3 ms·

I found the rater guidelines document linked in this blog post quite insightful. Sections like how to assess the "E-A-T" rating (Expertise, Authoritativeness, a

• IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  I don't think anybody calling it "content" should ever be considered trustworthy. The word reeks of hastily rephrased Wikipedia solely intended for search engines.
  • Silhouette 7y ago
    It's a standard term of art, hence terms like "digital content creation" tools, "separating content from presentation", and so on. I think any other connotations you're associating with the word are probably down to you, not the word.
    • IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      Yes, it's a standard term of art within the hastily-rephrasing-wikipedia-for-SEO community.
      • JoBrad 7y ago
        The phrase “Table of Contents” refers to the content of a written work. That certainly wasn’t invented for SEO.
      • tjwds 7y ago
        No, this is patently false. Here are some examples which illustrate Silhouette's point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network https://www.loc.gov/standards/mdc/ https://www.loc.gov/standards/mdc/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Featured_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Featured_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content
  • erikig 7y ago
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem By "content" I was trying to convey all the personal and professional output that I'd like to be seen (writing, social media posts, stackoverflow answers, HN comments etc)
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]