Edit: I since looked at the MSG page linked as there first example in the OP, which was exactly what I expected based on the "for" comments. My original comment below:
---
Well I read a few comments here saying it was click-baity and such, and other comments pushing back hard against that saying it's a detailed, trustworthy, researched site with citations.
So, I visited via an "about" link, then clicked through the menu to supplements (arbitrarily) then randomly to "creatine": lots of links in the claim-heavy content, but the two links I followed were to definitions, not to proof of the claims being made.
At the head it gives a researchers name, says their work was reviewed. Looks great so far.
>"Our evidence-based analysis on creatine features 746 unique references to scientific papers. " //
Wow, I'm expecting a massive citation section.
But, nothing, it's just a sales page, it doesn't _have_ citation supported information but it tells me it sells such information ...
Am I missing something, people Googling "creatine" are looking for the info, not a sales page offering to hook them up to the info. If other sources have the info directly then that would be a huge reason that Google wouldn't rank this examine.com site highly?
How many people google something looking for a for-pay resource that they, it seems, can't even sample first?
I'm not googling looking for a site to sign-up with to get emailed a factsheet either, even if it's free (which is a common fraud that I'm hugely wary of).
Ok, so now I'm looking at the questions, cool, click through - something about caffeine interactions with creatine, surely the link is to the cited scientific paper, nope just to another uncited page by the same person.
I'm not impressed upon that this is a site that should be high in google rankings; it seems low value unless you're looking to sign up to a resource -- like if I search online for "Steven King novels" I actually want the list, not a link to a library I can sign up to in order to find out at some time in the future some of the novels that could be on that list.
FWIW the summary given was good, readable, seemed like it might be true, but there's no reason to trust it at all. I'd rank it below even Wikipedia for the content I was presented. Whatever content they're selling behind those pages could be incredibly good, but that's not what SERPs are linking to so of course they don't rank for that, they rank for the shallow sales page with the same generic info on a million other pages.
Apologies, [on desktop now] the entire visible prose section of the page has no citations _visible_. The weird expanding section hides all the citation links and somehow _I_ missed the references at the bottom of the mile long page because scrolling down and following links showed no references, and the pages linked showed no references.
Once you come to the second call to action button "send me the fact sheet" that wants an email address, I gave up looking for source-cited material (having already gone through a few links).
Which is a massively long call to action page -- which also isn't the supplement guide with the creatine citations that one might have expected when following the FAQ link -- trying to sell me a pile of reports for $150 (which is fine, but again if I got there from a google search I wouldn't ever go back to your site looking for similar info).
FWIW I've never been to the site before, have absolutely nothing against it, was on mobile (with standard plugins, ublock) and just called it as I saw it as a user coming to your site fresh with no preconception other than that seemingly half the people here felt it was junk and half the people felt it was the best thing since sliced bread (ie really good).
>literally has 7 references right at the bottom //
My opinion from a UX perspective: Your page structure needs changing, you have the vitally supporting info that gives credence to the info buried below the "other junk" parts that signal the end of the pages relevant content. You'd probably do well to break down the page completely, shorten the summary info and provide banner links to pages with un-collapsed content. The short summary page would include some primary citations in a highly visible manner (the first lines of the content having superscript links) OR would have have links to a full -- default visible -- page with highly prominent citations.
The other way to go would be to flag right up front "this bit has no citation links in" by providing an index to the page content -- the pages are super-long --right below the info box. This is the page structure:
* non-cited summary
* get a fact sheet (requires email)
* Things to Know & Note: links to other pages
* Cautionary notices
* Use notices
* get the same fact sheet (requires email)
* FAQ (citations on some linked pages)
* Human Effect Matrix (citations linked in titles of study names in the modals <-- not at all obvious to me fwiw)
* Scientific Research on Creatine (this is the actual detailed info -- the page that was promised -- but it's all hidden [on mobile] for some reason).
Unless you're on hand to point out everyone's mistakes ;o) ... maybe it's just me that missed the good content, but I think your structure is at least in part to blame, YMMV of course (my email is in my profile if it's helpful). Perhaps you've looked at the site so long it all seems obvious and natural to you; that happens to me when making much simpler sites.
I think it will serve well to do so, FWIW I'll definitely visit the site again now I have been directed to the depth/breadth of content you have there.
There are 746 citations, and all appear to link to the relevant ncbi.nlm.nih.gov page:
> 1. Polyviou TP, et al. Effects of glycerol and creatine hyperhydration on doping-relevant blood parameters. Nutrients. (2012)
> 2. Fumagalli S, et al. Coenzyme Q10 terclatrate and creatine in chronic heart failure: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Clin Cardiol. (2011)
> 3. Beis LY, et al. The effects of creatine and glycerol hyperhydration on running economy in well trained endurance runners. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. (2011)
Short version the page has a few "false ends" where the structure and content indicate the end of the page-specific content has been reached but there are definitely pages without any citations showing for me on mobile.
---
Well I read a few comments here saying it was click-baity and such, and other comments pushing back hard against that saying it's a detailed, trustworthy, researched site with citations.
So, I visited via an "about" link, then clicked through the menu to supplements (arbitrarily) then randomly to "creatine": lots of links in the claim-heavy content, but the two links I followed were to definitions, not to proof of the claims being made.
At the head it gives a researchers name, says their work was reviewed. Looks great so far.
>"Our evidence-based analysis on creatine features 746 unique references to scientific papers. " //
Wow, I'm expecting a massive citation section.
But, nothing, it's just a sales page, it doesn't _have_ citation supported information but it tells me it sells such information ...
Am I missing something, people Googling "creatine" are looking for the info, not a sales page offering to hook them up to the info. If other sources have the info directly then that would be a huge reason that Google wouldn't rank this examine.com site highly?
How many people google something looking for a for-pay resource that they, it seems, can't even sample first?
I'm not googling looking for a site to sign-up with to get emailed a factsheet either, even if it's free (which is a common fraud that I'm hugely wary of).
Ok, so now I'm looking at the questions, cool, click through - something about caffeine interactions with creatine, surely the link is to the cited scientific paper, nope just to another uncited page by the same person.
I'm not impressed upon that this is a site that should be high in google rankings; it seems low value unless you're looking to sign up to a resource -- like if I search online for "Steven King novels" I actually want the list, not a link to a library I can sign up to in order to find out at some time in the future some of the novels that could be on that list.
FWIW the summary given was good, readable, seemed like it might be true, but there's no reason to trust it at all. I'd rank it below even Wikipedia for the content I was presented. Whatever content they're selling behind those pages could be incredibly good, but that's not what SERPs are linking to so of course they don't rank for that, they rank for the shallow sales page with the same generic info on a million other pages.