E-E-A-T Fixes: Showing Readers Why They Can Trust You

What E-E-A-T is, and what it is not

E-E-A-T is not a score, a tag or a single ranking factor. Google's quality raters use it to judge sample results, and their ratings help Google evaluate whether its systems are working; they do not change the ranking of any individual page. Google has said that its systems look for a mix of signals that line up with the same ideas. The practical way to think about it is as evidence: what can a reader, a rater or an algorithm see that shows the content deserves trust?

The rater guidelines describe Trust as the most important of the four. Experience, expertise and authority all support trust, but a page can have all three and still be untrustworthy if it is inaccurate or deceptive. Google added the first E, for experience, to the guidelines in December 2022, recognising that someone who has used a product or lived through a situation can be a valuable source even without formal qualifications.

The fix guides, signal by signal

Each guide takes one finding from the checker and explains what evidence is missing, how to add it genuinely, how to mark it up where that helps and what to avoid.

Who wrote it

Fixing missing author bios covers named authors with a linked bio page, what a useful bio includes, and Person structured data with sameAs links to the author's profiles. Adding expertise credentials covers when formal qualifications matter, as in medicine, law and finance, and what counts instead on other topics, such as years of practice, published work and recognition from peers.

How it was made

Adding first-hand experience signals covers original photos, specific dates and figures, named tools and language that shows the author did what they describe. Adding citations and sources covers linking factual claims to primary sources with descriptive link text, a references section for longer pieces, and when source links should be followed or not. Adding transparent update dates covers visible published and updated dates, datePublished and dateModified in structured data, and a change log for major revisions, all tied to real changes.

Why it can be trusted

Adding trust signals covers contact details, a real address, reviews, clear pricing and refund terms, and the question a rater asks of every site: could this be a scam? Building authoritativeness signals covers earning recognition from outside the site, through original research, expert contributions and coverage, and how those mentions support search visibility over time.

Sensitive topics

Fixing YMYL content gaps covers topics that can affect health, money, safety or rights, where the standard is highest: reviewer disclosures, professional review processes and sincere, specific disclaimers.

By type of content

E-E-A-T in blog posts gives a minimum template: byline at the top, fuller bio at the end, inline sources, an updated date and Person markup. E-E-A-T in YMYL content covers reviewer lines, evidence-based statements and disclosure of funding or conflicts. E-E-A-T in product reviews covers testing photos, measured results, comparisons and clear affiliate disclosure.

Which findings to fix first

The checker often finds the same gaps on every page, because they come from the template. Fixing the template closes them everywhere at once. Within that, this order reflects how much each gap affects a reader's trust.

1. Missing contact details and trust pages. An about page, a contact page with real details, and a privacy policy are the baseline. A site that hides who runs it fails the most basic trust check.
2. Anonymous content on YMYL topics. Advice about health, money, legal matters or safety with no named, qualified author or reviewer is the most serious gap the checker can find.
3. No author byline or bio. Add a byline linked to a real bio page for every piece of editorial content.
4. Unsourced factual claims. Statistics, medical statements and legal points need a source a reader can check.
5. No visible dates, or dates that change without real updates. Readers need to know whether advice is current.
6. Thin experience signals. Add specific details from real use to reviews, guides and case studies.
7. Missing Person markup. Useful for connecting authors to their profiles, but only once the visible byline and bio exist.

What the checker can see, and what it cannot

E-E-A-T is built from two kinds of evidence. The checker scans a page for the first kind: signals the site itself shows. The second kind, a reputation built on other sites, cannot be confirmed from your page alone, and it matters just as much.

On-page evidence the checker looks for

• Author byline near the top of the content, naming a real person.
• Bio depth: a bio that says who the author is and why they are qualified to write this, not a single generic line.
• Person markup in structured data, connecting the author to their bio page and profiles.
• Citation patterns: links to sources for the facts in the text.
• Last-updated dates, visible to readers.
• Trust pages: about, contact and privacy.
• Reviewer disclosures on content checked by a professional.
• YMYL signals when the content falls into a sensitive category.

Reputation the checker cannot see

The rater guidelines tell raters to research the reputation of a site and its authors on independent sources: reviews, news coverage, professional bodies, and what recognised experts say. A page can carry every on-page signal and still have a poor reputation. Search your business and author names, read what customers say, and deal with genuine problems rather than only adding badges.

Signals that do not count for much

Some common additions carry little weight on their own. Trust badges that link nowhere, a padlock icon (every site should use HTTPS anyway), a list of logos for companies you have never worked with, and "expert" labels without an identifiable expert behind them add clutter rather than credibility. Readers and raters look for things that can be checked.

Building E-E-A-T into your templates

Most sites fix E-E-A-T once in their article and page templates rather than page by page. A solid editorial template has a byline under the headline linking to the author's bio page, published and updated dates beside it, a reviewer line where relevant, inline source links in the body, and a short bio at the end. Behind the visible parts, structured data can describe the same facts in a form machines read reliably.

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "Article",
  "headline": "How to read an energy performance certificate",
  "datePublished": "2026-02-10T09:00:00+00:00",
  "dateModified": "2026-08-21T14:00:00+01:00",
  "author": {
    "@type": "Person",
    "name": "Sam Patel",
    "url": "https://example.com/team/sam-patel",
    "jobTitle": "Domestic energy assessor",
    "sameAs": ["https://www.linkedin.com/in/example-sam-patel"]
  },
  "publisher": {
    "@type": "Organization",
    "name": "Example Energy Advice",
    "url": "https://example.com/"
  }
}
</script>

Three rules keep this honest:

• Markup mirrors the page. Everything in the structured data, such as the author's name, job title and dates, should also be visible to readers. Markup that claims more than the page shows is misleading.
• Dates follow real changes. Update dateModified when the content changes in a meaningful way, not every time the template is rebuilt.
• Bio pages do real work. Each author's page should describe their background, link to their profiles and list what they have written, so the link from the byline leads somewhere useful.

A sensible order of work

1. Run the E-E-A-T Checker on your most important pages: the home page, key service or product pages and your most visited articles.
2. Note which findings repeat on every page; they come from the template.
3. Make sure the about, contact and privacy pages exist, are linked site-wide and give real details.
4. Create a bio page for each author, then add bylines, dates and Person markup to the article template.
5. For sensitive topics, arrange a qualified reviewer and add a truthful reviewer line.
6. Work through the most important articles, adding sources for factual claims and specific details from real experience.
7. Run the checker again, and add the key checks to your publishing checklist.

For the full reference, read the E-E-A-T Guide, see a finished report in the example report, or start with the beginner tutorial. Clear writing supports trust too, which the Readability Guide covers.