- Google Search Central asks creators whether it is self-evident who authored the content and whether pages carry a byline, and names an author page and an About page as the examples of trustworthy sourcing
- The same page asks whether content clearly demonstrates first-hand expertise, and lists entering a niche topic with no real expertise — for the search traffic — as a warning sign
- Stealth marketing has been a violation of Japan's premiums and representations law since 1 October 2023; the regulated party is the advertiser, and why the disclosure still belongs above the body text
Key questions, answered
- Q: Will publishing more articles produce search results?
- A: Google Search Central lists, as a warning sign of search-engine-first content, “Are you producing lots of content on many different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results?” The same page adds: “Are you adding a lot of new content or removing a lot of older content primarily because you believe it will help your search rankings overall by somehow making your site seem ‘fresh?’ (No, it won't).” Nowhere does the documentation say volume itself is rewarded.
- Q: What do readers look at first?
- A: We do not hold data showing every reader follows the same order. What we can point to is that Google's own “Who, How, and Why” framework opens with Who, and the first questions under it are whether it is self-evident who authored the content and whether pages carry a byline. An article with no visible author leaves the reader short of the material they need to decide whether to trust it.
This article sets out a way of running a site for people publishing affiliate articles alongside a job. It does not guarantee higher search rankings or more income. The passages quoted were checked at the time of writing against Google Search Central and material published by Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency; guidelines and enforcement practice both change. For how advertising rules apply to your own wording, consult the agency's published guidance and a qualified professional. The final judgement is yours.
They look for the author before they read the article
Search visitors do not behave the way writers picture them. Very few read from the top down. Most decide within a few lines whether the page is worth their time, and one of the things they weigh is who is writing it.
A reader who is interested does something predictable: scrolls a little to find a name, fails to find one, taps the site title, discovers there is no page explaining who runs the place, and leaves. The body of the article has barely been touched.
When a side-income affiliate site is producing posts but search is still bringing nothing, the usual suspects are volume and keywords. But if every new post raises the same unanswered question, adding more is walking over the same ground.
This piece works through what to fix before adding anything, using Google Search Central's own documentation and Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency. It is not a promise about rankings or earnings. It is an argument about order.
Google's self-assessment list opens with "Who"
Google Search Central publishes a page called "Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content", built around questions creators can ask themselves. One section recommends evaluating content in terms of "Who, How, and Why" — and the first of those is Who created it.
- "Is it self-evident to your visitors who authored your content?"
- "Do pages carry a byline, where one might be expected?"
- "Do bylines lead to further information about the author or authors involved, giving background about them and the areas they write about?"
Source: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content | Google Search Central
The expertise questions on the same page come at it from another angle: "Does the content present information in a way that makes you want to trust it, such as clear sourcing, evidence of the expertise involved, background about the author or the site that publishes it, such as through links to an author page or a site's About page?" An author page and an About page are named as the examples.
Google also writes that it "strongly encourage[s] adding accurate authorship information, such as bylines to content where readers might expect it." That is not a ranking trick. It is a statement that there is no reason to leave the field blank.
The same page states that "E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor". Nothing here guarantees that fixing an About page moves a position. What it also says is that "using a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T is useful", and that its systems give even more weight to strong E-E-A-T for topics that could significantly affect "the health, financial stability, or safety of people" — what Google calls YMYL. Side income, investing and money articles live on that side of the line.
Writing about what you have not done runs out fast
The first E in E-E-A-T is Experience. Under its people-first questions, Google asks:
"Does your content clearly demonstrate first-hand expertise and a depth of knowledge (for example, expertise that comes from having actually used a product or service, or visiting a place)?"
And under the warning signs for search-engine-first content:
- "Did you decide to enter some niche topic area without any real expertise, but instead mainly because you thought you'd get search traffic?"
- "Are you producing lots of content on many different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results?"
- "Are you mainly summarizing what others have to say without adding much value?"
Those three describe, almost exactly, how affiliate posts get mass-produced on the side: take a service you have never used, rearrange what other sites say about it, then repeat on a different topic. Long before Google forms a view, the writer runs out of anything specific to say — because the friction points and the moments of doubt were never experienced.
Opened the account. Funded it. Pushed a withdrawal through. Within that range, sentences appear that no other site has. A narrow range is fine. Google itself writes that "Of these aspects, trust is most important", and that "some content might be helpful based on the experience it demonstrates, while other content might be helpful because of the expertise it shares."
If automation is doing the writing, the same page has questions for that too: "Is the use of automation, including AI-generation, self-evident to visitors through disclosures or in other ways?", "Are you providing background about how automation or AI-generation was used to create content?", "Are you explaining why automation or AI was seen as useful to produce content?" Nothing there forbids the tool. What is asked is whether you can explain it to the reader.
What actually belongs on the About page
Answering those questions takes very little. It does not take good prose.
| Usually left blank | What can go there instead |
|---|---|
| A profile that reads "side-hustle blogger" | Day job, years of experience, the scope you cover — specific enough to check |
| No About page at all | One page, linked from every footer and every byline |
| No contact route, or one nobody reads | A single address or form you actually monitor |
| No author name on the article | A byline at the top or bottom, linked to the author page |
| No mention of AI-assisted drafting | One or two lines on what was used and why |
Don't hide the fact that there is an ad
The fourth checkbox has a legal backing in Japan. The Consumer Affairs Agency describes stealth marketing this way.
Advertising that hides the fact that it is advertising is what is called stealth marketing.
What the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations regulates is advertising that an ordinary consumer cannot tell is advertising.
The scope is not limited to online displays such as social posts and reviews; television, newspapers, radio and magazines are covered as well.
One point worth stating precisely. The same page says the regulated party is the business that supplies the goods or service — the advertiser — and that a third party such as an influencer commissioned by a company is not the regulated party. So this is not a page saying the person promoting a product is immediately exposed to enforcement.
The reader, though, does not care who the regulated party is. Finding out afterwards that a page was an ad is the one thing that cannot be walked back. Put the disclosure where it is visible before the body text and the reader starts from there. Anyone who leaves over that was going to leave anyway, just later and less politely.
How the rules apply to a specific piece of wording depends on the display and the underlying commercial arrangement. Check your own case against the agency's published operational guidance and with a qualified professional.
Fixing one article and the About page beats adding ten
Adding ten posts and fixing one post plus the About page cost roughly the same evening. What differs is reach.
Ten new posts arrive carrying the same three unanswered questions: who wrote this, have they used it, is it an ad. Fix the About page once and the answer attaches to every article already published — and to every one you write afterwards.
Choosing the article to fix is simple too. Not the one with the most traffic: the one where the most of your own experience is still in the draft. That is where there is material left to make specific. Start with a post you only ever researched and you will stall, because there is nothing to add.
- 1. About page, profile, contact route — one fix, applied to everything
- 2. Bylines on articles, linked to the author page — make the route walkable
- 3. Ad and affiliate disclosure — moved above the body text
- 4. One article, the one you lived the most, made specific
None of this is a guarantee of rankings or earnings. It is how a reader is put in a position to judge.
What people do, and what to do instead
| What people do | What to do instead |
|---|---|
| Publish more because nothing is working | Fix the About page once, then make one existing post specific |
| Leave the profile as "side-hustle blogger" | Day job, years, scope — written specifically enough to check |
| Write up a service you have never used | Write what you tried, and say plainly what you did not |
| Bury the disclosure near the bottom | Put it above the body text |
| Bump the date to look fresh | Leave the date alone unless the content changed |
The last row is not a matter of opinion. Google lists "Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?" as a warning sign, and on bulk adding or removing content it answers itself in brackets: "(No, it won't)".
One thing to do today
Open your own site on a phone, logged out, the way a search visitor would arrive rather than from a bookmark. Open one article page.
Now count how many taps it takes to find out who wrote it. Zero — it is on the article page — and there is nothing to do today. One or more, and closing that distance is the job.
In practice the answer is usually "you can't get there at all": either the About page does not exist, or it exists and nothing links to it. Fixing that takes less time than writing a single post. And unlike a post, it attaches itself to everything you have already published and everything you publish next.
Frequently asked questions
[Disclaimer] This article is informational and educational content produced by the Kingfin English Editorial Team. It does not guarantee that any practice will raise search rankings or produce income. Quotations were checked at the time of writing (September 2026) against Google Search Central's "Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content" and the Consumer Affairs Agency of Japan's page on stealth marketing becoming a violation of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations from 1 October 2023; guidelines and enforcement practice change. How advertising and commercial-transaction rules apply to a specific case should be confirmed against the published operational guidance and with a qualified professional. Note also that OlympTrade, promoted through Kingfin's affiliate programme, is an FX and binary-options trading service and is not registered as a financial instruments business operator in Japan. Trading always carries the risk of losing your capital, and no result can be guaranteed. Affiliate earnings are likewise not guaranteed and vary by individual.
