Key takeaways
- E-E-A-T is experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust, and Google says trust is the most important of the four.
- Google states that E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor; its systems use a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T.
- The concept comes from Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines. The current PDF on Google's site is dated 11 September 2025 and raters' scores don't directly influence ranking.
- For YMYL topics (health, financial security, government and society, and other), Google says its systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T.
- The practical test is Google's Who, How and Why: make it clear who wrote the page, how it was made, and that it exists to help people.
E-E-A-T stands for experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust, and it’s the framework Google’s quality raters use to judge whether a page comes from a source people can rely on. Google says it isn’t a direct ranking factor, but its systems are built to surface content that shows these qualities.
Few SEO terms attract more nonsense. You’ll see “E-E-A-T scores”, “E-E-A-T plugins” and checklists presented as if Google counts them.
It doesn’t. This guide sticks to what Google and its rater guidelines actually say, with page references, and turns that into a practical audit.
Where Does E-E-A-T Come From?
E-E-A-T comes from Google’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines, the document Google’s human raters use to judge how well its results are working. It began as E-A-T, and Google added the first E for experience on 15 December 2022.
What changed in December 2022?
In its announcement of the change, Google asked whether content shows it was produced with some degree of experience, such as actually using a product or visiting a place. It repeated that the guidelines “don’t directly influence ranking”.
Which version of the guidelines is current?
The PDF at Google’s published address is the General Guidelines dated 11 September 2025, and it runs to 182 pages. We downloaded it on 3 October 2026, and the file’s last-modified header is also 11 September 2025.
Some third-party posts describe a newer update in 2026, but we couldn’t find one in Google’s own file and couldn’t verify those claims. Check the date on the cover before you quote any version.
How do raters use the guidelines?
Google’s helpful content page says raters give it insight into whether its algorithms seem to be providing good results, and that they’re trained to understand whether content has strong E-E-A-T. It adds that raters have no control over how pages rank and that rater data isn’t used directly in ranking algorithms.
Google compares it to a restaurant collecting feedback cards from diners. The feedback tells the kitchen whether the recipes work; it doesn’t cook the food.
What Do Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trust Mean?
The rater guidelines define each part in a sentence, and they put trust at the centre: experience, expertise and authoritativeness support it. Section 3.4 of the guidelines (pages 26 and 27) sets them out.
| Part | What raters consider | Example from the guidelines |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | Whether the creator has the necessary first-hand or life experience | A product review from someone who has personally used the product |
| Expertise | Whether the creator has the knowledge or skill the topic needs | Rewiring advice from a skilled electrician |
| Authoritativeness | Whether the creator or site is known as a go-to source | The official government page for getting a passport |
| Trust | Whether the page is accurate, honest, safe and reliable | Online stores need secure payment systems and reliable customer service |
Why does trust come first?
The guidelines say trust is the most important member of the family because untrustworthy pages have low E-E-A-T however experienced, expert or authoritative they may seem. Their own example is a financial scam run by a highly experienced scammer.
Google’s helpful content page makes the same point and adds that content doesn’t necessarily have to demonstrate all four. The type and amount of trust needed depends on the page: a social post meant to entertain needs far less than an informational page on a clear YMYL topic.
What do raters look at?
The guidelines tell raters to base their E-E-A-T assessment on one or more of three things: what the site or creator says about themselves, what others say about them, and what is visible on the page. The first starts with the About us page, and the second means independent reviews, references and news articles.
There is also a conflict-of-interest test. Reviews by people who own a product can be valuable, but “reviews” by the manufacturer or by a paid influencer are less trustworthy.
When is experience enough, and when is expertise needed?
Section 3.4.1 (page 28) draws a line on YMYL topics. Sharing first-hand life experience can be valuable, but some information must come from experts.
| YMYL topic | Valuable sharing of experience | Best left to experts |
|---|---|---|
| Saving for retirement | Reviews of retirement saving services by people who have used them | Advice on how much to save and which assets to invest in |
| Filling out tax forms | A humorous video from a non-expert about the frustration of doing taxes | Instructions on how to fill out the forms |
| Liver cancer treatment | A forum discussion about coping with treatment | Treatment options and life expectancy under each |
Is E-E-A-T a Ranking Factor?
No: Google’s documentation says plainly that E-E-A-T isn’t a specific ranking factor. What it does say is that its systems identify a mix of factors that can help determine which content demonstrates experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust.
That wording is easy to skim past. There is no single signal called E-E-A-T to optimise, but the qualities behind it are what the systems are trying to find.
What does that mean for how you work?
Treat E-E-A-T as a way to audit your content, not a metric to chase, and as one strand of wider SEO work. Google says reading the rater guidelines may help you self-assess how your content is doing from an E-E-A-T perspective and what to improve.
Do third-party E-E-A-T scores mean anything?
Be wary of them. Google’s AI optimization guide says no third-party tool has access to its internal ranking or AI systems.
Google’s changelog adds that on 5 June 2026 it published guidance on evaluating third-party SEO tools, services and advice. Any tool can measure proxies such as author pages or citations, but none can report Google’s view.
Does E-E-A-T matter for AI search?
Google’s AI optimization guide says the content most likely to influence your presence in generative AI search over the long run is unique, compelling and useful. Its example of a unique point of view is a first-hand review, which is the experience part of E-E-A-T in practice.
Google doesn’t use the term E-E-A-T in that passage, so treat the connection as consistent with its guidance, not as a stated mechanism.
Related: How Do Google AI Overviews Choose Their Sources?
What Is YMYL and Why Does It Raise the Bar?
YMYL stands for Your Money or Your Life: topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society. Google says its systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T on these topics.
What are the four YMYL categories?
The guidelines (section 2.3, page 11) split harm into four types. Their examples of topics where mild inaccuracies could cause harm include symptoms of a heart attack, how to invest money and who can vote.
| Category | What it covers |
|---|---|
| YMYL Health or Safety | Topics that could harm mental, physical or emotional health, or any form of safety |
| YMYL Financial Security | Topics that could damage a person’s ability to support themselves and their families |
| YMYL Government, Civics and Society | Topics that could harm groups of people, public interest, trust in institutions, or election and voting information |
| YMYL Other | Topics that could hurt people or the welfare of society |
A spectrum, not a switch
The guidelines say YMYL assessment is a spectrum, from clear YMYL to definitely not YMYL, and that many or most topics are not YMYL. Pages on clear YMYL topics get the most scrutiny.
If you work in insurance or debt, as we do, you’re firmly in that territory. Named authors, accurate figures and a clear identity matter more there than on a recipe blog, and regulator rules such as those in our guide to FCA financial promotions and SEO content are a separate matter for the firm to sign off.
If your pages sit in a YMYL sector and you want an expert view of how they read, talk to us about SEO for your site.
What Do Raters Treat as Low Quality or Untrustworthy?
Pages that lack the E-E-A-T their purpose needs are rated Low, and untrustworthy pages are rated Lowest, however polished they look. The guidelines name specific triggers.
| Problem | Guideline section | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Creator lacks the experience or expertise the topic needs, or the site isn’t an authoritative source for it | 5.1, page 60 | Low |
| Inadequate information about the site or creator for the page’s purpose | 4.5.1, page 35 | Lowest |
| A YMYL page that is highly inexpert | 4.5.2, page 36 | Lowest |
| Many pages made at scale with little original value, however they are created | 4.6.5, page 42 | Lowest |
| Deception about who you are or what the page is for | 4.5.3, page 36 | Lowest |
The guidelines give plain examples: a restaurant review written by someone who has never eaten there, or tax form downloads on a cooking website. They also say no positive reputation or type of website can overcome a lack of E-E-A-T for the topic or purpose.
Does using AI hurt E-E-A-T?
Not by itself. The guidelines say the use of generative AI tools alone does not determine the level of effort or Page Quality rating, because the tools can be used for high-quality and low-quality work.
What gets the Lowest rating is scaled content with little effort, little originality and little added value, however it was made. Google’s updated helpful content page, last changed on 1 October 2026, puts it as effort: using generative AI to produce large amounts of text without manual oversight or curation represents little to no effort.
How are reviews and reputation judged?
Section 3.3.2 tells raters to be sceptical of both positive and negative reviews, because anyone can write them, including the owner. It also says to read what the reviews say, not just count them, and notes that a single rude clerk or one late parcel should not be treated as a bad reputation.
How Do You Demonstrate E-E-A-T on a Page?
Answer Google’s “Who, How and Why” questions honestly, and back them with evidence a reader can see. These are Google’s own prompts for content that aligns with E-E-A-T.
Who: make authorship obvious
Google asks whether it is self-evident who wrote the content, whether pages carry a byline where one is expected, and whether bylines lead to more information about the author. Do that, and link each byline to an author page with real background.
Don’t invent anything. Google warns that fabricating creator profiles, including AI-generated headshots, made-up names or false credentials, is a form of deception that makes a page untrustworthy.
If you want markup to go with it, our guide to what schema markup is shows how Article markup carries the author.
How: show the work
For reviews and comparisons, Google says trust builds when readers can see how many products were tested, what the results were and how, with evidence such as photographs. The same applies to any claim you can support: show the method, cite the source and date the page honestly.
If automation or AI played a substantial role, Google suggests disclosing it where readers would reasonably expect it. It also warns against changing dates to make pages seem fresh when the content hasn’t substantially changed.
Why: write for readers first
Google calls “why” perhaps the most important question. The answer should be that you’re creating content primarily to help people, and that it would be useful to visitors who arrive directly.
Make the site itself legible
The rater guidelines say it should be clear who is responsible for a website and who created the content (section 2.5.2, page 16). Raters are pointed to the About page, contact details and customer service information.
They also look at what others say about you, including independent reviews, references and news articles. That’s why digital PR and the question of whether backlinks still matter sit alongside content work: off-site reputation is part of how a source gets judged.
How Can You Audit Your Pages for E-E-A-T?
Score each important page against the Who, How and Why questions, fix the gaps in order of risk, and start with YMYL pages. There is no tool for this, so the audit is a reading exercise.
| Question | Where to look | Typical fix |
|---|---|---|
| Is it clear who wrote the page? | Byline and author page | Replace “Admin” with a named author linked to a real bio |
| Is it clear who is responsible for the site? | About, contact and customer service pages | Add legal name, address and contact route |
| Can a reader see how you know? | Sources, method, evidence | Cite primary sources; show how figures were produced |
| Does the page show first-hand experience? | Examples, photos, specifics | Add real scenarios and named processes |
| Is it accurate and current? | Figures, dates, rules | Fact-check and update; change dates only for real changes |
| Do independent sources back you up? | Reviews, news, references | Earn coverage and collect genuine reviews |
| Does the page exist to help people? | Purpose and thin pages | Merge or remove pages made only to catch searches |
A worked example
Imagine a debt advice firm’s guide to individual voluntary arrangements. A page audit finds a byline that reads “Admin”, fee claims with no source, and an About page that doesn’t say who is responsible for the site.
The fixes are all visible ones: a named adviser with a bio page, a link to the regulator’s guidance beside each rule, a method note on where the figures came from, and a complete About page. None of that is a “signal” Google counts; it’s evidence a rater and a reader can both see.
What does the page need beyond E-E-A-T?
Google’s helpful content page says the guidelines also emphasise the quality of the main content, and lists four attributes raters are trained to evaluate: effort, originality, talent or skill, and accuracy. For YMYL topics the content must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus.
That’s the link back to content marketing: a byline can’t rescue a page that is thin. If you’d like a second pair of eyes on how your pages read against these questions, a full SEO audit is the place to start.
To turn this into a plan for your own pages, see our SEO service or ask us for an audit.
- 1ExperienceFirst-hand or life experience of the topic, such as having used the product.
- 2ExpertiseThe knowledge or skill the topic needs, which varies from topic to topic.
- 3AuthoritativenessBeing known as a go-to source for the topic.
- 4TrustAccurate, honest, safe and reliable. The most important of the four.
FAQs
What is the difference between E-A-T and E-E-A-T?
E-A-T stood for expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness. Google added experience on 15 December 2022, asking whether content shows it was produced with some degree of experience, such as actually using a product or visiting a place.
Does every page need to show all four parts?
No. Google says content doesn't necessarily have to demonstrate all of them: some content is helpful because of the experience it shows, other content because of the expertise it shares. What matters is that the page is trustworthy for its purpose.
Do I need to declare AI-generated content?
Google says AI or automation disclosures are useful for content where someone might wonder how it was created, and suggests adding them when reasonably expected. It also says using automation, including AI, to produce content mainly to manipulate search rankings violates its spam policies.
Can an anonymous site have good E-E-A-T?
It's hard. The rater guidelines expect most sites to say who is responsible for them, and say any site that handles personal, private or sensitive data must provide extensive contact information. They do accept an alias or username as the creator on forums and social media.
Do customer reviews count towards E-E-A-T?
They can be reputation evidence, but the guidelines tell raters to be sceptical of both positive and negative reviews, because the site owner or someone they hire can write them. Raters are told to read what reviews say, not just count stars, and to look for as many as they can find.
How do I measure E-E-A-T?
You can't, because there is no E-E-A-T score. Audit pages against the Who, How and Why questions and the rater guidelines, and use Search Console to check whether the pages you improved are performing better.
Does E-E-A-T matter for AI search?
Google's AI optimization guide says creating non-commodity content that is helpful, reliable and people-first is the most useful thing you can do, and uses a first-hand review as an example of a unique point of view. It doesn't use the term E-E-A-T there, so treat the link as consistent with the guidance rather than confirmed.
Sources
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central
- General Guidelines (Search Quality Rater Guidelines), 11 September 2025, Google
- Our latest update to the quality rater guidelines: E-A-T gets an extra E for Experience, Google Search Central Blog
- Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search, Google Search Central
- Google Search Central documentation updates (changelog), Google Search Central
Related services