Does AI actually recognize author expertise? Our expert content doesn't seem to perform differently than generic content

This is a common frustration. The good news: AI does evaluate expertise, but differently than you might expect.

How AI evaluates expertise:

The disconnect you’re experiencing: Having credentials displayed isn’t enough. AI needs to see expertise demonstrated IN the content itself.

Common mistakes:

1. Credentials shown but content is generic
2. Expert review without expert voice
3. Citations present but not integrated into reasoning
4. Authority claimed but not demonstrated

The fix: Your content needs to DEMONSTRATE expertise, not just claim it. First-person experience, specific insights only an expert would know, nuanced takes that show depth.

Let me break down how AI interprets E-E-A-T signals:

The E-E-A-T framework for AI:

Experience (First E):

• First-person narratives (“In my 15 years treating patients…”)
• Specific examples from practice
• Case studies with real outcomes
• This is HUGE - research shows first-person + byline = 67% more citations

Expertise:

• Technical accuracy throughout content
• Comprehensive topic coverage
• Proper use of terminology
• Addressing nuances experts would know

Authoritativeness:

• Entity presence (are you in knowledge graphs?)
• Citation by other authoritative sources
• Consistent publication history

Trust:

• Transparent about limitations
• Proper source citations
• No conflicts of interest
• Accurate, verifiable claims

The insight: AI is trained on high-quality expert content. It’s learned what expert content “sounds like.” Your content needs to match that pattern, not just display credentials.

Testing question: If you removed the byline and credentials, would the content still read like an expert wrote it? That’s the real test.

In healthcare content specifically, here’s what works for AI expertise signals:

What gets our expert content cited:

1. Specific clinical details - Not just “consult your doctor” but actual clinical considerations an expert would discuss

2. Risk/benefit nuance - Experts acknowledge complexity. “While X is generally recommended, patients with Y should consider Z because…”

3. Citation integration - Don’t just list sources. Show how the evidence supports your conclusions.

4. Practical experience - “In clinical practice, we often see…” signals hands-on expertise

What doesn’t help (despite seeming like it should):

• Generic “medically reviewed” badge without voice
• Credentials in bio only, not reflected in content
• Over-simplified content that an expert wouldn’t write
• Citing sources without explaining their relevance

The pattern we’ve noticed: Our most-cited content reads like a conversation with a doctor, not a Wikipedia article. The expert voice comes through in the nuance.

The “remove the byline” test is eye-opening. Honestly, a lot of our “expert” content could have been written by anyone who did research. The expert review is more of a fact-check than true expert voice.

Follow-up: How do we get our actual experts more involved in the content voice without consuming all their time?

Great follow-up. Here’s how we handle this at scale:

Expert involvement models:

Model 1: Expert Interview + Writer

• 30-min interview with expert
• Writer creates content with expert voice
• Expert reviews for accuracy
• Works for: High-volume needs

Model 2: Expert Outline + Writer Fill

• Expert provides key points, unique insights
• Writer expands with research
• Expert voice preserved in key sections
• Works for: Balanced approach

Model 3: Ghost-Writing

• Expert provides detailed notes/recordings
• Skilled writer crafts in expert’s voice
• Heavier expert review
• Works for: Premium content

Model 4: Expert Byline + Sections

• Expert writes intro and key insights
• Writers handle supporting content
• Clear voice in critical sections
• Works for: Authentic expert feel

What to capture from experts:

• Stories and examples from practice
• Nuanced opinions standard research wouldn’t have
• Common misconceptions they see
• What they wish patients/clients knew

These unique insights are what AI recognizes as expertise. They can’t be researched - they must come from experience.

Let me address the entity recognition angle:

Why entity recognition matters: AI systems use knowledge graphs to understand who/what entities are. If your author is a recognized entity, AI has higher confidence in their expertise.

Building author entity presence:

1. Wikipedia mention - Even a mention in a relevant Wikipedia article helps (don’t create vanity pages, but legitimate inclusions)

2. Google Knowledge Panel - If your expert has one, it’s a strong signal

3. Wikidata entry - Creates structured entity data AI can use

4. Consistent online presence - Same name, credentials across platforms

5. Citations by authoritative sources - Being cited/mentioned reinforces entity status

Schema markup for authors:

{
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Dr. Sarah Chen",
  "jobTitle": "Chief Medical Officer",
  "sameAs": [
    "https://twitter.com/drsarahchen",
    "https://linkedin.com/in/drsarahchen"
  ],
  "alumniOf": "Stanford Medical School",
  "memberOf": "American Medical Association"
}

The long game: Entity building takes time. But established expert entities get consistently higher citation rates. It’s an investment that compounds.

Important concept: Topic authority vs. domain authority

Traditional SEO:

• Domain authority (DA) based on overall site backlinks
• Applied site-wide

AI expertise evaluation:

• Topic authority based on demonstrated expertise in specific areas
• Evaluated per topic

What this means: A specialized health site focused on cardiology can outrank a general health site with higher DA - for cardiology queries. AI recognizes depth over breadth.

Building topic authority:

1. Create comprehensive topic clusters
2. Cover all aspects of your expertise area
3. Internal linking between related expert content
4. Consistent publication on your topic
5. Being cited by others for that topic

The opportunity: You don’t need to compete on overall authority. You need to dominate YOUR topic. A niche expert can win against a generalist with bigger overall presence.

This is why focused expertise and consistent publication on specific topics matters more than raw domain metrics.

The topic authority concept is encouraging. We ARE specialists, not generalists. We just haven’t been positioning that effectively.

Question on practical implementation: How do we audit our existing expert content to identify what’s working vs. not?

Here’s our expert content audit framework:

Step 1: Citation tracking Use Am I Cited to see which expert content is actually being cited. Often surprising - top-ranking pages aren’t always top-cited.

Step 2: Voice analysis For each page, score:

• First-person experience (0-5)
• Specific examples/cases (0-5)
• Nuanced expert insights (0-5)
• Technical depth (0-5)

Pages scoring below 12 need improvement.

Step 3: Compare cited vs. uncited Look for patterns. What do cited expert pages have that uncited ones don’t?

Step 4: Competitor analysis For queries where competitors are cited instead of you, analyze their content. What expertise signals do they demonstrate?

Step 5: Gap identification

• Missing topic coverage in your area
• Subtopics experts should address but don’t
• Questions your experts could uniquely answer

What we found: Our most-cited content invariably had strong first-person voice and specific examples. Credentials alone without demonstrated expertise = poor citation rates.

This thread has completely reframed how I think about expert content. Summary of changes we’ll make:

Content approach:

• Expert interview model for voice capture
• First-person experience required in key sections
• Specific examples and cases, not generic advice
• Demonstrate expertise in the content, not just claim it

Technical implementation:

• Author entity building (knowledge graph presence)
• Person schema for all experts
• Consistent author identity across platforms

Strategy:

• Double down on topic authority in our specialty
• Build comprehensive coverage of our expertise area
• Track citations, not just rankings

Audit:

• Score existing content on expertise demonstration
• Identify gaps between claimed and demonstrated expertise
• Revise high-priority content to pass the “remove byline” test

Thank you all for the insights!