Experience + Expertise + Authoritativeness + Trustworthiness. Google's Quality Rater Guidelines define these four dimensions as the primary assessment framework for page quality. Quality raters do not directly change rankings, but their evaluations train the algorithms that do.
\nNote: This skill covers dimensional scoring only. For the full pipeline including intake questionnaire and HCU audit, use eeat-audit.
Does the content demonstrate that the author has FIRST-HAND, PRACTICAL experience with the topic?
\n| Score | Evidence | Red Flag |\n|-------|---------|----------|\n| 9-10 | Multiple specific examples, detailed case studies, clear firsthand knowledge | |\n| 7-8 | Some specific examples, practical experience evident | |\n| 5-6 | Generic examples, could be researched rather than lived | |\n| 3-4 | Minimal experiential proof, mostly theoretical | |\n| 1-2 | No evidence of firsthand experience | Zero experiential proof |
\nExperience markers that raise score:
\nDoes the content demonstrate deep KNOWLEDGE of the topic?
\n| Score | Evidence |\n|-------|---------|\n| 9-10 | Deep technical knowledge, addresses edge cases, expert-level insights |\n| 7-8 | Solid understanding, correct terminology, useful depth |\n| 5-6 | Adequate coverage, some depth, mostly accurate |\n| 3-4 | Surface-level, could be written by anyone with basic research |\n| 1-2 | Thin content, factual errors, no demonstrated expertise |
\nIs the AUTHOR recognized as an authority on this topic?
\n| Score | Evidence |\n|-------|---------|\n| 9-10 | Clear author credentials, multiple authoritative citations, industry recognition |\n| 7-8 | Author identified with relevant background, some authoritative sources |\n| 5-6 | Basic author info, limited external validation |\n| 3-4 | No clear author, few or no credible sources |\n| 1-2 | Anonymous content, no citations |
\nAuthority signals:
\nCan users VERIFY the claims and trust the source?
\n| Score | Evidence |\n|-------|---------|\n| 9-10 | Clear contact info, supported claims, transparent methodology, trust badges |\n| 7-8 | Contact available, most claims supported |\n| 5-6 | Some contact info, mixed claim support |\n| 3-4 | Limited contact, unsupported claims |\n| 1-2 | No contact, unverifiable claims |
\nTrust signals:
\nTotal E-E-A-T Score: /40
\n| Score | Rating | Action |\n|-------|--------|--------|\n| 35-40 | Excellent | Minor optimizations only |\n| 28-34 | Good | Targeted improvements |\n| 20-27 | Fair | Significant work needed |\n| 12-19 | Poor | Major revision required |\n| 4-11 | Very Poor | Complete rewrite recommended |
\nDeliver E-E-A-T analysis as:
\nE-E-A-T Score: [X]/40\n\nEXPERIENCE: [X]/10\nEvidence found: [specific evidence cited]\nRed flags: [if any]\nPriority fix: [specific action]\n\nEXPERTISE: [X]/10\nEvidence found: [specific evidence cited]\nRed flags: [if any]\nPriority fix: [specific action]\n\nAUTHORITATIVENESS: [X]/10\nEvidence found: [specific evidence cited]\nRed flags: [if any]\nPriority fix: [specific action]\n\nTRUSTWORTHINESS: [X]/10\nEvidence found: [specific evidence cited]\nRed flags: [if any]\nPriority fix: [specific action]\n\nTOP 3 FIXES (ordered by impact):\n1. [action]\n2. [action]\n3. [action]\nWhen AI citation eligibility matters, append GEO Score alongside E-E-A-T:
\nGEO Score (0-100): Measures AI extraction potential across Contextual Clarity, Organization, Referenceability, and Exclusivity.
\nCombined: E-E-A-T: X/40 | GEO: X/100
\neeat-audit — full pipeline including intake questionnaire and HCU auditeeat-factor-extractor — automated extraction of E-E-A-T signals from any URLgoogle-update-proofing — broader update-proofing using E-E-A-T signalspanda-quality-score-audit — Panda quality scoring (separate patent-based framework)#seo-sop #seo #eeat #content-quality #quality-raters #trust
\n"}