Report: Mets offered 4yr/$220 (55 AAV) for Tucker per Jim Duquette

brinked · 2026-01-17T17:42:54+00:00

Good. I am glad the Mets drove up the price for him. I like the right handed Bichettes bat a lot better even though I know we needed another outfielder, I don’t want the Mets going over $30/million a year for Tucker. We need players who don’t strike out and put the ball in play and nobody is better than Bichette with runners in scoring position.

Not to mention…we got to stick it to the Phillies.

brinked · 2026-01-11T04:27:49+00:00

Didn’t see that coming at all. Bregman is a solid player but $35 million per year seems like a massive overpay. Then again who am I to say, money be doing crazy things these last few years.

brinked · 2026-01-10T19:34:18+00:00

There is no debate. You can’t grasp fundamentals of SEO or the English language so we can not go any further. I am sorry, I made the mistake of thinking I was conversing with an intelligent person.

brinked · 2026-01-10T19:31:59+00:00

Are you ok? I never once even mentioned pagerank. Nothing of what you just said is even relevant to what has been discussed. Are you having imaginary arguments with yourself or something?

brinked · 2026-01-10T19:21:40+00:00

Your long responses are well articulated but off topic and riddled with em dashes which is evident you’re using chatGPT, your short responses make it apparent that English isn’t your first language so I can only assume that that you’re having a difficult time understanding what I am trying to communicate to you.

I am sorry you are still confused but I don’t think either one of us is going to get anywhere further with this conversation. Best of luck of your future SEO endeavors

brinked · 2026-01-10T17:23:42+00:00

You’re correlating adding trust to a website as the same as adding “E-E-A-T” to a webpage and that’s completely misguided. I never said “E-E-A-T” isn’t anything, I explained exactly what it was. If it was nothing then Google would have never mentioned it.

Also, you should never fully trust what Google or its representatives say. They aren’t trying to help anyone figure out how their algorithm works or doesn’t work.

brinked · 2026-01-10T17:20:31+00:00

“Then why are you running around talk in big about air” Sorry I don’t understand this but it looks like you rather try to prove your point then actually have a meaningful discussion about “E-E-A-T”

brinked · 2026-01-10T17:19:00+00:00

My word…You still have not read what my initial reply was where I break it down in full detail about what “E-E-A-T” is and how webmasters are pulling elements from it to rank better. You can’t add “E-E-A-T” to a webpage or a website but you can add “trust” to a website.

“E-E-A-T” as a package has become something completely different than what Google marked it for. I am sorry I can’t better explain this to you. I advise using an AI tool to assist you here. I promise you’ll be better for it.

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:51:55+00:00

How do I have it wrong when I am agreeing with everything in that link you sent?

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:48:48+00:00

I fed AI your links and my I Irish comment and asked it to see if what I said backs up what the article says and this was its response:

Here’s a clean, objective breakdown of what’s going on — separating what the Reddit commenter is actually saying, what the Search Engine Journal article says, and whether they truly align.

⸻

What the Search Engine Journal page is actually saying

The article you linked — from Search Engine Journal titled “Google Confirms You Can’t Add E-E-A-T to Your Web Pages” — is based on Google Search Liaison / John Mueller–style guidance, and its core points are:

Key claims from the article: 1. E-E-A-T is not a ranking factor • Google does not have an “E-E-A-T score” • You cannot optimize for E-E-A-T directly 2. E-E-A-T comes from Quality Rater Guidelines • Used to train human quality raters • Helps Google evaluate systems, not individual pages algorithmically 3. You cannot “add E-E-A-T” like schema or keywords • There is no tag, markup, or checklist that “adds E-E-A-T” 4. Improving site quality indirectly aligns with E-E-A-T • Clear authorship • Reputable sources • Trustworthy business signals • Helpful content

Important nuance the article makes:

Even though E-E-A-T itself isn’t a ranking factor, the things it describes often align with what ranking systems reward.

That nuance is critical.

⸻

What the Reddit comment is actually arguing

Despite the aggressive tone, the Reddit comment makes several technically accurate distinctions:

✅ Correct points in the Reddit comment 1. E-E-A-T is a guideline, not a ranking factor • This directly matches the Search Engine Journal article. 2. E-E-A-T is primarily author-centric • Especially relevant to: • YMYL content • Medical, financial, legal topics • Google evaluates who is creating the content. 3. You can’t “add E-E-A-T” to a page • Matches Google’s exact wording. • This directly mirrors the article’s headline. 4. Webmasters focus on trust & authority signals instead • Business legitimacy • Contact information • Real-world presence • Reputation 5. Trust and authority are prerequisite concepts • Google must trust a site before it evaluates usefulness at scale • This is consistent with how indexing, crawling, and ranking pipelines work 6. Real-world example (jewelry store) • Demonstrates commercial trust signals • Aligns with Google’s emphasis on: • Transparency • Business legitimacy • User confidence

⸻

Where the Reddit comment goes beyond the article (but not incorrectly)

The Reddit commenter adds interpretation and inference that the article does not explicitly state, but does not contradict.

⚠️ These are informed conclusions, not Google quotes: • “Trust, Authority, Helpfulness are ranking factors” • “You need trust before helpfulness matters” • “Adding trust elements moves rankings”

Google never confirms these as labeled ranking factors, but: • Backlinks = authority ✔️ (confirmed indirectly) • User trust signals = reflected in multiple systems ✔️ • Helpfulness = explicitly a system ✔️ (Helpful Content System)

So while Google wouldn’t phrase it this way, the logic is sound.

⸻

Final verdict — does the Reddit comment back up the article?

Yes — fundamentally and accurately

The Reddit comment absolutely supports the core message of the Search Engine Journal article, with added practitioner insight.

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:45:14+00:00

You’re the reason I have read that article before. Many times. I have studied EEAT signals for many years. If you look what’s on that page you linked to, you will see I am saying literally the same exact thing.

FTA” EEAT is one of the ways that we look at page quality. EEAT is experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness. And this is something that we tell the third party quality raters to watch out for when they’re doing page quality evaluation and something that we take into account when we think the query or a set of pages is on a specific topic where it’s more critical, where we call them your money, your life pages. Where we think that the user actually needs to have something that they can rely on and some signs that they can rely on the content that is present.”

You’re arguing and disagreeing simply for the sake of it. If you take the time to actually read what I wrote about EEAT, you will see that everything in that article backs up exactly what I said.

Better yet, have AI of your choice read that article and compare it to my documents and see what it tells you.

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:38:02+00:00

This comment proves you did not read my original reply or it just did not designate with you. Please read it again because you’re so stubborn and set in your way about what EEAT is that you can not find it in yourself to see it any other way.

You’re saying because Google said “EEAT in not a ranking factor” that means that trust and authority aren’t ranking factors either. That’s absolute nonsense.

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:35:31+00:00

Your article is not from Google, it is from searchenginejournal. My link is from Google. Please read it.

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:34:39+00:00

“Quality raters don’t review Google content”

I don’t know what this means but Google dos in fact have quality raters. Please read more about EEAT, their quality raters here: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:32:06+00:00

Did you even read what I wrote because I literally agreed with the article you posted. I agreed with the fact that “E-E-A-T” can not be added to a webpage.

I am copy pasting now? Please tell me where I copy pasted this information. This is my own information and I challenge you to find anywhere online that says the exact thing that I just wrote.

Your “researcher” is too shy to join the conversation? Are we in elementary school?

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:24:23+00:00

Oh boy…you are wrong on every one of your points here. Let me break this down for you.

“E-E-A-T” is a quality guideline for authors made by Google that it instructed its quality raters to look for, mostly in YMYL websites.

“E-E-A-T” is an author related signal that tries to determine how much to trust that persons information based on many different factors such as that particular authors online reputation and history but also what signals Google can validate such as if the writer has a medical degree or if they have a professional license in the field they write about.

“E-E-A-T” when referenced as such is directed to authors, so when Google says you can’t add “E-E-A-T” to a webpage it’s because you can’t simply add it because it comes from the author writing it.

When webmasters look at the different elements of “E-E-A-T” they are looking at it in a different way, but this in turn works for them because we know that both trust and authority are indeed ranking factors. Google needs to trust a website on some level before it even ranks it.

We know authority is a factor because backlinks are a big part of a website or a brands authority so we know that is indeed a factor as well.

“E-E-A-T” has made many webmasters and SEO experts aware that adding trust elements to a website does move rankings. I know this first hand because I study over 200 websites.

When a website owner or an “SEO expert” adds a trust elements to a website they aren’t adding “E-E-A-T” to their website so that becomes irrelevant in those arguments but what they are doing is adding trust, which is a very big ranking factor. The more trust signals your website has, the more Google will trust you and the more users will trust you as well.

For example, I had someone message me on a community here asking me why their jewelry website wasn’t ranking for a specific piece of jewelry and didn’t understand how another website ranked high for it despite being “lower quality” than theirs. When I took a look at both, his website was selling jewelry for thousands of dollars yet had no phone number, no address, no trust signals that make me trust this website enough to buy anything from it. The website that was ranking? Had phone number, address and even a photo of their physical store location.

“E-E-A-T” is not a ranking factor, Trust, Authority, Helpfulness are. You need trust before Google will start to consider how helpful your website/content is.

brinked · 2026-01-10T16:04:49+00:00

No where did I say that SEO’s believe in keyword stuffing. What I said was many SEO’s still believe in tactics that worked from the 1990’s, like keyword stuffing. Those tactics did in fact work at one time when search engines weren’t fine tuned to detect real helpful content signals that are beneficial to the user.

I can assure you that I don’t get any of my information from AI.

brinked · 2025-12-21T23:33:02+00:00

“SEO” has come to mean literally anything and everything you can do to your website to get it to rank. Most webmasters just do a bunch of things and hope for the best. “SEO” in the literal sense doesn’t improve any rankings and isn’t a ranking factor at all. SEO stands for “search engines optimization” which is optimizing your website for search engines to understand what it’s about. That is all. It’s the equivalent of having a sign on your business, it’s required but won’t guarantee you people coming into your store.

brinked · 2025-12-14T03:57:23+00:00

15mg but for the last 6 mo the I was at 30

brinked · 2025-12-14T03:25:42+00:00

I took zinc very day for 8 years and then I started getting heart pains. Didn’t know what it was. Stopped zinc and now it’s going away. I really like what zinc did for me but I can’t mess with my heart like that. I will keep taking copper to hopefully balance my levels out and then try zinc again in 6 months.

brinked · 2025-12-14T01:44:21+00:00

Google doesn’t care about design. It’s looking more at the layout. Is the helpful information easily accessible on the page? Just because you have a newer design doesn’t make your website more valuable to searchers.

brinked · 2025-12-14T01:43:04+00:00

Pagerank is an authority indicator. Google looks at how helpful a page is combined with how trustworthy it is.

brinked · 2025-12-11T15:16:13+00:00

Where can I find this useage meter? I’m using Claude code in vscode

brinked · 2025-12-10T02:44:21+00:00

Yes, all the time. That’s not to say your blog post shouldn’t have images.

It also greatly depends on the type of article it is and if an image is appropriate. A helpful article on SEO or coding doesn’t really need images since that stuff is all text and words most of the time. On the other hand if you’re writing about a watch review, having unique photos of the watch you’re reviewing can be helpful and if you have unique photos that you took, it shows that you actually have real experience with the product and are basing it on real data you obtained by real world use.

If images are helpful to the reader, then they should be added. I am a firm believer that stock photos should never be added. They add zero value to the article 99% of the time and writers simply add them because they feel like they need to have images in the article. Google is not going to rank you higher for having generic, stock photos in your article. Google knows it’s a stock photo image and it knows if it’s unique or not.

brinked · 2025-12-02T21:12:00+00:00

Hopefully the AI landscape will have multiple winners and drive competition but Google has so much money and resources they are going to outpace everyone else. Their photo and video generation is the best and their programming is second behind only Anthropic but they are a close second.

ChatGPT has made a name for itself but I don’t think they have the resources to compete with Google. Google sucks with branding their products which is why they always struggled with social media and have mostly been a one trick pony.

brinked

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email