PaulPA - 6:58 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

My site is probably a leading authority site for its field and I believe determining what fits this classification may come down to a few questions:

1. Is there a name(s) behind the site who offer some evidence of being an authority? If so, what does this person(s) bring to the table to suggest she/he/they is/are an authority?

2. Does a personal (human) evaluation of the site suggest the site may be an authority site? This is often gleaned through evidence of quality (e.g., relevant information, original information, helpful information).

3. Does someone in the field believe this site gives the appearance of being an authority site? If people in the field do not think the site has value than that should be a red flag.

4. How consistent is the content of the site? Does the site stay within the area in which it seems to be most knowledgeable or does the site spread itself too thin in an attempt to appeal to many? This is not necessarily bad as long as the site shows evidence of being supported by multiple authorities (see #1 above).

5. Is the site linked across a variety of sites in different areas? An authority site should have appeal beyond the obvious field it covers. For example, a site may be about how to sell widget but if it is good the information on selling widgets could apply to selling other product or services in other industries.

6. Is the site maintained given the field it covers? Not all sites need to be updated frequently in order to be an authority site, but there should be some evidence that the site is being maintained (e.g., updating copyright date). Obviously, for many fields a site is only an authority if it is continually updated as the field it covers is continually evolving.