Substance Over Signature: Why Who Wrote It Doesn’t Mean What You Think

We live in a world where a name on a post used to mean, “You can trust this.”

Now it mostly means, “Someone hit publish, the tools/autopilot/assistant/machine were running, and maybe, just maybe, a real person checked it.”

If you’re in SEO or content, you already know this. But sometimes we all need to hear it plain.

Who wrote it? Who cares. What’s in it? That’s the only thing on my radar lately.

People still chase signatures (even I am guilty of this). Give them a famous byline, a blue check, a newsletter with a face on it, and half the feed just reposts it as gospel.

Lately, I’ve seen “expert” posts go live that were stamped by committees, cleaned up by editors, and sometimes actually churned out by AI slop.

Here's what I found lately: One SEO influencer says they hate AI slop (and champions the "I hate AI" on LinkedIn posts), yet their byline and article on a famous SEO blog are filled with AI lingo markers: streamlined, fundamental, critical. Ever-evolving landscape. Navigating. (Oh my gosh).

The “author” just gets the nice font on the top.

This isn’t a crisis. But it’s not a reason to relax either. If you work in digital anything, you'd better grow a filter that’s tougher than ever. Not suspicious, just sharp. You don’t need more noise. You need to know what’s actually going to help your business, your growth, your clients.

Pro tip: The secret is not in the name. It’s in the action behind it.

Let’s pull back the curtain.

Signature as safety blanket

People love short cuts. In the old world, the name you knew meant safer advice, cleaner facts, less chance of getting scammed or burned. But in the speed-churn world of digital publishing, that’s just not enough.

Sometimes yes, the byline has been earned. But just as often, that signature is a shield, a way to pump out more pieces, faster, while hiding how many hands (or bots) actually touched the work.

Real life: Somebody’s “definitive guide” that’s viral today? Might have started as a machine-written outline, then patched together by a junior, and only sprinkled with quotes from the “author” at the very end. That piece will probably get hundreds of shares, spark heated takes, and maybe even send a few clients down rabbit holes. In the end, it’s still just pixels if it doesn’t land with value.

Nobody says it out loud, but we all know it. The trust is shifting.

What am I really looking for?

The only real currency now? Value and proof. Here’s my sniff test for any post, “authored” or otherwise:

→ Does it tell me something new, or rehash what we all saw last week?

→ Does it include an ugly truth, a mini-case, a mistake, or a small win you can actually measure?

→ Can you use something from it by next week, or is it just there to look smart? Is it just a curation of what's already been out there.

→ Would it still matter if I swapped out the byline for anyone else in the field?

Get nitty gritty. Look for evidence. When insight is missing, walk away faster.

What “expert” actually means (spoiler: not a checklist)

The word expert gets tossed around like a badge. The trick?

Experts admit when they don’t know. They show you their process, not just their highlight reels.

The people you want to follow will call out their own uncertainty, show their data, ask for feedback, or invite you to test with them.

You’ll notice they’re quick to name their sources, quick to connect the dots to something real, and never afraid to push back on easy consensus—even the stuff they wrote themselves last quarter.

Decision time: yours, not theirs

Don’t wait for permission. Building discernment is not a “nice to have," it’s your edge. Once you start seeing past names and into substance, you start making fewer mistakes, you waste less energy on spin, and you find more of what actually works.

Here’s what I train my team, clients, and even my own family to do:

→ Break down every “hot take” or “new” method. What’s different? Where’s the proof? Why does it matter?

→ Challenge. Not with snark, but genuine curiosity. “How did you get that number? When did you last test it? What broke?”

→ Trial run. If it looks useful, run it small. Metrics don’t lie.

→ Notice when someone avoids the details. That’s the cue to pay closer attention, not just “who said it,” but what they do next.

Creativity, curiosity, and discernment outplay signatures, always.

What now? Build your own filter

This isn’t about being cold or cynical. It’s about taking your skills (and your client’s trust) seriously.

It’s about asking for receipts. Signature is only as good as the ideas, and every piece has to earn its place.

Ask yourself, if there were no bylines on the page, would you still trust this advice? Would you still use it, teach it, or bet your business on it? If not, move on.

In the end, substance is the moat. Substance is the magnet for the right clients, the right questions, the moments you get to say, “I was early, I called it, I helped someone with this.”

So next time you’re tempted to trust fast, pause. Dig.

Remember that what helps you ship, grow, or solve, that’s what matters.

Because substance outlasts signature, every time.