Is "Author Rank," User Comments Driving Losses for YMYL Sites?
-
Hi, folks!
So, our company publishes 50+ active, disease-specific news and perspectives websites -- mostly for rare diseases. We are also tenacious content creators: between news, columns, resource pages, and other content, we produce 1K+ pieces of original content across our network. Authors are either PhD scientists or patients/caregivers. All of our sites use the same design.
We were big winners with the August Medic update in 2018 and subsequent update in September/October. However, the Medic update in March and de-indexing bug in April were huge losers for us across our monetized sites (about 10 in total). We've seen some recovery with this early June update, but also some further losses. It's a mixed bag.
Take a look at this attached MOZ chart, which shows the jumps and falls around the various Medic updates. The pattern is very similar on many of our sites.
As per JT Williamson's stellar article on EAT, I feel like we've done a good job in meeting those criteria, which has left we wondering what isn't jiving with the new core updates. I have two theories I wanted to run past you all:
1. Are user comments on YMYL sites problematic for Google now?
I was thinking that maybe user comments underneath health news and perspectives articles might be concerning on YMYL sites now. On one hand, a healthy commenting community indicates an engaged user base and speaks to the trust and authority of the content. On the other hand, while the AUTHOR of the article might be a PhD researcher or a patient advocate, the people commenting -- how qualified are they? What if they are spouting off crazy ideas? Could Google's new update see user comments such as these as degrading the trust/authority/expertise of the page? The examples I linked to above have a good number of user comments. Could these now be problematic?
2. Is Google "Author Rank" finally happening, sort of?
From what I've read about EAT -- particularly for YMYL sites -- it's important that authors have “formal expertise” and, according to Williamson, "an expert in the field or topic." He continues that the author's expertise and authority, "is informed by relevant credentials, reviews, testimonials, etc. " Well -- how is Google substantiating this? We no longer have the authorship markup, but is the algorithm doing its due diligence on authors in some more sophisticated way?
It makes me wonder if we're doing enough to present our author's credentials on our articles, for example. Take a look -- Magdalena is a PhD researcher, but her user profile doesn't appear at the bottom of the article, and if you click on her name, it just takes you to her author category page (how WordPress'ish).
Even worse -- our resource pages don't even list the author.
Anyhow, I'd love to get some feedback from the community on these ideas. I know that Google has said there's nothing to do to "fix" these downturns, but it'd sure be nice to get some of this traffic back!
Thanks!
-
We have informational and retail websites where we put a LOT of effort into our content. We are trying to produce the best-on-the-web. All of this content is created and edited by people who have both formal education and deep experience in the content area.
There is no way that we would allow user-generated content on these websites - even though we are not in a YMYL (your money, your life) type of industry. User-generated content can be excellent, but a high percentage of it is deeply flawed and far, far below our editorial standards. We have experience people in our own industry who want to submit content but we reject it because it is below our quality standards.
The above is why we don't allow user-generated content based upon editorial standards.
I have read information published by Google where they say that a vigorous comment section can be a sign of a quality website. But, I believe that applies to content types where opinion, kibitzing and prattle are acceptable. However, medical sites (and other types of websites) are an entirely different matter. Low quality content can result in problems for the reader - even if it is in a comments section. Nobody knows exactly how Google views this, but I am going to protect my visitors from BS and poor-quality information.
-
Many thanks, EGOL. I agree that the author profiles need to be improved for sure.
What do you think about the possibility that user-generated comments on a health news site are a concern for Google, re: readers reading comments that are not created by established experts? Could user comments now be a negative ranking factor for health sites?
-
Magdalena's example shows that you understand the problem. Implementation might significantly improve your situation. And just as important... implementation will enable your visitors to see Magdalena's credentials. Do it for your visitors even if Google is not a concern. Your authors also deserve to have this work done.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
PDFs With No Index Contribute To Page Ranks?
I have a question I'm hoping you can help me with. If I upload a PDF and add a no index under the meta robots index so that the PDF doesn't appear in search results when I send people the link to this PDF, does it still contribute to my site traffic/ranking etc? Basically we are deciding whether to put some PDFs with pricing options etc onto our website or on a google drive. We will be sending the links to potential clients. If visitors clicking on the link would still help with increasing traffic and increasing our google rank (without that PDF showing in results) we thought this might be the best solution.
Algorithm Updates | | whiterabbitnz0 -
Page Rank on Moz compared to Ahrefs
So there seems to be a huge philosophical difference behind how Moz and Ahrefs calculates page rank (PA). On Moz, PA is very dependent on a site's DA. For instance, any new page or page with no backlinks for a 90DA site on Moz will have around 40PA. However, if a site has around 40 DA, any new page or page with no backlinks will have around 15PA PA. Now if one were to decide to get tons of backlinks to this 40 DA/15PA page, that will raise the PA of the page slightly, but it will likely never go beyond 40PA....which hints that one would rather acquire a backlink from a page on a high DA site even if that page has 0 links back to it as opposed to a backlink from a page on a low DA site with many, many backlinks to it. This is very different from how Ahrefs calculates PA. For Ahrefs, the PA of any new page or page with no backlinks to it will have a PA of around 8-10ish....no matter what the DA of the site is. When a page from a 40DA site begins acquiring a few links to it, it will quickly acquire a higher PA than a page from a 90DA site with no links to it. The big difference here is that for Ahrefs, PA for a given page is far more dependent on how many inbound links that page has. On the other hand, for Moz, PA for a given page is far more dependent on the DA of the site that page is on. If we were to trust Moz's PA calculations, SEOrs should emphasize getting links from high DA sites....whereas if we were to trust Ahref's PA calculations, SEOrs should focus less on that and more on building links to whatever page they want to rank up (even if that page is on a low DA site). So what do you guys think? Do you agree more with Moz or Ahref's valuation of PA. Is PA of a page more dependent on the DA or more dependent on it's total inbound links?
Algorithm Updates | | ButtaC1 -
Optimizing Site for Multiple Business Services
I am currently optimizing for a site that does a ton of services:
Algorithm Updates | | ccdispoto
Web Development
Logo Design
SEO
Copywriting
Social Media
Email Marketing
PPC Marketing Is it better practice to optimize one "Services" page for multiple keywords or to break each service onto its own unique URL and optimize each page individually?0 -
Could Retail Price Be A Google Ranking Factor???
I have not done any detailed studies on this but it seems that Google might be using low retail prices for specific items as a ranking factor in their organic SERPs. Does anyone else suspect this? Just askin' to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL0 -
Why is a sub page ranking over home page?
Hey guys! I was wondering whether any of you Mozzers out there could shed some light on this query for me. Currently, one of our clients is ranking (on the second page, at least) for one of their target keywords. However, it's not the home page that is ranking - it is a sub page. I guess you could say both are targeted to rank for the keyword in question but the home page has a considerable more PA (+10) and has a lot more incoming links so it's a little bit baffling as to why the sub page has been given an advantage. Does anyone know why this may be? Also, on a secondary note, should I continue to build links to the home page or target this particular sub page to have a better chance of ranking higher for the keyword? Any advice on this welcome! Cheers!
Algorithm Updates | | Webrevolve0 -
SinglePlatform's Restaurant Menu Across Web Properties vs "SEO-Optimized"
Surprised I wasn't able to find an existing answer given that SinglePlatform apparently serves 500,000 SMBs with menus that appear on over 150 publisher websites. Given Panda's razor-sharp intolerance for duplicate content, am I safe to assume that any claim of SinglePlatform's menu on a local restaurant being beneficial to your SEO is now spurious? If so, what's best way to handle this as a potential SEO liability while still having one of their nicely formatted restaurant menus on your site? For reference: http://www.openforum.com/articles/using-singleplatform-to-build-a-digital-presence Update May 7, 2012 Connected directly with the folks at SinglePlatform, and the answer here is a lot simpler than my over-thinking of it. The menu usually sits within an iFrame or widget so that's that. But the ability to truthfully show an up-to-date menu for any given establishment is a legit way to address the healthy amount of local search intent that seems to be directed at exactly that. Overall a pretty slick platform, looking forward to seeing how they grow into the SMB, local & mobile in the coming months, I think the space is ripe to benefit from products/services that take advantage of these sorts of economies of scale.
Algorithm Updates | | mgalica0 -
Severe ranking loss in a week
Hi all, I rank for around 40 keyword in the first and second pages in google.com.qa, this week im not even in the first 5 for all keywords on that search engine only. Adding to that also any keyword contains qatar on this campaign or my other website also lost position not less than 20! Normally i lose and gain 1 to 3 postions a week but this week it was scary. I thought i was pinalized but when i search for my website or site:my adress i find loads if pages. Any help ? Thanks for your time reading and answering
Algorithm Updates | | ali8810 -
High bounce rates from content articles influencing our rankings for rest of site
We have a large content article section on our e-commerce site that receives a lot of visits but also have very high bounce rates. We are wondering if this is hurting the rest of our site's rankings. **When I say bounce rates I mean what ever metrics Google is using to determine quality content (specifically after the Panda update). ** We are trying to determine if having the content articles on our domain hurts us. We only have the content articles for link building.
Algorithm Updates | | seozachz0