E-E-A-T Audit & Scoring

<!-- Updated: 2026-06-10 -->

Framing (state this in every report — from Google's helpful-content doc)

• E-E-A-T is NOT a specific ranking factor. Google's systems use a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T.
• Quality raters use E-E-A-T to evaluate whether ranking systems are working; rater data is not used directly in ranking ("feedback cards from diners"). Rater guidelines: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/hsw-sqrg.pdf
• Trust is the most important member. The others contribute to trust; content doesn't have to demonstrate all four.
• YMYL gets extra weight: topics affecting health, financial stability, safety, or societal welfare are held to stronger E-E-A-T. Detect YMYL and raise the pass bar one point per dimension.

Inputs

• URL — fetch with WebFetch (fallback curl -sL), or
• Local draft — Read tool (markdown/HTML). For drafts, score content-side signals only and mark site-level signals (HTTPS, about page) as N/A.

Execution

1. Fetch the page HTML; also fetch the homepage, /about, and /contact (HEAD or GET) to verify site-level trust pages exist.
2. Detect signals per dimension using the rubric below (HTML parsing heuristics: bylines, rel=author, Person/ProfilePage JSON-LD, <time> elements, outbound citation links, first-person experience markers).
3. Score each dimension 0-5 with a verbatim evidence quote from the page for every point awarded or withheld.
4. Run the "Who, How, Why" questions (below).
5. Recommend the 3 highest-impact improvements (lowest-scoring dimension first; Trust outranks ties).

Scoring Rubric (0-5 per dimension)

Experience — first-hand use or involvement

Detectable signals:

• First-person evidence markers: "we tested", "I used", "after 6 months of..."
• Original photos/screenshots/video clearly taken by the author (not stock)
• Concrete specifics only a participant would know (test counts, settings, prices paid, dates visited)
• Before/after results, process documentation, original data
• For reviews: evidence of the work involved, per Google's product reviews guidance (https://developers.google.com/search/docs/specialty/ecommerce/write-high-quality-reviews)

Score guide: 0 = pure summary of other sources; 3 = some first-hand detail; 5 = thoroughly documented first-hand experience with evidence.

Expertise — demonstrable knowledge

Detectable signals:

• Author byline present where readers would expect one
• Byline links to a bio/profile page with relevant credentials, background, and areas covered (ProfilePage/Person markup is a plus)
• Expert review attribution ("Medically reviewed by...") on YMYL content
• Technical depth appropriate to audience; claims sourced; no easily-verified factual errors

Score guide: 0 = anonymous, unsourced; 3 = named author with bio; 5 = credentialed expert (or demonstrable enthusiast) with linked, verifiable background.

Authoritativeness — recognized go-to source

Detectable signals:

• Citations TO authoritative external sources (and being cited — check via Ahrefs//seo-ahrefs-backlinks if available)
• Site has a clear primary topic/purpose and topical depth (related content)
• Brand/author presence beyond the site (sameAs links, recognized outlets)
• "If someone researched this site, would they find it widely recognized as an authority on its topic?" (Google's expertise question)

Score guide: 0 = no sourcing, no topical focus; 3 = well-sourced within a focused site; 5 = demonstrably recognized authority on the topic.

Trust — the most important dimension

Detectable signals:

• HTTPS with valid certificate
• About page, contact page with real contact info (address/email/phone)
• Visible datePublished / dateModified stamps that aren't gamed
• Editorial/review/corrections policy (especially news/YMYL)
• Privacy policy and terms; clear ad/affiliate disclosure
• Headline matches content (no exaggeration or shock framing)
• No spelling/production sloppiness; functioning links

Score guide: 0 = anonymous site, no policies, mismatched claims; 3 = HTTPS + about/contact + dates; 5 = full transparency stack incl. corrections policy and disclosures.

"Who, How, Why" Check (from creating-helpful-content)

• Who: Is it self-evident who authored the content? Are there bylines where expected? Do bylines lead to author background?
• How: Is the production method shown where it builds trust (testing methodology, evidence of work)? If automation/AI substantially generated the content: is that self-evident through disclosure, with background on how and why AI was used?
• Why: Created primarily to help people who arrive at the site — or primarily to attract search visits? (If the latter, route to /seo-helpful-content for the full self-assessment.)

Output

## E-E-A-T Audit — <URL or draft>

> Framing: E-E-A-T is not a direct ranking factor; raters use it to validate
> Google's systems. Trust is the most important dimension.
YMYL topic: YES/NO (bar adjusted accordingly)

| Dimension | Score | Key evidence (quoted) |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | X/5 | "..." |
| Expertise | X/5 | "..." |
| Authoritativeness | X/5 | "..." |
| Trust | X/5 | "..." |
| **Overall** | XX/20 | weakest: <dimension> |

### Who / How / Why
- Who: ...
- How: ...
- Why: ...

### Top 3 Highest-Impact Improvements
1. <fix on weakest dimension, Trust prioritized on ties>
2. ...
3. ...

Cross-references

• /seo-content — broader content quality audit (readability, structure, keyword coverage) that embeds a lighter E-E-A-T pass
• /seo-helpful-content — people-first self-assessment gate
• /seo-rich-results — ProfilePage/Person markup to reinforce author signals
• Source doc: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content