E-E-A-T Quality Signals
E-E-A-T quality signals are what on a page and on a site help a reader (and the systems) see that the material can be trusted. We must begin with a caveat without which any list of signals misleads: E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor, and there is no page "E-E-A-T score". And of the four components trust is most important; the others contribute to trust, but content doesn't necessarily have to demonstrate all of them. Below: what Google's documentation names as showing trust and how to check each on your pages.
The basis is Google's guidance on helpful content, writing high quality reviews, publication dates and page experience. The definitions of the four components are in the lesson on E-E-A-T, and markup and authorship rules in the lesson on the author.
What Google names as trust on a page
The self-assessment questions on trust and expertise in Google's guidance come down to a few checkable things:
- Clear sourcing and evidence of expertise. Does the content present information in a way that makes you want to trust it: clear sourcing, evidence of the expertise involved, background about the author or the site that publishes it, such as through links to an author page or an About page;
- The reputation of the site. If someone researched the site producing the content, would they come away with an impression that it is well-trusted or widely recognized as an authority on its topic;
- An expert or enthusiast. Is the content written or reviewed by someone who demonstrably knows the topic well;
- Factual accuracy. Are there easily-verified factual errors. For YMYL topics, which could significantly impact health, financial stability or safety, the content must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus;
- First-hand experience. Does the content show experience and depth of knowledge, for example from having actually used a product or visited a place.
What is not among the documented signals
In the familiar "how to improve E-E-A-T" table many items do not appear in the documentation in that form: "mentions, links and citations" as a way to get authority, "reviews on Google and Trustpilot", "privacy policy". That does not mean they are harmful. It means Google does not name them as E-E-A-T signals, and an effect cannot be promised from them. The order "trust, expertise, authoritativeness, experience" is not supported either: the documentation says only that trust is most important and the others contribute to it.
Author and publisher
In the "Who" block Google suggests checking: is it evident who the author is; is there a byline where one is expected; does the byline lead to a page with the author's background and topics. It strongly encourages adding accurate authorship information but warns: made-up profiles, names or credentials are deception that makes a page untrustworthy to users and automated quality systems. Markup and details are in the lesson on E-E-A-T and the author.
Reviews: first-hand evidence
For reviews Google gives the most concrete list. Among its recommendations: demonstrate that you are knowledgeable about what you are reviewing and provide evidence such as visuals, audio or other links of your own experience, to support your expertise and reinforce the authenticity of the review; share quantitative measurements; explain what sets something apart from competitors; discuss benefits and drawbacks based on your own original research; and when recommending the "best", say why, with first-hand supporting evidence. And the summary: focus on quality and originality, not length.
Dates: honest freshness
The date under a headline is a signal of honesty too. Google estimates the date a page was published or significantly updated from several factors, not one. To help it, add a user-visible date to the page, label it with text like "Published" or "Last updated" and specify it in structured data with datePublished and dateModified. But there is no guarantee the date will be shown. Changing a date without substantially changing the content is a no-go: the guidance on helpful content names it directly as a warning sign (see the lesson on helpful content).
Security and overall experience
HTTPS and a comfortable display Google puts not in a "trust rating" but among the self-assessment questions on page experience: secure serving, good Core Web Vitals, content that displays well on mobile, no excessive ads and intrusive interstitials. Not all of them directly help ranking: see the lesson on Core Web Vitals.
How to check a page
- Is there a byline and does it lead to a page with background and topics?
- Are there links to sources where you give facts and figures? Can all the facts be verified?
- Is first-hand experience visible: photos, measurements, details competitors lack? That is the same contribution the lesson on content uniqueness speaks of.
- Are honest dates of publication and update given?
- For YMYL topics: has the content been reviewed by a specialist and does it agree with established expert consensus?
- Check the text with text quality analysis and completeness with entity coverage; structured data and its errors are visible in the page analyzer.
If a site was hit with manual actions, that is a separate situation: see the lesson on manual actions.
What the documentation does not support
- An "E-E-A-T score" as a measure you can improve by a number of points;
- Specific percentages of traffic lost because of E-E-A-T or a separate update "about E-E-A-T";
- The order "trust, expertise, authoritativeness, experience";
- A list of "mandatory" signs: reviews on external platforms, policies, mentions.
Checklist
- It is clear who the author is, and the byline leads to a page about them.
- Facts are backed by clear sources.
- Personal experience and first-hand evidence are visible.
- Dates are honest and labeled "Published" or "Updated".
- For YMYL topics the content is accurate and consistent with expert consensus.
- No made-up authors, credentials or reviews.
Mistakes
- Treating E-E-A-T as a metric that can be inflated.
- Inventing authors and credentials.
- Changing dates for the look of freshness.
- Promising a rise in positions after adding an author page.
- Writing reviews without evidence of your own experience.
What comes next
Next are manual actions: what happens when a site violates Google's policies and how that differs from algorithmic changes.