/seo

E-E-A-T Evaluation Framework

Per Google Quality Rater Guidelines (September 11, 2025); currency-checked June 2026

Overview

E-E-A-T = Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness

Trust is the most important member of the family (Google's own wording); Experience, Expertise, and Authoritativeness support the assessment of Trust. E-E-A-T is a concept in the Quality Rater Guidelines, not a direct ranking score; it informs the core ranking and helpful-content systems.

No "watershed" framing. Google never characterized the December 2025 (or any 2026) core update as "extending E-E-A-T to ALL competitive queries," and never published per-industry traffic-drop percentages. Those figures and the "watershed" narrative are third-party SEO-blog interpretation; do not assert them as Google fact. Google's only on-record description of broad core updates is generic ("a regular update designed to better surface relevant, satisfying content … from all types of sites").

Continuous core updates. Google now documents (changelog 2025-12-09) that it continually makes smaller, unannounced core updates between the major ones, so content improvements can lift rankings without waiting for the next major update. Treat helpful-content evaluation as always-on.

YMYL (Your Money or Your Life)

Topics requiring the highest E-E-A-T standards (E-E-A-T applies broadly, but YMYL carries the highest bar):

• Health and safety
• Financial advice and transactions
• Legal information
• News and current events
• Elections and civic trust (added Sept 2025)
• Democratic processes (added Sept 2025)
• Groups of people (potential for harm)

Experience (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 20%)

First-hand knowledge and personal involvement with the topic.

Signals to Check

• Author has demonstrable first-hand experience with the topic
• Content includes original photos, screenshots, or data
• Case studies or real-world examples with specific details
• Personal process documentation or methodology descriptions
• Before/after results or outcome data
• Specific anecdotes that couldn't be fabricated

Scoring

• Strong: Multiple first-hand experience signals, original content
• Moderate: Some personal experience evident
• Weak: Generic information, no personal touch
• None: Clearly AI-generated or scraped content

Expertise (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 25%)

Formal qualifications, training, and demonstrated knowledge.

Signals to Check

• Author credentials relevant to topic (bio, certifications)
• Technical accuracy and depth appropriate for audience
• Claims supported by evidence or sources
• Specialized vocabulary used correctly
• Up-to-date with current developments in the field
• Byline with author name and credentials visible

Scoring

• Strong: Verified credentials, deep technical accuracy
• Moderate: Demonstrable knowledge, some credentials
• Weak: Surface-level information, no credentials
• None: Factual errors, misinformation

Authoritativeness (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 25%)

Recognition by others as a go-to source.

Signals to Check

• Site recognized as authority in its niche
• Author recognized as expert (external citations, speaking, publications)
• Content cited by other authoritative sources
• Industry awards, certifications, or accreditations
• Consistent publication history in the topic area
• Featured in reputable media outlets
• Professional affiliations

Scoring

• Strong: Widely recognized authority, cited by others
• Moderate: Growing recognition, some external validation
• Weak: No external recognition
• None: Negative reputation, known for misinformation

Trustworthiness (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 30%)

The most important factor, overall reliability and transparency.

Signals to Check

• Clear contact information (physical address, phone, email)
• Privacy policy and terms of service
• HTTPS with valid certificate
• Transparent about who creates content and why
• Customer reviews and testimonials
• Corrections and update history visible
• No deceptive practices (hidden ads, clickbait)
• Secure payment processing (for e-commerce)
• Return/refund policy visible

Scoring

• Strong: Full transparency, verified business, positive reputation
• Moderate: Good trust signals, minor gaps
• Weak: Missing key trust signals
• None: Deceptive practices, scam indicators

September 2025 QRG Updates

AI Content Assessment

Raters now formally evaluate whether content appears AI-generated:

• AI content is acceptable if it demonstrates genuine E-E-A-T
• Low-quality AI content (generic, no unique value) is penalized
• The presence of AI-generated content is not inherently penalizing
• What matters: does the content provide unique value regardless of creation method?

Markers of Low-Quality AI Content

• Generic phrasing without specificity
• Lack of original insight or unique perspective
• No first-hand experience signals
• Factual inaccuracies
• Repetitive structure across multiple pages
• No author attribution or expertise signals

Spam Policies (updated 2026-08-30)

• Expired domain abuse: Buying expired domains for their backlinks
• Site reputation abuse: Using a reputable site to host low-quality content (parasite SEO). Enforcement differs by searcher region since 2026-08-30 (announced 2026-08-28): outside the EEA the pages may receive a manual action; for users within the EEA they may be categorized as separate from the main domain instead. Treat it as a policy risk everywhere, and do not promise a demotion-free outcome for EEA audiences either.
• Scaled content abuse: Mass-producing content without value, Google's policy now explicitly names "using generative AI tools to generate many pages without adding value" (also covers automated transformations like synonymizing/translating).
• Back-button hijacking (NEW, malicious practices): manipulating browser history (history.pushState/replaceState, including via third-party ad/library scripts) so users can't use the Back button. Announced 2026-04-13; enforcement live since 2026-06-15 (manual actions + automated demotions).

AI Overview Evaluation

Raters assess quality of AI-generated summaries in search results.

RSL 1.0 (Really Simple Licensing)

New machine-readable content licensing standard (December 2025) for AI training:

• Backed by: Reddit, Yahoo, Medium, Quora, Cloudflare, Akamai, Creative Commons
• Allows publishers to specify AI licensing terms
• Augments robots.txt for AI-specific permissions

Experience Signals Are Critical Differentiators

The "Experience" dimension is a key differentiator, especially against scaled/AI content:

• First-person narrative ("I tested this...", "In my experience...")
• Original photos and screenshots (not stock images)
• Specific examples with verifiable details
• Process documentation showing actual work done

Why: AI can generate expertise-sounding content but cannot fabricate genuine experience.

Overall scoring guide and improvement recommendations by score: eeat-scoring-guide.md.