Should you still use rel=author to boost your SEO?

What did rel=author mean for Google?

The rel=author tag allowed for linking published content to a verified Google+ profile. The stated goal was to create a layer of traceability: each article carried an identifiable digital signature meant to validate the credibility of its author.

Theoretically, this attribution strengthened editorial accountability. A recognized author, with a public history of publications, provided a guarantee that the content was not a ghost page or a dubious anonymous production. Google could cross-reference signatures and assess an author's reputation across multiple sites.

Why was this declaration abandoned?

Google removed the authorship markup from its search results a few years after this announcement. Author photos and visual enrichments disappeared from the SERPs, and the search engine ceased to publicly utilize this data.

The officially cited reasons include: minimal measurable impact on CTR, implementation complexity for publishers, and an adoption rate too low to justify its maintenance. Unofficially, the connection with Google+—a failed social network—likely hastened the abandonment.

Does Google still use these signals internally?

There is no evidence that author identification still plays a direct role in ranking. Google has never confirmed using this data invisibly after removing visible authorship.

However, other mechanisms have taken over: author mentions in Schema.org metadata (type Person), the presence of detailed author pages, and especially the E-E-A-T criteria, which indirectly assess editorial credibility without relying on a unique technical tag.

• Rel=author has been technically dead since the removal of Google Authorship.
• Author identification remains relevant through Schema.org and detailed bios.
• The E-E-A-T signals now replace this logic of editorial responsibility.
• No evidence that Google still uses rel=author internally for ranking.
• Editorial transparency still matters, but through other means.

Is this statement still relevant?

Let’s be honest: rel=author is obsolete. Continuing to implement this tag in hopes of an SEO advantage is akin to technical superstition. Google no longer displays it, doesn’t actively document it, and no recent empirical tests show measurable impact on rankings.

What remains valid is the intent behind this statement: editorial traceability enhances trust. But today, this trust comes through other channels: rich author pages, linked LinkedIn bios, mentions in recognized publications, and a coherent digital presence.

What contradictions are observed in the field?

Many well-ranked sites display no author information. Aggregators, e-commerce sites, and SaaS tools rank in the top 3 without ever mentioning an identifiable writer. [To be verified] to what extent authorship actually influences rankings outside of YMYL sectors.

Conversely, in the health, finance, legal niches, the mention of named experts with verifiable credentials appears correlated to better performance. But is it the technical authorship or simply the associated editorial quality? Hard to pin down.

How does Google actually assess editorial authority now?

The Quality Raters Guidelines heavily emphasize E-E-A-T, but never mention rel=author. Google now prioritizes composite signals: domain history, backlink quality, brand reputation, mentions in third-party sources, and content consistency.

The engine likely aggregates behavioral data (reading time, bounce rate, returns to SERP) and content signals (depth, citations, freshness) rather than relying on a unique declarative tag. Authenticity is proven through the convergence of signals, not by a code line.

Should you still implement rel=author on your content?

No. Abandon rel=author if you are still using it. Google no longer processes it, and it unnecessarily clutters your source code without measurable benefits. Focus your efforts on live, documented implementations.

Instead, structure your author data with Schema.org type Person. Declare the name, bio, social links, and possibly an image. Google can use this metadata to enhance its internal knowledge, even without visible display in SERPs.

How can you enhance editorial credibility without rel=author?

Create dedicated author pages with enough substance: detailed bio, list of published articles, links to verified social profiles (LinkedIn, Twitter/X), mentions in third-party media. The more cross-referenced and verifiable the profile, the better.

Link each piece of content to its author via a clear internal hyperlink, preferably at the top of the page. Google can follow these links and build an editorial authority graph, even without specific markup. Clarity takes precedence over technical sophistication.

What mistakes should be avoided regarding authorship?

Do not create fake authors or generic profiles like “Editorial Team” without a human reality behind them. Google detects these patterns and may consider them as editorial spam, especially in YMYL.

Avoid inconsistencies as well: an author publishing on 50 different sites without verifiable digital presence, or identical copied-pasted bios everywhere. Credibility relies on coherence and verifiability.

• Remove any remaining implementations of rel=author from your code.
• Implement Schema.org type Person for each author with name, bio, image, social links.
• Create detailed author pages and link each article to its identified writer.
• Ensure consistency of author profiles on LinkedIn, social networks, and third-party mentions.
• In YMYL (health, finance, legal), display the verifiable credentials of authors.
• Avoid ghost authors or generic signatures lacking substance.