Open one of your pages and ask: can a stranger verify why it deserves trust? A polished design and confident copy may create a strong first impression, but they don’t prove that the author has experience, the business is accountable, or the claims are accurate.
This EEAT checklist turns Google’s quality guidance into a practical website audit. You can use it on a small-business site, a service page, a blog, or a high-stakes YMYL page. Each check asks for visible, verifiable evidence rather than a vague impression.
If you have 15 minutes, complete the 25 checks first. The rest of the guide explains how to score them, what stronger proof looks like, and how to turn the gaps into a 30-day repair plan.
The 25-Point EEAT Checklist
Start here for a quick review. Give each item a score of 0, 1, or 2: 0 means missing, 1 means present but vague, and 2 means clear and verifiable. This is an internal prioritization tool, not a Google score or ranking metric.
Business identity and accountability
These checks establish who stands behind the site and whether a customer can hold that business accountable.
1. The business or publisher is clearly named.
Visitors shouldn’t have to search the footer to learn who operates the site.
What to notice: Digital Style Designs names the company and its founder in a visible team-page statement.
2. Contact details are easy to verify.
Show a working phone number, email address, location, service area, or another contact method appropriate to the business.
What to notice: the contact page keeps the street address, email address, and phone number beside the inquiry form.
3. The About page identifies real people.
Explain who runs the organization, what they do, and why they are qualified to speak about the subject.
What to notice: a team page identifies real people and connects each name to a working role.
4. Policies match the site’s activity.
Privacy, terms, returns, editorial standards, advertising disclosures, or correction policies should appear where relevant.
What to notice: a clearly labeled privacy policy explains what information the site collects and how it is used.
5. Trust claims can be checked.
Reviews, awards, memberships, licenses, client logos, and certifications should connect to real evidence.
What to notice: The testimonial combines visible Google source verification with a specific business outcome: orders arriving without advertising.
Firsthand experience
Look for details that could only come from doing, testing, or closely observing the work.
6. The content shows direct involvement.
It describes what the author tested, built, observed, managed, or learned firsthand.
What to notice: the case study describes the specific work the team performed instead of relying on a generic success claim.
7. Original evidence supports the account.
Photos, screenshots, measurements, documents, or process notes show that the work happened.
What to notice: a results section records measured outcomes from the project, supporting the account with original evidence.
8. The method is explained.
Readers can see which tools, criteria, sample, and time frame produced the result.
What to notice: Cleveland Clinic explains who reviews Health Library articles and how often content is reviewed again.
9. Details replace generic claims.
Names, dates, constraints, locations, and outcomes make the experience specific.
What to notice: a 12-month time frame and concrete click and impression totals replace a vague claim that traffic improved.
10. Limitations are stated.
The page explains where the advice may not apply or what the test couldn’t prove.
What to notice: Cleveland Clinic states that its articles should not replace a healthcare provider’s advice, making the content’s limits explicit.
Expertise and content accuracy
This group tests whether the right person created or reviewed the information and whether important claims can be checked.
11. Pages carry an accurate byline when readers expect one.
The author should be a person or organization that actually contributed to the work.
What to notice: NN/g places a named, linked author and publication date directly beneath the article title.
12. The byline leads to a useful author page.
The profile connects the author’s background to the topics they cover.
What to notice: The author profile combines a real biography with a visible archive of related articles and videos.
13. Credentials are relevant to the claim.
A title or certificate matters only when it supports the subject at hand.
What to notice: Kate Moran’s NN/g profile explains the research methods and UX subjects behind her published work.
14. High-stakes content receives qualified review.
Medical, financial, legal, and safety advice should name the appropriate reviewer and review date.
What to notice: Cleveland Clinic says each health article is reviewed by a healthcare provider who specializes in that topic.
15. Factual claims use strong sources.
Prefer primary documents, regulators, standards bodies, original studies, and direct company documentation.
What to notice: a health article places its review status, update date, and evidence-backed references in a visible source section.
Authority and reputation
Authority becomes easier to judge when credible sources outside the business confirm its identity, work, or knowledge.
16. The brand and key people are represented consistently.
Names, bios, services, addresses, and profiles should agree across the site and the wider web.
What to notice: An external Cambridge-focused page repeats the agency’s name, local positioning, and core website-support services—details readers can compare with the company site.
17. Independent sources confirm the reputation.
Relevant press, professional directories, industry associations, citations, and customer feedback carry more weight than self-written praise.
What to notice: An independent industry page describes specific outcomes associated with the agency’s work: current, secure, growth-ready websites.
18. Earned links and mentions fit the subject.
A citation from a relevant publication is stronger evidence than a random directory link.
What to notice: NN/g mentions and links Miro in the context of an actual remote UX workflow, which is more meaningful than an unrelated directory link.
19. The site has a clear topical focus.
Supporting pages, case studies, and internal links show sustained knowledge of the subject.
What to notice: the service hub groups closely related SEO specialties, making the site’s topical focus clear.
Page quality and technical trust
The final group checks whether the page delivers on its promise and avoids technical or commercial behavior that creates doubt.
20. The page answers its main question early.
Readers should understand the answer, service, or recommendation before they reach the halfway point.
What to notice: Google’s guide introduces the purpose and core self-assessment immediately rather than postponing the answer.
21. The content adds original value.
Include an observation, framework, example, data point, or decision aid that competing pages don’t offer.
What to notice: an original case study adds platform-specific citation data and a named strategic change that competing summaries cannot simply reproduce.
22. Dates and updates are honest.
Show when the content was published or materially reviewed; don’t change the date without meaningful work.
What to notice: the blog post displays its publication date beside the category and comment information.
23. Commercial relationships are disclosed.
Readers should know when a recommendation, review, or link is sponsored or affiliated.
What to notice: Wirecutter places a plain-language commission disclosure above the review, before the recommendations and product links.
24. The page is secure and easy to use.
HTTPS, readable mobile layouts, clear navigation, working forms, and restrained advertising reduce avoidable doubt.
What to notice: the contact page combines readable contact methods, plainly labeled fields, and a predictable request button in one uncluttered layout.
25. Structured data matches the visible page.
Author, organization, review, and article markup should describe information users can actually see.
What to notice: Schema.org Validator reads the live page as a BlogPosting and exposes fields such as headline, dates, section, and author for comparison with visible content.
What an E-E-A-T Audit Can and Cannot Tell You
E-E-A-T stands for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. Google’s public guidance says trust is the most important of the four. Experience, expertise, and authority matter because they help people decide whether a source is trustworthy in context.
E-E-A-T isn’t a single ranking factor, a score stored in Search Console, or a checklist that guarantees higher positions. Google’s quality raters use the concept to evaluate search results, and their individual ratings don’t directly change a page’s ranking. Google uses that feedback to assess and improve its search systems.
That distinction changes how you should run the audit. Don’t hunt for a magic threshold such as “80 out of 100.” Look for gaps between what the page claims and what a visitor can verify. A score in this checklist helps your team choose what to fix first. It doesn’t predict an algorithm update.
The standard also changes with context. A hobbyist can write a useful account of using a camera because firsthand experience matters. Tax, medical, legal, and safety guidance usually demands formal expertise, careful sourcing, and stronger accountability because a mistake could cause real harm.
How to Run an E-E-A-T Audit Step by Step
A useful audit samples the pages that shape trust and revenue. It records evidence, names an owner for each fix, and ends with a short repair queue instead of a giant spreadsheet nobody opens again.
Step 1: Choose a representative page sample
Don’t begin with every URL. Review the homepage, About page, contact page, one author profile, three important articles, two high-value service or product pages, and any policy page tied to a purchase or lead form. Add pages that lost traffic, attract backlinks, or cover YMYL topics.
For each URL, write down the intended reader and the decision the page helps them make. A service page must prove the business can deliver. A tutorial must show that the author understands the task. A comparison page must explain how the options were evaluated.
Step 2: Record evidence, not impressions
Create four audit columns: check, evidence found, score, and required fix. The evidence column should contain a URL, page section, screenshot, source, or exact claim. “Looks trustworthy” isn’t evidence. “Named project manager, dated case study, client quote, and linked business profile” is.
Use the 0-2 scale consistently:
- 0: Missing. The page offers no useful evidence.
- 1: Weak. A signal exists but is generic, unsupported, outdated, or hard to verify.
- 2: Clear. The evidence is relevant, specific, visible, and verifiable.
Never combine the numbers into a public “E-E-A-T score.” Compare pages and categories so you can see where the site repeatedly falls short.
Step 3: Audit experience and expertise separately
Experience answers, “Has this person actually done the thing?” Expertise answers, “Do they understand the subject well enough to guide someone else?” A page may show one without the other.
A case study can demonstrate both at once when it shows the work and explains the decisions behind it.
Suppose a web agency writes that a redesign improved lead quality. Experience appears when the article identifies the initial problem, shows the work, explains the test period, and reports what changed. Expertise appears in the reasoning: why the team changed the information hierarchy, how it chose the conversion event, and which competing explanations it ruled out.
On a product review, original photos and notes from daily use demonstrate experience. A sound testing method, accurate technical explanation, and sensible comparison criteria demonstrate expertise. Neither is proven by adding “expert” to an author bio.
Step 4: Check authority outside your own site
Authority is partly relational. Search the company name, author names, branded products, address, phone number, and important claims. Review what independent sources say and whether the information agrees with the site.
Look for relevant professional profiles and social profiles, interviews, citations, industry memberships, local listings, customer reviews, and earned links. Then examine the quality of those references. Ten copied directory profiles don’t carry the same meaning as a detailed mention from a respected trade publication.
Also check for unresolved reputation problems. A pattern of complaints about billing, safety, or customer support belongs in the audit even if the website itself looks excellent. Reputation evidence can be positive, mixed, or negative. Record what you find without cherry-picking.
Step 5: Test trust at the moment of decision
Review the page as a new visitor who is about to call, submit a form, follow advice, or spend money. Can that person identify the company, understand the offer, verify important claims, and predict what happens next?
Pay close attention to forms and checkout flows. State what information you collect and why. Confirm that phone numbers, email links, pricing details, guarantees, delivery terms, and cancellation rules work as described. Remove fabricated scarcity, misleading buttons, fake counters, and testimonials that can’t be attributed.
Technical details support trust when they serve the visitor. Fix broken pages, intrusive overlays, mixed-content warnings, unreadable mobile layouts, and slow interactions. HTTPS is a baseline security measure, not proof of expertise.
Step 6: Review “Who, How, and Why”
Google recommends these three questions as a practical way to evaluate people-first content.
Who created it? Use an accurate byline and connect it to a profile that explains relevant experience. If a qualified professional reviewed the page, name that person separately instead of presenting the reviewer as the author.
How was it created? Explain the method when readers would reasonably want to know. A case study can state the measurement window. A product review can describe the testing setup. AI-assisted content may need a disclosure when the production method affects how readers judge the result.
Why does the page exist? The page should help its intended audience complete a task or make a sound decision. Content that merely restates competing articles, swaps synonyms, and targets a keyword adds little reason to trust or cite it.
E-E-A-T Audit Examples: Weak Signals vs Verifiable Proof
Most sites don’t need louder claims. They need evidence a reader can inspect. These examples show the difference.
| Page type | Weak signal | Stronger evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Local contractor service page | “Trusted experts serving Boston for decades.” | Names the licensed contractor, lists the actual service area, links the license record, and shows a dated project with original photos. |
| Marketing case study | “Our strategy increased engagement.” | States the baseline, work completed, measurement period, analytics source, result, and limits of the comparison. |
| Software review | “We tested every leading platform.” | Names the products, test accounts, tasks, scoring criteria, test dates, and any vendor access or sponsorship. |
| Financial article | Anonymous advice with no sources. | Shows the qualified author and reviewer, cites primary regulatory guidance, states the jurisdiction, and displays the review date. |
| About page | Stock team photos and a generic mission statement. | Introduces real team members, roles, relevant experience, location, company history, and links to detailed profiles. |
| Customer testimonial | First name, five stars, and no context. | Identifies the customer with permission, describes the service used, and links to an independent profile or detailed case study when available. |
The stronger version doesn’t need to be longer. It needs to reduce uncertainty. A short, dated example with a named source can do more work than several paragraphs of promotional copy.
Common E-E-A-T Audit Mistakes
Most weak audits fail because they count surface elements without testing whether those elements deserve trust.
Treating E-E-A-T as a ranking score
No public tool can calculate Google’s internal assessment of E-E-A-T. Third-party scores can help organize a review, but they measure the toolmaker’s rules. Use them as prompts for investigation, not evidence that a page will rank.
Adding credentials that don’t fit the topic
A long biography doesn’t automatically establish expertise. Include the experience, education, licenses, publications, or professional work that relates to the content. A web developer’s technical background may support an article about site performance but says little about medical treatment.
Publishing generic AI summaries
Clean grammar doesn’t create firsthand experience. If AI helps with research, outlining, or editing, the final page still needs accurate facts, useful judgment, original value, and accountable authorship. Google says its focus is content quality and purpose rather than the mere use of automation. For AI search, Google points site owners back to the same SEO and people-first foundations.
Using schema to describe evidence visitors cannot see
Structured data can help search engines understand an article, author, or organization. It must match visible content. Adding an author, review, or sameAs property doesn’t repair a missing bio, an invented review, or an unclear business identity.
Copying a universal checklist without considering risk
The proof needed for a restaurant review differs from the proof needed for a legal guide. Raise the standard when inaccurate information could affect a person’s health, finances, safety, or legal position. Reviewers and sources should match the jurisdiction and subject.
Turn Your Audit Into a 30-Day Repair Plan
Start with missing trust signals on pages closest to a decision. Then repair recurring template problems and strengthen the content that already attracts qualified traffic.
Week 1: Fix identity and accountability. Repair contact information, About and team pages, author profiles, policies, disclosures, and broken forms. Confirm that names and business details stay consistent across the site.
Week 2: Upgrade high-value pages. Add firsthand examples, project evidence, clear methods, relevant credentials, primary sources, and honest limitations to the pages that generate leads or cover high-stakes topics.
Week 3: Strengthen reputation and connections. Correct important business profiles, request legitimate customer reviews, document press or association references, and connect supporting articles, services, authors, and case studies with useful internal links.
Week 4: Validate the implementation. Run technical SEO checks covering mobile usability, crawlability, canonical URLs, dates, author markup, article markup, and visible content. Revisit each zero score and record what changed. Watch Search Console and conversion data over time, but don’t expect every edit to produce an immediate ranking jump.
Repeat a focused audit after a website redesign, content migration, major team change, unexplained traffic loss, or expansion into a high-stakes topic. For an active publishing program, a quarterly review of key templates and top landing pages is usually manageable.
Frequently Asked Questions
These questions cover the points that often cause confusion when teams turn Google’s quality guidance into an audit.
Is E-E-A-T a Google ranking factor?
Google says E-E-A-T isn’t a specific ranking factor. Its systems use many signals associated with helpfulness and trust, while quality raters use E-E-A-T as a framework for evaluating results. Improving the real evidence behind your content can support users and search quality, but there is no single E-E-A-T switch to optimize.
What is the most important part of E-E-A-T?
Google identifies trust as the most important member of the group. The right proof depends on the page. Accurate sourcing may matter most for a health article, while verifiable business details, policies, and real customer experience may matter more on a local service page.
How often should a website run an E-E-A-T audit?
Review key pages at least once a year and after material changes to authors, services, policies, or site structure. Sites that publish frequently or cover YMYL topics should review their highest-risk templates and landing pages more often. A quarterly sample is a sensible starting point.
Does an author bio improve E-E-A-T?
An author bio helps when it gives readers relevant, accurate, and verifiable context. A generic bio full of titles adds little. Link the byline to a profile that explains the author’s real relationship to the subject and update it when that relationship changes.
Can AI-generated content demonstrate E-E-A-T?
The production tool doesn’t settle the question. The published page still needs original value, factual accuracy, accountable authorship, and evidence appropriate to the topic. Disclose the method when readers would reasonably use that information to judge the content.
Does E-E-A-T matter for Google AI Overviews and AI Mode?
Google’s guidance for AI search points back to the same technical and content foundations used in regular Search. Helpful original content, clear sourcing, crawlable pages, accurate structured data, and a good page experience remain relevant. There is no special E-E-A-T schema or guaranteed shortcut into an AI answer.
Make Trust Easy to Verify
A successful E-E-A-T audit leaves fewer claims that depend on the visitor taking your word for them. It connects authors to relevant experience, advice to reliable sources, case studies to real work, and a business to clear accountability.
If this checklist exposes repeated gaps across your website, broader SEO services can connect them to the pages, templates, technical setup, and search data behind them. Digital Style Designs will turn the findings into a prioritized repair plan your content, design, and SEO teams can actually use.
