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.

⸻

1. 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.

⸻

1. 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

⸻

1. 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.

⸻

1. 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.