviews (Google’s AI-powered search feature) generating inaccurate or even dangerous advice. Examples include:

  • Eating Rocks: Google’s AI suggesting geologists recommend eating one small rock per day.
  • Using Glue for Pizza: The AI recommending adding “non-toxic glue” to pizza sauce to make cheese stick.
  • Cooking with Gasoline: An AI response that, while advising against cooking with gasoline, then provided a recipe for “spicy spaghetti” using it.
  • Incorrect Health Advice: Suggestions like “smoking 2-3 cigarettes per day during pregnancy” or a minimum safe temperature for cooking chicken at 102°F (when it’s actually 165°F).
  • Misinformation on Public Figures: An AI Overview falsely claiming former US President Barack Obama is Muslim.

  These examples directly contradict the “trustworthiness” and “expertise” pillars of E-E-A-T. While Google states these are “isolated examples” from “uncommon queries” and that they are using them to refine their systems, the sheer absurdity and potential harm of some suggestions raise questions about the current effectiveness of E-E-A-T in filtering AI-generated content. If AI, which lacks genuine experience and expertise, is generating such content, it undermines the very principles E-E-A-T is supposed to uphold.

2. Difficulty in Objectively Measuring E-E-A-T:

• Subjectivity of “Experience” and “Expertise”: How does an algorithm truly discern “first-hand experience” or “expertise” without human review? While Google looks for signals, it’s not always straightforward. For example, a passionate hobbyist might have more genuine “experience” with a niche topic than a formally credentialed academic who lacks practical application.
• “Ivory Tower” View of Content: Some argue that Google’s emphasis on formal credentials and established authority can inadvertently penalize legitimate, valuable content from smaller creators or those without a traditional “expert” background. If a website is unable to “implement E-E-A-T” in the way Google seemingly expects (e.g., formal qualifications), it might struggle to rank even if its content is accurate and helpful.

3. “Site Reputation Abuse” Penalties:

• Impact on Major Publishers: Google has issued penalties to major publishers (like CNN, USA Today, Forbes, WSJ) for “site reputation abuse,” where they hosted third-party content (e.g., coupons, promotional content, reviews) that was deemed to be exploiting the host site’s established ranking signals.
• Debate over “Business Models”: Critics argue that this policy, while aimed at fighting spam, can sometimes penalize legitimate business models or content partnerships. The line between acceptable third-party content and “abusive” content can be blurry, leading to situations where valuable content might be unfairly demoted due to algorithm limitations or Google’s interpretation of “manipulative practices.” This also raises questions about whether Google is overstepping by dictating certain business models rather than solely focusing on content helpfulness.

4. Misconceptions and Lack of Transparency:

• “E-E-A-T is not a ranking factor, but it is”: Google has repeatedly stated that E-E-A-T is not a direct ranking factor or an algorithm with a “score.” However, they also say that their systems give “even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T for topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people.” This creates confusion and can lead to SEO professionals feeling like they are chasing an undefined and somewhat contradictory metric. – but t’s not a ranking factor.
• Difficulty in “Proving” E-E-A-T: For many website owners, especially smaller ones, it can be challenging to definitively “prove” their E-E-A-T signals to Google’s algorithms. While Google provides guidelines, the practical implementation and the exact signals it looks for are often opaque.

In summary, while the concept of E-E-A-T aims to promote high-quality and trustworthy content, the practical application and the visible results, particularly with the emergence of AI-generated content, can lead to seemingly “nonsense” outcomes. The challenges lie in Google’s ability to accurately and consistently assess these subjective qualities at scale, leading to instances of misinformation or perceived unfair penalization of legitimate content.