Hacker News Reader

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, and Trustworthiness) will be useful to me when writing content.

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...

View on HN

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.

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.

Yes, it's a standard term of art within the hastily-rephrasing-wikipedia-for-SEO community.

No, this is patently false. Here are some examples which illustrate Silhouette's point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network

https://www.loc.gov/standards/mdc/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Featured_content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content

The phrase “Table of Contents” refers to the content of a written work. That certainly wasn’t invented for SEO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com