A page’s content, for example, would be measured for clarity. Because every website’s purpose is different, however, this metric is augmented to fit its environment. To manage this, Google analyzes a webpage’s overall comprehensiveness: Pages with more detail, in most cases, will rate higher. For this reason, long-form content tends to fare better when analyzed. The Third Standard: Presentation Similar to a webpage’s perceptual clarity, its spatial clarity gets a close examination.
Google often refers to this as a website’s “presentation.” Generally, presentation takes things like content benin phone number data navigation by looking for headings, effective menu item spacing, and product identification. Google’s content quality standards are surprisingly robust, but they’re not examined in isolation. Google takes a comparative snapshot of a website’s core functionality, section by section. Here, things like plugins and runtimes are analyzed for functionality. While poor code design and technical errors reduce a page’s score — quick, navigable, and useful technical designs receive a point boost.
E-A-T score is a constant consideration, throughout each analysis. As such, a website’s technical design is better gauged in relation to the creator’s relayed expertise. From Internal Analysis to External Views: Reputation Even though Google’s website analysis prioritizes its quality via an inside look, it does take the external opinion into account. From beyond its Quality Raters, that is. Google seeks out any and all identifiers of a website’s reputation, then comparing them to its pre-established “internal score.