How can you prove your medical expertise to meet Google's YMYL requirements?

Why does Google treat medical sites differently from other sectors?

YMYL sites (Your Money Your Life) touch on health, financial security, or user well-being. Google assumes that inaccurate medical information can have dramatic consequences — hospitalization, worsening of a condition, dangerous self-medication.

Unlike a travel site where an error remains anecdotal, an approximate medical advice can literally endanger lives. This responsibility justifies a radical tightening of evaluation criteria, far beyond what applies to less sensitive sectors.

What does the acronym EAT mean in this context?

Expertise: Does the author have recognized medical qualifications to address this specific topic? A cardiologist writing about dermatology raises issues, even if they are a doctor.

Authority: Does the site and its contributors have verifiable professional recognition (scientific publications, hospital affiliations, peer citations)? Google seeks external legitimacy signals, not just self-declarations.

Trustworthiness: Are the information sources verified, up-to-date, and consistent with current medical consensus? Outdated medical content or content contradictory to official recommendations will be penalized, even if it comes from a real doctor.

How is this requirement different from simple editorial quality?

A talented SEO writer can produce a medically flawless article by compiling reliable sources, impeccable structuring, and adhering to good writing practices. The problem is: Google is now looking to identify the author behind the content.

The algorithm cross-references on-page signals (author bio, degree mentions, RPPS number for France) with off-page signals: Is the author cited in databases like PubMed? Do they have a coherent LinkedIn profile? Do they present at medical conferences? Without this traceability, the content remains suspicious.

Specifically, a perfect article written by an anonymous author will lose out to an average article signed by an identifiable doctor. This is a major break from traditional SEO logic, which prioritized text quality over the identity of its creator.

• Strengthened EAT: Google actively verifies the medical legitimacy of authors through internal and external signals
• Mandatory traceability: every medical content must be attributable to an identifiable and verifiable professional
• Required specialization: a general practitioner does not have the same legitimacy as a specialist on specific topics
• Formal validation: if the writer is not a doctor, a review process by an accredited expert must be documented
• Determining external signals: scientific publications, hospital affiliations, and peer citations reinforce perceived authority

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Absolutely. The successive Core Updates have systematically targeted medical sites attempting to circumvent this requirement. Entire platforms of participatory health, despite being technically well-optimized, have lost 60-70% of their organic traffic because their content was produced by non-professionals.

An emblematic case: some "natural health" sites produced impeccably written articles, but without formal medical endorsement. Result — a brutal drop after algorithmic adjustments, even when the information was factually correct. Google no longer takes the risk of allowing unvalidated medical content.

However, the definition of 'legitimate medical professional' remains vague. Does Google include naturopaths? Osteopaths? Non-physician psychologists? This grey area creates ambiguous situations where legally compliant sites in their country face algorithmic penalties. [To be verified]: the precise accreditation criteria Google uses remain opaque.

What nuances should be added to this rule?

Not all content on a medical site requires the same level of expertise. An article explaining how to make an appointment or describing a practice's hours does not need to be validated by a doctor. Google distinguishes purely informational pages from pages with high medical implications.

Likewise, a patient testimonial remains valid if clearly presented as such, with an explicit disclaimer. The problem arises when this testimony veers into therapeutic recommendations without medical oversight. The line is thin and requires constant editorial vigilance.

Be cautious with translated content. A valid medical article in the United States may contain recommendations incompatible with French or European protocols. Google seems capable of detecting these geographical inconsistencies, particularly regarding dosages or therapeutic indications. [To be verified]: does the algorithm adjust its EAT criteria based on the geolocation of the site and the user?

In what cases does this rule not fully apply?

Medical news written by recognized science journalists can maintain good visibility, even without direct medical validation. Google seems to tolerate this exception if the site has strong overall editorial authority (like Medical Press, The Lancet, or health sections of prestigious general media).

Government sites (Public Health France, NHS, CDC) receive obvious preferential treatment, even when their content is written by administrative personnel. Institutional authority compensates for the absence of an identifiable medical author. The same applies to sites of international organizations (WHO, UNICEF).

What should be concretely modified on an existing medical site?

The first task: attribute each content piece to an identifiable author. No more anonymous articles or signed "editorial team". Create detailed author profiles with degrees, registration number (RPPS in France), specialties, and if possible, links to verifiable publications or professional profiles.

Next, audit all existing content to identify what falls under strict medical advice versus general information. High YMYL implication pages must be either rewritten by a doctor or formally validated with explicit mention of the validator. This validation cannot be fictional — document the process.

For sites employing non-doctor writers, establish a systematic medical review workflow. The validating doctor must be clearly identified, with a mention like "Reviewed and validated by Dr. [Name], [Specialty], [Date]". Google looks for these signals of editorial governance.

What errors should be absolutely avoided?

Do not attempt to fabricate false expertise by inventing authors or using stock photos to create fictional profiles. Google now cross-references data with public databases and can identify these inconsistencies. Manual sanctions can be definitive.

Avoid diluting responsibility by having a doctor validate topics outside their specialty. A dermatologist validating an article on cardiac pathologies does not lend any credibility — worse, it signals an attempt at manipulation. The consistency of specialty/topic is essential.

Beware of automated or AI-generated content without expert human review. Even if the textual quality is excellent, the absence of verifiable human endorsement kills EAT credibility. Signals of synthetic content are increasingly detectable by Google, and on YMYL medical content, this is disqualifying.

How can you check if your site meets EAT criteria?

Start with a simple test: for each strategic medical page, can an external user identify in less than 30 seconds who wrote or validated the content, and verify their qualifications? If the answer is no, you have a problem.

Next, do a Google search on your authors' names. Are they visible in medical databases (PubMed, ResearchGate), professional directories, LinkedIn with a coherent history? If your authors are invisible outside your site, Google considers their authority null.

Finally, analyze your well-ranked competitors for your target queries. Look at how they structure their author bios, what affiliations they highlight, how they document their validation process. These sites provide the current EAT standard for your niche — anything below risks declassification.

• Create or enrich author pages with degrees, RPPS/ADELI numbers, specialties, and links to verifiable professional profiles
• Identify and prioritize high YMYL implication content requiring formal and documented medical validation
• Establish an editorial workflow with systematic review by doctors whose specialties match the subject addressed
• Add explicit validation mentions with the name, specialty, and date of the doctor who reviewed each sensitive content
• Verify your authors' online presence in medical databases and professional directories to strengthen authority signals
• Regularly audit specialty/topic consistency to avoid inappropriate validations that weaken overall credibility