What exactly this criterion covers
Here we discuss a criterion that often makes the difference in audits.
**I8 — Editorial Policy** (Chapter 9 - E-E-A-T): Quality standards for published content, review process
Here we discuss a criterion that often makes the difference in audits.
The criterion **I8 — Editorial Policy** is part of our SEO checklist (335 criteria). Here, you have a **practical** method to check and fix it — with a concrete example.
Here we discuss a criterion that often makes the difference in audits.
**I8 — Editorial Policy** (Chapter 9 - E-E-A-T): Quality standards for published content, review process
Why it matters: it is a signal of understanding for the engine. When poorly applied, we often observe: ambiguity (wrong associated query), duplication between pages, or performance loss on bounce rate.
On volume-generated sites, this criterion also serves as a **safeguard**: a stable rule prevents 1,000 errors at once.
Approach: browser-side control (render + code). Recommended tool: **AnswerThePublic**.
Tip: first isolate 10 “representative” URLs (top pages + generated pages) before scaling the fix.
Strategy: make a “clean” fix (no patch), then measure.
Then: re-crawl 50–200 URLs, then monitor Search Console over 7–14 days (impressions/CTR/indexing).
Example (illustrative):
Fixing an isolated page without correcting the template/import: the mistake returns in the next generation.
For this type of criterion, a crawl (e.g., Screaming Frog) + targeted verification in AnswerThePublic is generally the fastest combo.
Freeze an auto-generation rule (title/structure/schema/URLs) + add automatic control (crawl or test) before production import.
Validate this criterion with an audit, then deepen the method in the Academy.