Thread by @schachin

There was a mention @Google might looking into scientific consensus to rank sites. I think it would be a terrible signal, but why? Look at these two links

The American Heart Assoc
heart.org/en/healthy-liv…

And Healthline
healthline.com/nutrition/poly…

They contradict - kind of.
#SEO

Polyunsaturated fats are highly present in the American diet.
Was only recently they tied the PUFA Omega 6s to serious incidence of disease.

So while the AHA is not wrong - Omegas (3) ARE good the high incidence of Omega 6 in the American Diet is highly inflammatory & not.

But the AHA site does not mention this, they do not even break down the difference. Why? Because the Omega 6 research is fairly new and you DO Need it, but in very small quantities in a 1:1 ratio w Omega 3s.

The American Diet? Usually as high as 13:1 Omega 6s to 3s

So Time published this in 2013 healthland.time.com/2013/02/06/ome…
Omega 6s linked to heart disease

Then the BMJ with this openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e0…
Omega 6 Linked to heart disease

But Cochrane says it is actually good for you cochrane.org/CD011094/VASC_…
(they are in the minority)

Images: BMJ

So what would @Google use for "consensus"?
BMJ = highly respected medical journal w/ NO EAT issues
-- & as a medical journal the post is highly cited

BUT AHA = highly respected site w/ NO EAT issues
And the AHA says O6s are good for you.
So do other highly respected sources

So Omega 3s & 6s are needed by the body bec we don't make them BUT high ratio levels of Omega 6s/Omega3s are highly correlated w disease & inflammation -- devil is in the details & the science is not settled both are right.

How would #Google EVER determine this on a mass scale?

The answer is they could not because science is always changing and contradictory AND IF THEY ARE DOING THIS then shame on them because if you penalize a site 90% for saying Omega6 s are bad and PUFAs are an issue you are not wrong - and the BMJ backs you up on that.

But I would find it hard to believe that they used this as a signal simply because it would be so wrong so often. #Google is not fond of unreliable signals.

Besides EAT is mostly about links and inbound citations - something @Methode said a while back.

So if your site is down from the Core Updates? Check technical/quality signals first then #EAT because no matter how much EAT you have, if @Google cannot crawl your site or index it properly or your site speed is tragically low, no amount of EAT will bring back your losses. #SEO

@threadreaderapp unroll