What exactly this criterion covers
This is often seen as an error on mass-generated sites.
I14 — Documented Process (Chapter 9 - E-E-A-T): Detail steps, tools used, methodology
This is often seen as an error on mass-generated sites.
Criterion I14 — Documented Process is part of our SEO checklist (335 criteria). Here, you have a practical method to check and fix it — with a concrete example.
This is often seen as an error on mass-generated sites.
I14 — Documented Process (Chapter 9 - E-E-A-T): Detail steps, tools used, methodology
Why it matters: it is a UX point that eventually translates into SEO. When poorly applied, we often observe: ambiguity (wrong associated query), duplication between pages, or loss of performance on Core Web Vitals.
On volume-generated sites, this criterion also serves as a safeguard: a stable rule prevents 1,000 errors at once.
Approach: check by crawl (list + export). Recommended tool: Your WG Analyzer.
Tip: first isolate 10 representative URLs (top pages + generated pages) before scaling the correction.
Strategy: fix the minimum necessary, then stabilize.
Then: re-crawl 50–200 URLs, then monitor Search Console for 7–14 days (impressions/CTR/indexing).
Example (illustrative):
Fixing an isolated page without correcting the template/import: the error returns on the next generation.
For this type of criterion, a crawl (e.g. Screaming Frog) plus targeted verification in Your WG Analyzer is generally the fastest combo.
Freeze an auto-generation rule (title/structure/schema/URLs) plus add automatic control (crawl or test) before production import.
Validate this criterion with an audit, then deepen the method in the Academy.