A link to his biography at his alma-mater, doctor profile at the hospital or clinic where he works, his personal web-site. There are a few things that would inspire confidence.

A quick google search shows this guy: https://twitter.com/drmikehart - you are welcome to tweet at him. Or at the others.

Why don't you just provide a link and save the user from having to google? I'd trust a link to a medical practice looking business website much more than to a twitter account.

Here's Kamal's thorough bio page: https://examine.com/user/kamalpatel/

Here's Kamal verified on twitter: https://twitter.com/zenkamal

Here's him on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Patel_(researcher)

Here's Examine.com on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examine.com

Aside: the Creatine page links to https://examine.com/about/#researchers which is below where Kamal Patel appears on that page, so I scanned down the page and he wasn't mentioned (he's at the top, but I had to search to find him).

That page is long, and linking to generic prose about researchers from a named link made me think there was no information on that person.

That could be a one-off error, of course.

2. The item below that is '4 science-based “superfoods” you should consider eating'. That's pretty much just as much click-bait as the other.

3. You link to the person providing the review, preferably to a page where they actually say that they're recommending your site. Why are you making it my - or anyone else's - job to figure out who is endorsing you and to verify that they really have?

4. Yes, you are a business, and you really make it clear on your main page. Like it or not, people don't put blind faith in companies trying to sell them stuff. That makes your job harder, sure, but that's life.

Look, at the end of the day you can ignore what I've written. I'm not claiming to be anyone or have any sort of following. I'm not a developer, I work in support, and I deal with customers, so I spend a lot of time trying to see things from their perspective.

You've lost a lot of potential business from Google de-emphasizing your site in their results. I don't claim to know why they've done this, I'm just giving my impressions when I look at things from the perspective of the average user (insomuch as there is an "average user", of course).

Looking deeper, I tried to checkout some backlinks to your site. From news sites, I see a couple of trends, some good, some not so good. The Washington Post article you link to is actually one of the better ones - it's not an actual endorsement from WaPo, but it is a 3rd party recommending your site. The article you link to from The New York Times, and another one from The Sydney Morning Herald, aren't really good links - they're quoting Kamal Patel as the director of Examine.com. The NYT at least does provide a few deep links, but still, I doubt it comes off as a real endorsement to the average reader.

I could go on, but I'm not an SEO expert, and your reply doesn't really make it seem like you're open to feedback.

1. It's standard MO not to. We never even claimed outright endorsements...

2. Did you click on the link? We immediately say how superfoods do not exist.

As I said - just trying to fight it.

3. Anahand literally decided to quote the entire supplement section of his strength building guide (which was a section in the published newspaper) to us. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.

Or you can go ahead and tweet at him.

There isn't a conspiracy around every corner.

4. Yes, and we appreciate that. We also note we do not sell supplements. We have no ads. We sell information.

Here's an example: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8... - I wonder how you'll find ways to nitpick at that.

> open to feedback

This isn't feedback. This is you trying to find reasons to dismiss the website. There is no good faith here.