# SEO content Human Guide

## What This Is For
Audits content quality against helpful-content and E-E-A-T criteria, then recommends improvements for search performance and reader usefulness. It gives the agent a clearer input/output frame for search and SEO workflows: what context to ask for, what decisions to make, and what usable artifact to return.

Use this as a human-readable version of the SEO content agent skill. It is meant for marketers, operators, founders, and other non-coders who want the workflow without reading agent-specific implementation instructions.

## When To Use This
- Use this when you need a repeatable process for SEO content.
- Use this when the task needs judgment, examples, constraints, or a clear output format rather than a one-off prompt.
- Use this when you want to hand an AI assistant enough context to produce a usable marketing artifact.

## When Not To Use This
- Do not use this when you only need a quick factual answer.
- Do not use this when the work depends on private data you cannot share with the assistant.
- Do not use this as a replacement for legal, compliance, financial, or medical review.

## What You Need Before Starting
- The goal or business outcome you want.
- The audience, customer segment, or market context.
- Any source material the assistant should respect, such as notes, briefs, examples, URLs, or brand guidance.
- Constraints such as tone, length, channel, deadline, region, or approval requirements.
- A clear definition of what a good final answer should look like.

## Step-By-Step Workflow
1. State the job clearly: "Use the SEO content guide to help me with..."
2. Add context: audience, goal, offer, channel, source material, and constraints.
3. Ask the assistant to identify missing inputs before producing the final output.
4. Have the assistant follow the skill-specific guidance below.
5. Review the result against the final checklist and ask for revisions where needed.

## Skill-Specific Guidance
- Original research, case studies, before/after results
- Personal anecdotes, process documentation
- Unique data, proprietary insights
- Photos/videos from direct experience
- Author credentials, certifications, bio
- Professional background relevant to topic
- Technical depth appropriate for audience
- Accurate, well-sourced claims
- External citations, backlinks from authoritative sources
- Brand mentions, industry recognition
- Published in recognized outlets
- Contact information, physical address

## Decision Points And Nuance
The original skill emphasizes: Google's "Who / How / Why" Test (canonical heuristic), E-E-A-T Framework (updated Sept 2025 QRG), Experience (first-hand signals), Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness, Content Metrics, Word Count Analysis, Readability, Keyword Optimization.

Use these questions to steer the work:
- What is the intended audience or buyer?
- What source material must be preserved?
- What should the assistant optimize for: clarity, persuasion, accuracy, speed, creativity, or conversion?
- What examples represent the desired quality bar?
- What should the assistant avoid?

## Common Mistakes
- | **Who** created it? | Visible byline, author bio page, professional credentials. Required where readers expect it; non-negotiable for YMYL. |
- | URL unreachable (DNS failure, connection refused) | Report the error clearly. Do not guess page content. Suggest the user verify the URL and try again. |
- **Eligibility floor:** a page must be **indexed and eligible to be shown with
- The myth-busting section (most important)
- Google explicitly says you **do NOT need to**:
- > OtterlyAI server-log audit). Both files must stay aligned.
- background pages required for YMYL.
- Google's listed warning signs to self-audit against:

## Copy-And-Paste Prompt
```text
Use the SEO content human guide.

My goal:
[Describe the business outcome]

Audience:
[Describe who this is for]

Context and source material:
[Paste notes, examples, links, or existing copy]

Constraints:
[Tone, length, channel, timeline, must-include items, must-avoid items]

Before producing the final output, ask me for any missing information that would materially improve the result.
```

## Final Checklist
- [ ] The output matches the original goal.
- [ ] The audience and context are reflected in the answer.
- [ ] Important constraints and source material were preserved.
- [ ] The assistant made the relevant decisions explicit.
- [ ] The final artifact is ready to use, review, or hand to the next person.

## Source
This guide was generated from the agricidaniel/claude-seo skill entry for `seo-content`.

## Source Skill Notes
These notes preserve the nuance from the original skill. Use them as supporting reference when the workflow above feels too generic.

# Content Quality & E-E-A-T Analysis

## Google's "Who / How / Why" Test (canonical heuristic)

Before scoring E-E-A-T sub-factors, every page audit should pass Google's
own three-question heuristic from the helpful-content guide:

| Question | What to look for |
|---|---|
| **Who** created it? | Visible byline, author bio page, professional credentials. Required where readers expect it; non-negotiable for YMYL. |
| **How** was it created? | Process disclosure where readers would reasonably ask — especially for AI-assisted content. Original research / first-hand evidence / lived experience. |
| **Why** does it exist? | "To help people" rather than "to attract search clicks." Watch for niche entry without expertise, content churn for freshness signals, content written to a word-count target. |

Primary source:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content

When all three answers are weak, the page is at risk under the core ranking
system's helpfulness signals (formerly the standalone Helpful Content System,
merged into core during the March 2024 update).

## E-E-A-T Framework (updated Sept 2025 QRG)

Read `skills/seo/references/eeat-framework.md` for full criteria.

### Experience (first-hand signals)
- Original research, case studies, before/after results
- Personal anecdotes, process documentation
- Unique data, proprietary insights
- Photos/videos from direct experience

### Expertise
- Author credentials, certifications, bio
- Professional background relevant to topic
- Technical depth appropriate for audience
- Accurate, well-sourced claims

### Authoritativeness
- External citations, backlinks from authoritative sources
- Brand mentions, industry recognition
- Published in recognized outlets
- Cited by other experts

### Trustworthiness
- Contact information, physical address
- Privacy policy, terms of service
- Customer testimonials, reviews
- Date stamps, transparent corrections
- Secure site (HTTPS)

## Content Metrics

### Word Count Analysis
Compare against page type minimums:
| Page Type | Minimum |
|-----------|---------|
| Homepage | 500 |
| Service page | 800 |
| Blog post | 1,500 |
| Product page | 300+ (400+ for complex products) |
| Location page | 500-600 |

> **Important:** These are **topical coverage floors**, not targets. Google has confirmed word count is NOT a direct ranking factor. The goal is comprehensive topical coverage; a 500-word page that thoroughly answers the query will outrank a 2,000-word page that doesn't. Use these as guidelines for adequate coverage depth, not rigid requirements.

### Readability
- Flesch Reading Ease: target 60-70 for general audience

> **Note:** Flesch Reading Ease is a useful proxy for content accessibility but is NOT a direct Google ranking factor. John Mueller has confirmed Google does not use basic readability scores for ranking. Yoast deprioritized Flesch scores in v19.3. Use readability analysis as a content quality indicator, not as an SEO metric to optimize directly.
- Grade level: match target audience
- Sentence length: average 15-20 words
- Paragraph length: 2-4 sentences

### Keyword Optimization
- Primary keyword in title, H1, first 100 words
- Natural density (1-3%)
- Semantic variations present
- No keyword stuffing

### Content Structure
- Logical heading hierarchy (H1 -> H2 -> H3)
- Scannable sections with descriptive headings