YMYL topics and AI search - are health/finance/legal sites treated differently by AI?

I’ve studied YMYL patterns extensively. Here’s the data:

AI Overview trigger rates by YMYL category:

What this means: AI is MORE willing to answer YMYL questions than people think, but with MUCH stricter source requirements.

The pattern: For health: Mayo Clinic (107 links), WebMD (91), Healthline (77) For finance: Investopedia (68), NerdWallet (57), Bankrate (56) For legal: NYCourts.gov (114)

Why you’re not appearing: It’s not about accuracy - it’s about institutional authority. AI systems weight established medical institutions heavily over individual practices.

E-E-A-T matters even more for YMYL in AI. Here’s how to improve:

Experience signals:

• Case studies from actual patient outcomes (anonymized)
• Photos/videos of your physicians and facilities
• First-person language: “In my 20 years treating…”

Expertise signals:

• Author bios with medical credentials, board certifications
• Links to physician profiles on hospital websites
• Publications and research citations

Authoritativeness signals:

• Affiliations with recognized medical institutions
• Media mentions and expert quotes
• Professional organization memberships

Trustworthiness signals:

• Clear contact information
• Transparent about limitations
• Appropriate disclaimers
• Regular content updates with dates

The formula: More signals = higher trust = better AI visibility

But honestly? For a local practice, focus on local visibility, not competing with Mayo Clinic.

I’m in finance, similar challenges. Here’s what’s worked:

What DIDN’T work:

• Generic “how to save money” content (Investopedia owns this)
• Basic explanations (NerdWallet dominates)
• General investment advice (too competitive)

What DID work:

• Proprietary data and original research
• Specific product comparisons with actual numbers
• Niche topics the big players don’t cover well
• Calculator tools that AI references

Example: Instead of “How to save for retirement” (impossible to win)

We created: “2025 401k contribution limits by income bracket with calculator”

Result: AI started citing us for specific contribution questions where we had unique data.

The pattern: Find the niches where authoritative sources haven’t gone deep. Own those completely.

Legal YMYL is interesting because government sources dominate.

What I’ve observed:

• NYCourts.gov gets 114 links in legal AI Overviews
• Official government sources are HEAVILY preferred
• Law firms struggle to get cited for general legal questions

What works for law firms:

1. State-specific content - AI needs jurisdiction-specific answers
2. Practical process guides - “How to file for divorce in Texas”
3. Forms and templates - Practical resources
4. Case law analysis - Original interpretation

Geographic inconsistency problem: AI sometimes pulls wrong jurisdiction info. One study found a UK consumer rights answer showing for US users.

Opportunity: Create authoritative, jurisdiction-specific content. AI needs this but struggles to find good sources.

Interesting finding on YMYL overlap with traditional rankings:

For health topics: AI Overview sources overlap with top 20 organic results: 7.13 links on average

For finance topics: Overlap is only 5.96 links on average

What this means:

• Finance AI draws more from non-ranking sources
• Health sticks closer to traditional authority
• Legal is somewhere in between

Implication: For health, traditional SEO still matters a lot for AI visibility. For finance, you might get AI citations even without top rankings IF you have unique data.

Practical E-E-A-T implementation for YMYL:

Author pages (critical for YMYL):

Dr. Sarah Johnson, MD, FACC
- Board-certified cardiologist
- 15 years clinical experience
- Published in [Journal]
- Medical school: [University]
- Hospital affiliations: [List]

Content structure:

• Lead with author credentials
• Cite peer-reviewed sources
• Include last-reviewed date
• Add medical disclaimer
• Link to official health organizations

Schema markup: Use MedicalWebPage schema for health content. It explicitly tells AI this is medical content from a qualified source.

The test: Ask ChatGPT: “Who is Dr. [Your Author Name]?” If it doesn’t know, you haven’t built enough authority signals.

This clarifies a lot. My strategy shift:

Accepting reality:

• We won’t compete with Mayo Clinic for general health queries
• That’s not our lane

New focus:

1. Local/practice-specific content - “Our approach to [condition]”
2. Patient experience content - What to expect at our practice
3. Physician profiles - Build individual doctor authority
4. Niche procedures - Specific treatments we specialize in

E-E-A-T improvements:

• Add physician credentials to every page
• Create comprehensive author pages
• Implement MedicalWebPage schema
• Add last-reviewed dates

Tracking:

• Set up Am I Cited to monitor our practice name + conditions
• Track which physicians get mentioned
• Monitor competitors in our specific market

The insight: YMYL isn’t about competing with institutions. It’s about being THE authority for YOUR specific expertise.

Makes much more sense now. Thanks everyone!