E-E-A-T

The framework began as E-A-T. In December 2022 Google added experience, asking whether content shows first-hand use of a product, a visit to a place or a person’s own experience of the topic, and noted that the guidelines are used to evaluate its ranking systems and do not directly influence ranking^[3]. Its guide to helpful content says the same of the current guidelines: E-E-A-T is not a specific ranking factor, but its systems use a mix of factors that identify content with good E-E-A-T, and give that even more weight on topics that can affect health, financial stability or safety, which it calls Your Money or Your Life^[2].

Trust is the centre. The rater guidelines call it the most important member of the family, because an untrustworthy page has low E-E-A-T however experienced, expert or authoritative it seems, and ask raters to judge it from what the site says about itself, what others say about it and what the page itself shows^[1]. The other three support trust, and content does not have to show all of them^[2].

Raters do not rank pages. The guidelines state that no single rating can directly change how a page appears in Google Search; ratings measure how well the search engine works and supply examples to improve it^[1]. E-E-A-T describes the quality Google’s systems try to recognise, which is why it is worked on through evidence on the page and around it, not through a setting. Why the same quality systems apply to AI answers is set out in the guide to GEO and SEO.

Authorship has to be true. Google encourages accurate bylines where readers expect them, and calls fabricated creator profiles, such as AI-generated headshots or made-up names, a form of deception that makes a page untrustworthy^[2]. An organisation can be the author; an invented person cannot.

Showing how a claim was made is part of trust. QueryRev’s study of AI crawler access states its method beside its figures: a panel of 9,973 domains, measured on 15 October 2026^[4].

It cannot be measured directly, and a tool that gives a page an E-E-A-T score is scoring its own proxies. What can be checked is the evidence: who wrote the page and what they show of themselves, how it was made, what independent sources say about the site, and whether the content is accurate.

Use Google’s own questions as the audit. Who: is the author self-evident, with a byline where one is expected and a page about them? How: does the page say how it was produced, such as how many products were tested and how? Why: was it made mainly to help people, or mainly to attract search visits^[2]?

Weight by topic. On a YMYL page, accuracy consistent with expert consensus is the bar; on a hobby post, first-hand experience may be enough. Audit the pages where the stakes are highest first, and read what others say about the site as well as what it says about itself.

Sample data: an invented site, to show the method.

A home-fitness shop audits its review of five rowing machines against Google’s questions. The byline names a writer with an author page, and the specifications cite the makers’ own sheets.

Three things are missing: the review never says the machines were used, nor for how long or by whom, and it shows only the makers’ photos. The rewrite adds the test, 20 sessions per machine by two staff, with the team’s own photos and measurements.