Opens in a new tabSkip to content
Agent LighthouseAgent Lighthouse

    Searches the text of every published page. The evidence sources themselves are not in this index — search all of them on the trusted sources page.

    GitHub ↗
    Browse checks and page contents
    answer-readiness/named-author

    Named author attribution

    What it checks

    AI systems assign higher confidence to content from named experts. Generic authors like “Staff” or “Admin” reduce trust scoring because agents cannot verify expertise.

    Why it matters

    Replacing a generic author label (“Staff”, “Admin”, “Team”) with a named person in schema.org author / the visible byline raises the page’s confidence or citation rate in generative answer engines.

    Evidence

    • Google documents that it parses author markup, and prescribes its shape. “To help Google best understand and represent the author of the content, we recommend following these best practices when specifying authors in markup”. “In the author.name property, only specify the name of the author. Don’t add any other piece of information”, “Use the Person type for people, and the Organization type for organizations.” This is a named consumer reading the exact field the audit inspects, and it independently justifies rejecting byline blobs and Organization authors — developers.google.com/…/article (verified 2026-08-21)
    • Google’s content guidance treats a real byline as an expected quality signal. It states: “We strongly encourage adding accurate authorship information, such as bylines to content where readers might expect it.” Two of its self-assessment questions ask the same thing. “Do pages carry a byline, where one might be expected?” And: “Is this content written or reviewed by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well?” — developers.google.com/…/creating-helpful-content (verified 2026-08-21)

    Limits

    The 2026 critical GEO survey rates authority-flavoured signals as the weakest family it reviewed. “Authoritative tone” has “weak and unstable” support, and “may conflict with credibility”. The survey finds no dedicated research on E-E-A-T signals for generative engines at all (arxiv.org/…/2607.14035v1, verified 2026-08-21). Google’s own AI-features documentation states there are “no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary” and “There’s also no special schema.org structured data that you need to add” (developers.google.com/…/ai-features, verified 2026-08-21). Nothing published distinguishes the named case from the generic case in any engine’s behaviour; the documented consumption proves the field is read, not that its value changes an outcome.

    How it scores

    The field itself is a documented Google Search input, with wide adoption. But no vendor documents any AI answer engine reading author identity, and no study measures a citation delta for named against generic authorship. The “AI trust scoring” half of the claim is convention, not proof.

    Sources