E-E-A-T stands for experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust. It’s the framework Google’s search quality raters use to judge whether search results show reliable, helpful content. It carries the most weight on topics that could affect someone’s health, money or safety, known as YMYL topics.
E-E-A-T isn’t a ranking factor, and you can’t add it to a page. Google’s guidance on creating helpful, people-first content says E-E-A-T itself isn’t a specific ranking factor. Google’s systems use a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T. Its raters’ assessments don’t directly change rankings either. They’re used to check whether the ranking systems work. What a site controls is the evidence on the page: who wrote it, what they’ve done, and whether the claims hold up.
The four parts
| Part | What it asks | Evidence on a B2B page |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | Has the writer used the product, done the work or been in the situation? | Named client results, screenshots, details only a practitioner would know |
| Expertise | Does the writer have the knowledge or skill the topic needs? | Credentials, years in the field, accurate technical detail |
| Authoritativeness | Is the writer or site a known source on this topic? | Mentions, citations and reviews from other credible sources |
| Trust | Is the page accurate, honest and safe to rely on? | Sourced claims, clear ownership and contact details, no hidden conflicts |
Google says trust is the most important of the four, and the other three contribute to it. Content doesn’t need to show all four.
Experience or expertise
Google added the first E, for experience, to its rater guidelines in December 2022. Its announcement used a tax example. Someone filling in a tax return probably wants content from an accounting expert. Someone choosing tax software may want a forum of people who have used the different products.
B2B content needs both, for different pages. A guide to configuring a firewall needs expertise. A page comparing managed security providers needs experience, and it has a trust problem if the vendor wrote it. Google’s rater guidelines treat reviews from a product’s own maker as less trustworthy because of the conflict of interest. A vendor comparison page earns trust by showing its method and admitting where competitors are stronger.
What breaks trust
Google’s Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines name the patterns raters should treat as deceptive. Two apply directly to content teams using AI:
- AI-generated content published under made-up author profiles, built to look as if a person wrote it.
- Author bios that claim credentials or expertise the writer doesn’t have.
Both make a page look more trustworthy than it is, and raters are told to rate that as the lowest quality.
E-E-A-T on a B2B consulting site
The strongest signal is content only you could have written. A page anchored in a named client result, with the tool, the dates and what changed, shows experience in a way no summary of other articles can. Add a real byline that links to an author page with the writer’s background. Cite primary sources for statistics. Show who runs the business and how to reach them. None of this is markup. It’s evidence a reader, and a rater, can check.
Common mistakes
- Treating E-E-A-T as a ranking factor to optimise with markup or plugins.
- Publishing under a generic “Admin” or team byline on expert topics.
- Inventing author personas for AI-written content.
- Summarising other people’s articles and calling it expertise.
- Writing vendor comparisons that never concede a competitor’s strengths.
Related terms
YMYL · Entity SEO · Comparison page · Topical authority · Knowledge panel
