EEAT is not a factor, EEAT is not a part of ranking. Google doesn’t evaluate content.
EEAT was a guide developed for external consultants to review anonymized content as examples of machine spam detection. In other words – trying to objectively determine if spam systems caught spam or actual websites.
Myths about EEAT:
- Writing about experience or expertise = claims, not actual EEAT
- Writing about previous jobs or projects = claims, not actual EEAT
- Having an author bio <> EEAT
- EEAT is not algorithmic
- EEAT is not applied by Google
- Google doesn’t validate authors or bios or content
EEAT Algorithms
No algorithms detect EEAT – because EEAT is a subjective feeling about the reality of a site. Making claims of expertise or experience are just naive and childish but also highly unnatural.
EEAT Signals
EEAT signals differ from person to person but there are no EEAT signals within SEO
E-E-A-T Checker
There is no Google SEO EEAT Checker – EEAT cannot be checked because what counts as experience and expertise differs to everyone, and talking about it is just a claim.
Using EEAT as an SEO Scorecard
SEO Scorecard
A strong SEO scorecard would compress every campaign into one ruthless grid: Relevance vs Authority at site, cluster, and page level, scored 1–5 and trended monthly for movement, not vanity snapshots. Relevance columns would track: query–intent match and topical fit of each money page, content depth vs top competitors, internal anchor support, UX basics (load, layout, readability), and SERP feature coverage (FAQ, FAQ-rich, video, local pack, etc.). Authority columns would track: domain/section strength in that vertical, referring domain quality and topical alignment, anchor/risk mix, brand signals (mentions, reviews, discussion), and behavioral proof (CTR, dwell, conversion) for each page and cluster. Each row is a real SERP: target query, top 5 competitors, your URL, and a single bottleneck label (“relevance gap”, “authority gap”, or “both”), turning the scorecard into a roadmap that says “fix these 3 pages and these 2 link gaps next”, instead of a bloated SEO KPI wall.
EEAT Scorecard
There are no EEAT guidelines or scorecards
Basic Critical thinking
- Claims are not evidence, they are claims
- People dont believe or need to believe everything they read in a document
- Writing that something happened or took place = a claim
EEAT can come from
- Reading your Wikipedia page
- Reading reviews
- Reading about case studies
- Reading Customer comments
- Your design/logo
Facts about EEAT:
- Google doesn’t validate content
- There is NO EEAT score
- There is NO EEAT factor
- There is NO EEAT value
- Google cannot manually check the volume of content it ingests
- Google doesn’t check authors
- Google doesn’t know if content is EEAT, Good, bad, short, long
- Content CAN be EEAT without mentioning components of EEAT
- EEAT can be a logo or partner logo
EEAT Content Checker
An EEAT Content checker scorecard has to start from the provocation that “there is no real EEAT score, factor, or checker,” and treat every on‑page EEAT claim as just that: a claim. Instead of pretending to reverse‑engineer Google, the grid would rate how convincingly a page signals trust to humans using observable, falsifiable evidence: third‑party reviews, case studies, comments, logos, and real‑world references, not author bios, buzzwords, or self‑reported expertise. Each row would ask one thing only: “If this site did not exist, what proof on the wider web suggests this entity is real, competent, and not spam?”, pulling in signals like Wikipedia, news, partnerships, and consistent brand design. Columns would then mark which of those proof types the page actually leverages versus which exist but are missing in the copy and layout. The “EEAT score” label is kept as a UX metaphor, but the internal story is brutally honest: this is a trust scorecard for people, not an attempt to decode a non‑existent Google metric.
