215 lines
7.3 KiB
Markdown
215 lines
7.3 KiB
Markdown
# E-E-A-T Evaluation Framework
|
|
## Updated per Google Quality Rater Guidelines: September 11, 2025
|
|
## Plus December 2025 Core Update Implications
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
E-E-A-T = **E**xperience, **E**xpertise, **A**uthoritativeness, **T**rustworthiness
|
|
|
|
Trustworthiness is the most important factor. It is assessed based on the
|
|
other three signals plus direct trust indicators.
|
|
|
|
## CRITICAL: December 2025 Core Update
|
|
|
|
> **E-E-A-T now applies to ALL competitive queries, not just YMYL.**
|
|
|
|
The December 2025 core update was described as a "watershed moment" that:
|
|
- Extended E-E-A-T evaluation to virtually all competitive queries
|
|
- Made author attribution standards tighter across all categories
|
|
- Penalized anonymous or generic authorship even for non-YMYL content
|
|
- Significantly improved AI content quality detection
|
|
|
|
**Impact by industry:**
|
|
| Industry | Traffic Drops |
|
|
|----------|--------------|
|
|
| Affiliate sites | 71% average decline |
|
|
| Health/YMYL | 67% average decline |
|
|
| E-commerce | 52% average decline |
|
|
|
|
**Key takeaway:** Even entertainment and lifestyle content now requires demonstrated expertise. Generic content no longer ranks.
|
|
|
|
## YMYL (Your Money or Your Life)
|
|
|
|
Topics requiring **highest** E-E-A-T standards (but E-E-A-T now matters everywhere):
|
|
- 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 (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 (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 (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 (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
|
|
|
|
### New Spam Categories
|
|
- **Expired domain abuse**: Buying expired domains for their backlinks
|
|
- **Site reputation abuse**: Using reputable site to host low-quality content
|
|
- **Scaled content abuse**: Mass-producing content without value
|
|
|
|
### 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 December 2025 update elevated the "Experience" dimension as a key differentiator:
|
|
- 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
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|-------|-------------|
|
|
| 90-100 | Exceptional E-E-A-T, authority site, recognized expert, full transparency |
|
|
| 70-89 | Strong E-E-A-T, demonstrated expertise, good trust signals |
|
|
| 50-69 | Moderate E-E-A-T, some signals, room for improvement |
|
|
| 30-49 | Weak E-E-A-T, minimal signals, significant gaps |
|
|
| 0-29 | Very low E-E-A-T, no visible signals, potential trust issues |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Improvement Recommendations by Score
|
|
|
|
### 0-29 (Critical)
|
|
1. Add contact information and about page
|
|
2. Establish author identity with credentials
|
|
3. Implement HTTPS
|
|
4. Remove deceptive elements
|
|
|
|
### 30-49 (Major)
|
|
1. Add author bios with credentials
|
|
2. Include first-hand experience content
|
|
3. Get external citations/mentions
|
|
4. Add customer testimonials
|
|
|
|
### 50-69 (Moderate)
|
|
1. Deepen content with original research
|
|
2. Build topical authority through content clusters
|
|
3. Pursue industry recognition
|
|
4. Document processes and methodologies
|
|
|
|
### 70-89 (Minor)
|
|
1. Maintain freshness with regular updates
|
|
2. Expand author presence across platforms
|
|
3. Pursue speaking/publication opportunities
|
|
4. Add video/multimedia demonstrating expertise
|
|
|
|
### 90-100 (Maintenance)
|
|
1. Continue publishing high-quality content
|
|
2. Monitor and respond to reputation issues
|
|
3. Keep credentials and certifications current
|