---
title: "E-E-A-T: What It Is and How to Check Your Site - Łukasz Rogala"
description: "What E-E-A-T and YMYL mean, whether it is a ranking factor, how quality raters work and how to check your own site with questions from Google's guidelines."
url: "https://rogala.pro/en/blog/e-e-a-t/"
language: "en"
author: "Łukasz Rogala"
published: "2026-10-26T11:45:00+01:00"
modified: "2026-10-26T11:49:00+01:00"
---

[Blog](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/) · [Glossary](https://rogala.pro/en/glossary/)

# E-E-A-T: What It Is, Where It Came From and How to Assess a Site by Google's Guidelines

[Łukasz Rogala](https://rogala.pro/en/#about) · October 26, 2026 · 43 min read

**E-E-A-T is short for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness (Trust in the guidelines): the qualities by which Google's quality raters judge whether a website and its author can be believed.** The concept comes from Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines, and Google added the second “E”, for experience, in December 2022. Google writes that E-E-A-T itself is not a specific ranking factor, but its systems look for a mix of signals that point to content with good E-E-A-T, and they give it even more weight on topics of health, money and safety. In practice a site has to show who is responsible for it, how the author knows what he writes about, and why he can be trusted.

**I read the quality rater guidelines in the version of September 11, 2025, which Google made available on October 25, 2026, and the page numbers in brackets refer to that file (182 pages).** I opened the Google Search Central documentation on the same day, and the pages about AI content also on October 26, 2026. I quote Google's documents in the English original. I took the questions people ask from Google results for six keywords about E-E-A-T, YMYL and the guidelines, pulled three times on October 25, 2026 (DataForSEO, cost USD 0.05). Demand is the median over 12 months from a measurement of October 18, 2026. My own data comes from an archive of 63 audits from 2020-2026 and from my E-E-A-T checklist, and I checked the examples of other sites on October 25, 2026.

## What does E-E-A-T mean?

**Each letter is one question that a rater asks about a site and its creator, and the first three help answer the fourth, about trust.** The guidelines call the creator the person or company that produced the material on the page (p. 10). The definitions and examples in the table come from section 3.4 of the guidelines (p. 26).

| Letter | What the rater checks | Example from the guidelines |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | Whether the creator has used the product or lived through what he writes about, if the topic calls for it | A product review from someone who used the product, against a “review” from someone who did not |
| Expertise | Whether the creator has the knowledge or skills that the topic requires | Advice on replacing electrical wiring from an electrician, against advice from an enthusiast of old houses |
| Authoritativeness | Whether the creator or the site is known as a go-to source on the topic | An official government site about getting a passport |
| Trust | Whether the site is accurate, honest, safe and reliable | An online store with secure payments and working customer service |

Trust is the most important, because an untrustworthy site has low E-E-A-T however much experience and expertise its author has. The guidelines give the example of a financial scam: its author may be an experienced expert in scams, and the site is still not credible (p. 27). In its documentation on helpful content Google adds that content does not have to show all four qualities: one piece is helpful thanks to the author's experience, another thanks to his expertise (Google Search Central). The Polish version of this documentation renders the acronym as “doświadczenie, wiedza, wiarygodność, zaufanie” (experience, knowledge, credibility, trust).

A rater draws conclusions about E-E-A-T from at least one of three sources: what the site says about itself, what others say about it, and what is visible in the content itself (p. 27):

- What the site says about itself. The starting point is the “About us” page or an author profile.
- What others say. Independent reviews, articles, media mentions and other reliable sources about the site or the author count.
- What is visible on the site. On some sites the author's expertise shows in the content itself, in a video or in the comments.

The guidelines warn about conflicts of interest. Reviews of a product from people who bought it and describe their experience are valuable, while “reviews” from the manufacturer or a paid influencer are worth less (p. 27).

## Where does E-E-A-T come from?

**E-E-A-T grew out of the earlier E-A-T, to which Google added experience on December 15, 2022.** Earlier the guidelines described high-quality information as content that shows expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness on a topic, in short E-A-T. Danny Sullivan of Google described it that way in October 2021 (Google, October 19, 2021). In December 2022 Google announced that an “E” for Experience was being added to the acronym (Google Search Central, December 15, 2022).

Google explained the change by saying that on some topics the most useful content comes from someone who has lived through something or tried it. The example from the announcement: when you are filling in a tax return, you want content from an accountant, and when you are choosing tax software, a discussion on a forum among people who used various programs may be more useful. In the same post Google reminds readers that the guidelines are for raters to evaluate the ranking systems and do not influence ranking directly.

Since then the guidelines have changed several times, and Google summarizes the changes of the last two years in a change log on the last page of the file. The log lists four versions (p. 182):

- November 2023. A simpler scale for rating how a result meets the query, and new examples from popular platforms, forums and videos.
- February 2024. Updated characteristics of untrustworthy pages and new examples for them.
- January 2025. Descriptions of the lowest and low ratings aligned with Google's spam policies, with new examples.
- September 2025. New YMYL definitions and additional examples. Search Engine Land reported that the new examples include AI Overview answers, that is, AI summaries above Google results, and Google told the editors that this is a minor update that does not change the rating rules (Search Engine Land, September 11, 2025). Google's Polish documentation calls AI Overview “przeglądy od AI” (AI-generated overviews).

By October 1, 2026 at the latest, the rule on fabricated authors also reached the documentation for site owners. The documentation on helpful content now calls fabricating creator profiles a form of deception. Search Engine Journal compared a copy of the page from June 8, 2026, which did not have this paragraph, with the version of October 1, which already has it (Search Engine Journal, October 2, 2026).

## Is E-E-A-T a ranking factor?

**Not in the sense of a single value that Google measures and adds to a page's score.** Google writes it plainly in its documentation: “While E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor, using a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T is useful.” In the same paragraph Google says that its systems give even more weight to content aligned with E-E-A-T on YMYL topics, which I describe below (Google Search Central, updated October 8, 2026).

Google has said something similar since 2019. In its report on fighting disinformation of February 2019 it wrote that its ranking system cannot determine the intent or the truthfulness of content, but is designed to identify sites with clear signs of expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness, and that on YMYL topics it gives these factors more weight (Google: How Google Fights Disinformation, February 2019, pp. 12-13). As the best-known signal of authoritativeness the same document names PageRank, that is, a rating of pages based on links. In October 2019 Danny Sullivan of Google answered this question directly:

> “Is E-A-T a ranking factor? Not if you mean there's some technical thing like with speed that we can measure directly. We do use a variety of signals as a proxy to tell if content seems to match E-A-T as humans would assess it. In that regard, yeah, it's a ranking factor.”
>
> Danny Sullivan, Google, X, October 11, 2019

The signal is not the byline of an expert under a text. In January 2024 Danny Sullivan, who writes as Google SearchLiaison, explained that adding an author byline does not raise rankings, and that Google does not treat an author as an expert because he says so next to his name (X, January 8, 2024). A month later he added that Google does not check whether an author is an expert, because anyone can declare himself one (X, February 7, 2024). So I write the author byline for the reader, not for an algorithm.

Google gives examples of signals that approximate E-E-A-T, but does not reveal how it combines them. On the page about how its search determines rankings, Google gives as an example that “one of the factors used to determine quality is understanding if other prominent websites link or refer to the content” (Google: How Search ranks results). Google does not publish a full list of signals, their weights or any “E-E-A-T score”, so a site owner has no number that one change could raise. What can be checked is whether a site gives a person the evidence that raters look for, and that is what I do in audits. Google recommends this itself: according to the documentation, the guidelines let you assess your own content from the E-E-A-T perspective and align it with the signals that its systems use.

## Who are quality raters, and what do their ratings do?

**Quality raters (search quality raters) are people outside Google who rate sample search results according to published guidelines.** In an overview from November 2023 Google said there are about 16,000 of them, that they speak more than 80 languages and that they represent users from their own countries (Google: Search Quality Rater Guidelines: An Overview, November 2023, pp. 15 and 18). Google's Polish documentation calls them “testerzy jakości wyszukiwarki” (search quality testers). They rate two things: the quality of the page (Page Quality) on a scale from lowest to highest, and how well a result answers the query (Needs Met).

A rater's rating does not move a specific page in the results. The guidelines say: “No single rating can directly impact how a particular webpage, website, or result appears in Google Search, nor can it cause specific webpages, websites, or results to move up or down on the search results page” (p. 6). Ratings are used to measure how well the search engine works, and they provide examples of good and bad results. Google compares them to feedback that a restaurant collects from its customers (Google Search Central).

Ratings go, among other things, into tests of changes before they are launched. In a side-by-side test a rater sees two sets of results, with the planned change and without it, and says which one he prefers and why (Google: How Search Works). On that basis Google checks whether a change in its systems gives better results. That is why the guidelines say what Google wants from results, but not how its systems measure it.

## What is YMYL, and why are the requirements higher there?

**YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) covers topics where content can seriously affect people's health, financial situation or safety, or the welfare of society** (p. 11). The guidelines divide them into four groups: health and safety, financial security, government, civics and society, and other topics that can harm people. In Poland the keyword “ymyl” gets about 140 searches a month and “e-e-a-t” about 590.

YMYL is a scale, not a list of industries: the guidelines tell raters to ask whether a small error in the content could seriously harm someone. Most topics are not YMYL. The table shows three examples from the guidelines (p. 12):

| Type of content | Clearly YMYL | May be YMYL | Not YMYL or unlikely |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information | Tsunami evacuation routes | Weather forecast | Winners of music awards |
| Advice | When to go to a hospital emergency room | How often to replace a toothbrush | How often to wash jeans |
| Shopping | Buying prescription drugs | A car review | Buying pencils |

The guidelines tell raters to judge sites on clearly YMYL topics most strictly, because an error there can seriously harm someone (p. 11). A YMYL page, or a page that collects sensitive data, with no information about the owner and author gets the lowest rating (p. 36). A YMYL page written without the necessary expertise also gets the lowest rating (p. 36).

In YMYL not every text has to be written by a doctor or a financial adviser: the guidelines separate sharing experience from advice that belongs to experts (p. 28). A forum conversation about how someone copes with treatment can have high E-E-A-T if it is safe and consistent with medical knowledge. A comparison of treatment methods and prognoses should be prepared by an expert.

**In YMYL topics, experience is sometimes enough, and sometimes an expert is needed**

A four-by-two matrix. Rows: treating liver cancer, filling in a tax return, saving for retirement and voting. Columns: content where life experience may be enough if it is safe and consistent with expert knowledge, and content that an expert should prepare.

*Examples from the table in section 3.4.1 of the quality rater guidelines (version of September 11, 2025, p. 28). Your own experience is enough only when the content is safe, credible and consistent with established expert knowledge.*

A store does not have to be YMYL, but every store handles a customer's money, so the guidelines tell raters to check its contact details, payments, exchanges and returns (p. 18). According to the guidelines, contact details and customer service are extremely important on sites that handle money: stores, banks and card issuers. A page with humor needs them less.

## How do you check a site's E-E-A-T? A list of questions from the guidelines

**You can check E-E-A-T yourself by going through the same questions that a rater asks, and the guidelines give them in order: the purpose of the page, the risk of harm, and then how well the page achieves its purpose** (p. 19). A rater does not count points, but sets a slider from the lowest to the highest rating. From the guidelines I prepared a list of questions for assessing a site yourself, with the section and page number so that each question can be checked at the source:

| Question | Guidelines section | How to check | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| Why was the site created, and does that purpose help people? | 2.2 and 3.0 (pp. 10, 19) | Read the site the way a customer would | A hidden or harmful purpose |
| Is the topic YMYL? | 2.3 (pp. 11-12) | Ask whether a small error could harm health, money or safety | YMYL advice with no author and no sources |
| Who is responsible for the site? | 2.5.2 (p. 16) | Footer, terms, the about page | No company or person named |
| Who wrote the content? | 2.5.2 (p. 16) | Author byline and a link to the author's page | “Editorial team” or “admin” on an expert text |
| Is there contact and customer service suited to the site? | 2.5.3 (p. 18) | Contact, payments, exchanges and returns in a store | A store with only a contact form |
| What does the site say about itself? | 3.4 (p. 27) | The “About us” page and author profiles | Advertising slogans instead of facts |
| What do others say about it? | 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 (pp. 22-23) | Search for the company name without its domain | Credible reports of scams |
| What do customer reviews say? | 3.3.2 (p. 23) | Read the text of the reviews, not just the stars | A few reviews, all perfect |
| Has the author used the product or lived through what he writes about? | 3.4 (p. 26) | Original photos, measurements, a description of use | A review with no sign that anyone used the product |
| Does the author have the expertise that the topic requires? | 3.4 and 3.4.1 (pp. 26, 28) | The author's qualifications, expert review in YMYL | Medical advice with no specialist |
| Is the content accurate and consistent with expert knowledge? | 3.2 (p. 21) | Check the numbers and claims against sources | Errors of fact |
| Does anyone earn money from what the site recommends? | 3.4 (p. 27) | Disclosures of partnerships, affiliate links | Manufacturer “reviews” |
| Does the content add something of its own? | 3.2, 4.6.5 and 4.6.6 (pp. 21, 42) | Compare the page with the top ten results | A rewrite of other people's texts, hundreds of pages from one template |
| Is the information about the creators true? | 4.5.3 (p. 37) | Check the author outside the site: professional profile, publications, professional register | An AI-generated photo, made-up qualifications |

You can find opinions about a company with the searches from the guidelines in which you subtract its own domain. The guidelines give an example for ibm.com (p. 23), and for a Polish company it looks like this:

- `company name -site:domain.pl`, that is, results about the company without its own site;
- `"domain.pl" -site:domain.pl`, that is, mentions of the site's address;
- `company name reviews -site:domain.pl`, that is, reviews from outside the company's site;
- `company name site:pl.wikipedia.org`, that is, Wikipedia entries.

A lack of reviews of a small company does not mean low quality. The guidelines say that small local businesses often have little presence online and rely on referrals, so the rater should pay more attention to the remaining criteria (p. 25). The guidelines treat customer reviews as a source of information about the reputation of a store or company, but tell raters to read their content and to be skeptical of both praise and complaints (p. 23). In the post on [local SEO](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/local-seo/#how-do-you-get-google-reviews-within-the-rules), I describe how to collect reviews in a business profile on Google within the rules.

Traffic to a site is not evidence of reputation. As an example the guidelines give a service with data on site traffic: such numbers say nothing about whether a company can be trusted, so the rater should ignore them (p. 22).

### Checklist to download

**Below you can download the E-E-A-T checklist: 42 points in seven groups that assess a brand and the whole site, not one page, and extend the table of questions from the guidelines.** The version for download of October 26, 2026 organizes the list that I have used in audits since July 2026. The groups run from identity and transparency, through experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trust in purchases and data for machines, to negative signals. For each point the checklist says how to check it, when it is passed and where it comes from: a page of the guidelines, Google's documentation or my practice from audits. It has a standard mode and a YMYL mode, a score from 0 to 100 and a grade from A to F, and three gates cap the grade whatever the sum of points. A point that cannot be checked counts as failed.

You can go through the checklist yourself, writing down an answer and evidence for each point, or paste it into a chat with an AI model together with the site's address: a model with web access can open the site itself, and if it cannot, paste the content for it. For Claude and other AI agents I prepared the skill eeat-ocena-strony, a package of instructions for an agent in the open Agent Skills format. In Claude.ai the skill works with code execution and file creation turned on, and you upload the zip file in the skills settings (Customize > Skills). In Claude Code you unpack it into the `~/.claude/skills/` directory or `.claude/skills/` in a project. The result from the checklist is not Google's rating: it shows where a site gives weak or no evidence of credibility, and it does not predict rankings or traffic. I release the checklist and the skill under the CC BY 4.0 license.

- [E-E-A-T checklist, 42 points (Markdown, in English)](https://rogala.pro/pliki/e-e-a-t-checklist.md) - for reading or pasting into a chat with a model
- [Skill eeat-ocena-strony for AI agents (zip)](https://rogala.pro/pliki/eeat-ocena-strony.zip) - SKILL.md and the checklist
- [Skill preview (SKILL.md)](https://rogala.pro/pliki/eeat-ocena-strony/SKILL.md)

## What do I check in audits when I assess E-E-A-T?

**When I assess E-E-A-T in audits, I check three things: who is responsible for the site and who writes the content, what others say about the company, and whether the content shows the author's experience and expertise.** Two categories of my catalog of recommendations concern E-E-A-T: authors without bios and author pages (7 audits) and a lack of trust signals, that is, an about page, contact, reviews or references (7 audits). Together these are recommendations from 14 of 33 audits from 2023-2026 and from none of the 30 audits from 2020-2022. The year is the date of the file in the archive, so not always the year the work was done, and the numbers show what audits reported, not how the sites themselves changed. In a technical audit I pass a lack of bios on as a signal for a content audit, with a low to medium priority and a higher one on YMYL topics. In the post on the [SEO audit](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/seo-audit/), I describe how I build a whole audit.

To assess the E-E-A-T of a brand and a site I use the same checklist that I offer [for download](https://rogala.pro/pliki/e-e-a-t-checklist.md). For each point I write down where it comes from, so the client sees which requirements are Google's and which are mine.

**How I assess a site's E-E-A-T: seven steps based on Google's guidelines**

A timeline with seven assessment steps: the purpose of the page, whether the topic is YMYL, who is responsible for the site and who wrote the content, what the site says about itself, what others say about it, what is visible in the content itself, and the trust rating. After step two comes a decision on higher requirements for YMYL topics and stores, with a trust-in-purchases gate, after step three an identity gate, and after the last step a negative-signals gate.

*The order of the steps is my own arrangement based on the quality rater guidelines of September 11, 2025, and the page numbers show where each question comes from. The three gates are my checklist rules, not Google's rules.*

The checklist has three gates, that is, rules that cap the grade whatever the sum of points, because according to the guidelines an untrustworthy site has low E-E-A-T regardless of the rest. A site that has less than half of the points for identity gets at most a D on the scale from A to F with me, even when the authors are experts. The same cap applies to a store or a YMYL site with less than half of the points for trust in purchases, and any negative signal, for example mass-produced texts with no oversight or misleading information about the company or prices, caps the grade at C. In July 2026 I assessed a store with more than a thousand reviews and an average close to 5, with no about page and with the company's details only in the terms and the privacy policy. The store did not pass the identity threshold, but the gate did not change the letter there, because the sum of points already gave a grade lower than D.

What gave me the most insight was putting the E-E-A-T assessment next to a measurement of AI Overview. On one health site the “expertise” group got 0%, because in the pages I checked I found no author bylines, no specialist review and no person with qualifications who would answer for them. I assessed the blog texts indirectly, so the result concerns the pages I checked, not every text. The same site was among the top results for medical queries, including results with an AI Overview answer. Only the two analyses together showed that the site is visible on YMYL topics even though it does not show its authors' qualifications.

Before I assess reputation, I check whether Google results for the brand name concern that brand and not a company or a person with the same name. For one of the stores I assessed, the results for the brand name were taken up by its own subpages alone, so there was no independent source on which to base an assessment of reputation.

## What does E-E-A-T look like in practice? Examples of sites

**On five public sites you can see that the same questions from the guidelines give different answers depending on the topic: in medicine the expert matters, in a store the seller's details and reviews matter, and in equipment tests the measurement method matters.** I opened all the sites on the evening of October 25, 2026 and I describe what was visible on them. None of them belongs to my clients. I confirmed the owner of four of them in a second, independent source, and for Optyczne.pl the second source concerns only a person from the editorial team, so I do not name the publisher. This is my description according to the questions from the guidelines, not a Google rating.

| Site | Topic | What is visible with the content | What I did not find |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medonet | Health | The author, a doctor who checked the text, and an editorial policy | The date of the medical consultation |
| Healthline | Health, in English | A reviewer, sources and the history of changes to the text | The review date next to the byline and a note about a new review at the last update |
| x-kom | Store | Reviews marked as purchases, contact, returns, company details in the terms | An address, KRS and NIP in the footer (they appear only in the terms) |
| Bankier.pl | Finance | An author with a bio, a label on affiliate links | A link to the terms of the promotion the text is about |
| Optyczne.pl | Equipment tests | The measurement method, results, a note on who lent the equipment | A description of the authors |

At Medonet the author of the text and the doctor who checked it are two different people, and both have their own pages. In an article on whether you can sunbathe while taking vitamin D, the byline has a note about a medical consultation by the doctor and a “Sprawdzona treść” (verified content) label. According to her bio the author studied speech therapy and education, and the doctor's page gives her specialty, her workplace and her license number, which a reader can check in the register of doctors. The editorial policy explains that “Sprawdzona treść” means the text was checked or written by a doctor. The owner, Ringier Axel Springer Polska, is given by the site's structured data and by Wikipedia. The text has no date of the consultation, and the bibliography has two addresses, including the site of the brand of a vitamin D preparation (Medonet).

Healthline, an American medical site, shows with the text who reviewed it medically, and shows the review date only in the history of changes, so this example shows that an update date is not a review date. An article on high blood pressure has “Medically reviewed by” with the name and titles of the reviewer, the author's name and an update date of May 12, 2025. Under the text a box, “How we reviewed this article”, has the sources and the history of changes. The history gives a medical review of August 20, 2024 and, for the update of May 12, 2025, does not indicate a new review (Healthline). It is good that the site shows this, but a reader who looks only at the byline will not see it.

In the x-kom store, trust is built by reviews marked as purchases and the seller's details, though the full company details are only in the terms. The Intel Core i5-14400F processor had 296 reviews with an average of 4.9, and 292 of them carried the “Potwierdzony zakup” (confirmed purchase) label. The reviews are sorted by most helpful by default, and critical ones can be seen among them. The footer has returns, complaints, a phone number with opening hours and an e-mail address, as well as the company name with its city at the newsletter sign-up at the bottom of the page. The company's address, KRS, NIP and capital are in the terms, which give an effective date and earlier versions, and the details agree with the entry in the KRS (x-kom).

Bankier.pl, in a text about a bank account promotion, shows an author with a bio and labels affiliate links, that is, the conflict of interest that the guidelines write about. Under a text of October 14, 2026 there is a bio of the author with experience in banking and a journalism award from the NBP from 2025, and his author page links to profiles on social media. The note “Publikacja zawiera linki afiliacyjne” (the publication contains affiliate links) tells the reader that the site earns money when the reader opens an account through a link in the text (Bankier.pl). The publisher, Bonnier Business (Polska), is given by the site's terms and confirmed by the KRS. In the text I did not find a link to the terms of the promotion it writes about, and in the footer and on the pages about the editorial team I did not find editorial rules.

Optyczne.pl shows its own experience as the guidelines describe it: a test has a method, measurement results and a note on where the editors got the equipment. The test of the Sirui Aurora 85 mm f/1.4 lens of October 2, 2026 has 14 parts, including eight chapters with measurements, from the real aperture to autofocus. In the chapter on resolution the editors describe which cameras and files they measure on and what result they consider decent. At the start of the test there is a note that the lens was lent by a store, an official distributor of the brand (Optyczne.pl). In an FAQ from 2009 the editors write that a company that provides equipment for a test does not see the text before publication, but also that advertisers influence how many tests of their products are made. The editorial page gives only first names, last names, roles and e-mail addresses, with no description of the authors.

These examples have one thing in common: the strongest evidence can be checked by the reader outside the site. A license number can be checked in the register of doctors, a company's details in the KRS, and a publisher's history in Wikipedia. On all five sites the bylines, reviews and company details were in HTML sent by the server, without running JavaScript, so a robot that does not render the page can see them too.

## How do you show the author on a page? The rogala.pro example

**A reader should know who the author is, where his experience comes from and who can confirm it outside the site, and that is how I try to show myself on rogala.pro.** The home page is also the [about page](https://rogala.pro/en/#about). It has my professional experience with dates, the companies I work for, talks with links to recordings and interviews, and a list of competitions in which I judge entries: since 2021, 32 editions in 14 programs, including the Global, European, UK and MENA Search Awards. Next to the list of juries I write that each participation is confirmed by the organizers' jury pages.

Every post on the blog has a byline, a box about the author and a list of sources with the date checked. In the structured data the author of a post points by an identifier to one description of a person (Person) on the home page. That description links my profiles, the companies I work for, my university and the identifier of the Google knowledge panel, and the topics I work on and my profession point to entries in Wikidata, an open knowledge base connected with Wikipedia. In the post on [AI SEO](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-seo-geo/#how-do-you-get-into-a-model-s-memory), I described how this data pointed for a day to the knowledge panel of an actor with the same first and last name. I do not have my own Wikidata entry. If I created one, I would reveal that I am writing about myself, and I would base the information about my experience on publications edited by others, such as interviews, competition jury pages and a chapter in a book published by Helion.

Whether these changes have any effect in Google results and in AI answers is for now a hypothesis. On October 4, 2026 rogala.pro was not in the first 30 Google results for my first and last name, and the first result was the profile of another person. I will repeat the same measurement in November 2026. It will show whether the site is higher, but it will not separate the effect of the author description from indexing and other changes on the site, so the measurement alone will not tell me what the cause was.

## Does E-E-A-T matter in AI Overviews and AI assistants?

**Google writes that AI Overviews and AI Mode rely on its core ranking systems and quality systems, so the same rules apply there too.** According to Google's guide to generative AI features, an answer is built from pages retrieved from the index by the core ranking systems, and Google recommends content that “provides unique expert or experienced takes that go beyond common knowledge and the ordinary” (Google Search Central, updated July 15, 2026). In this guide I did not find a description of a separate E-E-A-T assessment for AI Overviews, and the word E-E-A-T itself does not appear in it.

About ChatGPT, Perplexity and other assistants outside Google I do not know of a source saying that they assess E-E-A-T. These assistants search in their own or other people's search engines and have their own robots. I described this in the post on [AI SEO](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-seo-geo/#how-does-ai-choose-the-sources-for-its-answers). I see one common denominator: a model that answers from memory can repeat only what was written about a brand in the texts it learned from. So the same reputation outside the site that raters check is what counts.

Raters for Google also rate the AI Overview answers themselves. Search Engine Land and Marie Haynes noted that the guidelines of September 2025 have examples with AI Overviews. I did not find the name AI Overview in the text of the guidelines, so here I rely on their description:

> “We know that quality raters do not just rate websites, but also SERP features. These changes show us that the raters are being instructed to look at the content of AI Overviews in their assessments as well.”
>
> Marie Haynes, Marie Haynes Consulting, September 11, 2025

Studies of citations in AI Overviews do not confirm that what a site says about itself helps. Seer Interactive took a sample of 8,500 English-language keywords from the USA, found 7,225 pages that won a first citation in an AI Overview, and analyzed 6,354 of them (measured on May 7-13, 2026):

> “The two signals we'd weighted heaviest going in, schema and E-E-A-T, turned out to be the two that most clearly didn't correlate with first-citation wins.”
>
> Matt Buxbaum, Seer Interactive, May 28, 2026

Seer measured E-E-A-T by the presence of author bios, that is, by what a site says about itself, not by reputation. According to Seer, Reddit, which has no bios, won the most first citations, 20.4%. This is a comparison of groups of sites with different characteristics, so it does not isolate the effect of bios alone. It does fit the Ahrefs study in which a brand's presence in AI Overviews was most strongly linked to the number of mentions of the brand on the web, which I described in the post on [link building in the age of AI](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-link-building/#how-is-a-mention-of-a-brand-different-from-a-link). This is how Lily Ray puts it:

> “You don’t have like, ‘I have good E-E-A-T.’ It’s not just what you say on your website, it’s how other companies and brands and everybody evaluates, and reviewers and users evaluate, your brand.”
>
> Lily Ray in a conversation with Danny Goodwin, Search Engine Land, September 2, 2026

In the post on [brand visibility in AI](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-visibility/#how-do-you-check-your-brand-s-ai-visibility-in-chatgpt-and), I described how I measure a brand's reputation in AI assistants, and in the post on [link building in the age of AI](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-link-building/#how-is-digital-pr-different-from-buying-publications), how I plan mentions in other people's media through digital PR, that is, publications that the editors decide on themselves.

## What do Google's guidelines say about texts written with AI?

**The guidelines do not judge whether a text was made with the help of AI, but how much work, originality and value for the reader is in it, and according to them the mere use of generative AI tools does not decide the level of effort or the rating of a site** (p. 43). The guidelines call generative AI a helpful tool that, like any tool, can also be used badly (p. 10). An example from the guidelines: with a great deal of work, generative AI tools can be used to make high-quality original graphics, and they can also be used to make content of the lowest quality (p. 43).

A rater judges the quality of the main content by four criteria from section 3.2 (p. 21), and none of them concerns the tool that made the text:

- Effort. How much a person actively worked on the content. Effort also includes building a feature or a system of the site, for example a machine translation service, but thousands of pages made automatically by running existing, publicly available texts through a translation program, without oversight and manual selection, have no effort according to the guidelines.
- Originality. Whether the content offers something that is not on other sites, and if similar content already exists, whether this site is its original source.
- Talent or skill. Whether the content is made skillfully enough to give the reader what he came for.
- Accuracy. On informational sites, consistency with facts, and on YMYL topics also consistency with established expert knowledge.

Google's documentation on helpful content describes the same four criteria, with an example that concerns AI directly: “using generative AI to produce large amounts of text without manual oversight or curation represents little to no effort” (Google Search Central, updated October 8, 2026).

### When does an AI text get the lowest rating?

**Among the pages with the lowest rating (Lowest) the guidelines describe three situations that concern AI texts, and in each the problem is a lack of contribution or deception, not the tool itself.**

- Content with no contribution (section 4.6.6, pp. 42-43). All or almost all of the main content is copied, paraphrased, embedded from another source or generated automatically or by AI, with little or no effort, originality and added value. Naming the source does not change this (p. 42).
- Mass production of pages (section 4.6.5, p. 42). Many pages made mainly for the benefit of the owner, not the reader, for example with AI tools, to make with little effort pages that add nothing beyond other pages on the same topic. The rater gives the lowest rating however the pages were made, even when he does not know whether AI was used, but after viewing a few pages of the site strongly suspects such abuse.
- Fabricated authors (section 4.5.3, p. 37). AI content signed with made-up “author” profiles, for example with AI-generated photos or a false description, so that it looks as if people wrote it. In the same group the guidelines list false qualifications, for example an author who claims to be a doctor.

Among the examples of the lowest rating, the guidelines show AI text and text that looks like it. A medical article, so YMYL, was according to the guidelines made with generative AI: it starts with the sentence “As a language model, I don't have real-time data and my knowledge cutoff date is September 2021” and breaks off mid-sentence (p. 55). A site that on its “About us” page promises information for seniors has hundreds of articles from one template on any topic, for example on how much cold chickens can tolerate, with repeated questions and answers. The guidelines note that it is not known how these texts were made, but they do not look as if a person wrote or edited them (p. 58). For such sites the guidelines describe the same pattern: questions collected, for example, from Google's “People also ask” and answers from paraphrased content, often created with generative AI tools (p. 55, a similar pattern on p. 58).

In section 4.6.7 (pp. 43-44), the guidelines describe how to recognize paraphrasing: the rater pastes a sentence from the site into a search engine in quotation marks, may also try without them, and compares the pages he finds. Paraphrased content usually contains only commonly known information, overlaps heavily with Wikipedia and similar sources, summarizes a single discussion or article with no added value, or has traces of AI tools, such as the words “As an AI language model” (p. 44).

### When does an AI text get a low rating?

**The guidelines tell raters to give a low rating (Low), one step above the lowest, to a page on which a large part of the content is copied or paraphrased and the author added little work: editing, selection, a new layout or original content** (section 5.2.1, p. 61). What separates it from the lowest rating is how much the author added: at the lowest, all or almost all of the content has no effort, originality or added value, and at low the author adds little value through editing, selection, a new layout or original content. The guidelines add that a low rating applies to content made with any technique, and as an example they give lists of “best” items based on other people's reviews and lists, with little original content (p. 61).

Small errors also show low quality: on informational pages the guidelines call them evidence of low quality, and errors that are harmful or so numerous that the page loses credibility justify the lowest rating (section 5.2, p. 60). With AI texts this matters, because a model can be wrong, as Google itself says below. The guidelines also note that low quality is not harm: such content does not meet the conditions for the lowest rating and does no harm, but it does not give the reader what he came for (p. 61).

A low rating is also given for a lot of filler, that is, text prepared with little effort that takes up visible space on a page and does not serve its purpose, especially when it stands before what the reader is looking for and so makes the page harder to use (section 5.2.2, p. 62). The guidelines do not link filler to AI, and as an example they give instructions for a simple craft with a lot of useless filler at the top of the page (p. 60).

### What does Google enforce in AI content?

**The guidelines show how Google wants results to look, and what Google enforces is described by its spam policies.** According to those policies, scaled content abuse is when “many pages are generated for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users”, and the first example is “using generative AI tools or other similar tools to generate many pages without adding value for users”. Google detects violations with automated systems and, where needed, with people, which can end in a manual action, and a site that violates the policies may rank lower or not appear in results at all (Google Search Central, updated September 2, 2026). Section 4.6.5 of the guidelines refers to this policy and has the same five examples, in almost the same wording (p. 42), and the change log says that in January 2025 the descriptions of the lowest and low ratings were aligned with the spam policies (p. 182).

Google described the same boundary in a post of February 8, 2023: its ranking systems are meant to reward original, high-quality content regardless of how it is made, and “Appropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines.” According to that post, what violates the policies is generating content whose main purpose is to manipulate ranking (Google Search Central, February 8, 2023). In the same post Google advises against listing AI as the author of content.

### What does Google advise when publishing AI content?

**Google advises checking the accuracy of AI content by hand before publishing, and giving information about the author and about how the content was made where a reader can look for it.** In its guide to generative AI content Google writes that generative AI can be useful for researching a topic and adding structure to original content, but that generative models “don't retrieve facts, but predict a likely sequence of words based on their training data”, so they can be wrong, and “it is critical to manually factcheck and review all AI-generated content for accuracy and trustworthiness before publishing” (Google Search Central, updated October 5, 2026). The guide itself refers to sections 4.6.5 and 4.6.6 of the guidelines.

Metadata means two different things in this guide. The metadata of an AI page, that is, the title, meta description, structured data and image alt text, has to be checked like the content, because it can appear in results. File metadata says that an image was made in AI: for automatically generated content the guide advises considering adding it, and in Merchant Center it is required. An AI-generated image must have a mark in its metadata that it was made in AI, that is, IPTC DigitalSourceType, with the value TrainedAlgorithmicMedia for an image from an AI model, and AI product titles and descriptions are given in separate attributes, structured_title and structured_description, marked as AI content (digital_source_type with the value trained_algorithmic_media) (Google Merchant Center Help, checked October 26, 2026).

In the documentation on helpful content, Google describes how to show a reader where content came from as three questions: who, how and why (Google Search Central). “Who” is the author byline where a reader expects it, with a link to information about the author. “How”, for content that is largely produced automatically, is three questions: whether the use of AI is visible to the reader, how it was used and why it was considered useful. Google advises giving such information where a reader may ask “How was this created?” “Why”, according to Google probably the most important question, means that content should be created primarily for people, and using AI primarily to manipulate rankings violates the spam policies.

### What does a rater count as effort, and what do the spam policies count as abuse?

**The boundary does not run between AI text and text without AI: a rater looks at effort, originality, value for the reader and credibility, and a single page and hundreds of pages can both get the lowest rating.** I set what the guidelines describe as effort and value against what the guidelines themselves and the spam policies call low quality or abuse:

| Area | Effort and value | Low quality or abuse |
|---|---|---|
| Content | Effort, originality and skill (p. 21), in my case for example my own data, measurements and experience from projects | Rewriting, summarizing or combining other people's content with no added value (pp. 42-43 and 61, spam policies) |
| Facts | Accuracy of information (p. 21) and content and metadata checked before publication (guide to AI content) | Small errors as evidence of low quality, and harmful or so numerous errors that the page loses credibility as a reason for the lowest rating (p. 60); leftover model language and cut-off sentences as a signal to check (pp. 44 and 55) |
| Author | A real person to whose description the byline leads (documentation on helpful content) | Made-up author profiles, for example with AI photos, and false qualifications meant to mislead the reader (p. 37) |
| Scale | Editing and selection that add value to each page (pp. 21 and 61) | Hundreds of pages from one template with no original content or added value, for example questions from “People also ask” with paraphrased answers (pp. 42, 55 and 58) |
| Layout | The most important content at the top of the page (p. 62) | A lot of filler that makes it hard to reach the content (p. 62) |
| Purpose | Content primarily for people, with information on how it was made where a reader asks (documentation on helpful content) | Many pages made to manipulate rankings (spam policies) |

This comparison is not a list of conditions that, once met, give a text a high rating or a higher position. A rater's rating does not move a specific page in the results, as I write in the part on [quality raters](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/e-e-a-t/#who-are-quality-raters-and-what-do-their-ratings-do), and in the Google documents I quote here there is no description of how its systems measure effort. I use it as a list of questions about my own text before publication, and in the next section I describe how I answer Google's questions about my own content.

## How are the texts on this site made?

**I prepare the texts on rogala.pro with AI agents in Claude Code, and I am responsible for the theses, the data and every language version: I read and accept the Polish text before publication, and the translations go through the check described below.** I answer the three questions that Google advises asking about your own content (who, how and why) below, and I describe separately how the translations are made:

- Who. The author and the person responsible for every text is me, Łukasz Rogala, and the byline and the author box on every post lead to the [page about me](https://rogala.pro/en/#about). I do not credit AI as an author.
- How. A review of sources and Google results, scripts that calculate data and a draft of the text are prepared by AI agents in Claude Code, following instructions with my rules and a list of sources. The data comes from the archive of audits and from my measurements. The agents record numbers and quotes in a working register with the source address and the date checked, and the sources with the date checked are in the sources block at the end of every post. Other models check the draft in two rounds, including a model from another vendor, Codex (OpenAI) or Gemini (Google): the first round looks for errors of fact and gaps, and the second checks only the corrections. Then I read the text and decide what stays in it. I use AI because for one text many sources have to be checked, data from the audit archive has to be calculated and 26 translations prepared, and a model is good at organizing data, describing it and writing code.
- Translations. The Polish version is the source version. The translations into 26 languages are prepared by agents, and they are checked by two things: a script that compares the numbers, links and layout of the text with the Polish version, and a second model. Nobody for whom the given language is native reads these versions before publication. Two things set my process apart from the example in the guidelines, thousands of existing texts run without oversight through a machine translator: what is translated is my own text, for which I am responsible, and a script and a second model compare every version with the Polish one. This is an automatic check, not the manual check that Google advises before publishing AI content, so where versions differ, the Polish version counts. If something in your language version does not agree with the Polish one or sounds unnatural, [write to me](https://rogala.pro/en/#contact).
- Why. I write for business owners and marketers who want to check their own site or choose whom to hire for SEO, not to take a position for a keyword. That is why the posts have lists of questions, data from audits and files to work with, not just definitions.

The agents do not decide what I write about or which theses stay in the text, they take numbers from source files and not from the model's memory, and they publish nothing without my approval. An error that you report or that I find myself I correct in the Polish version and in all the translations. In the post on [AI tools in SEO](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-seo-tools/#which-language-models-do-i-use-and-for-what), I described the tools I use and the tests by which I divided the work this way.

## What should you avoid when building E-E-A-T?

**The most harm comes from tricks that imitate evidence of trust, because every deception lowers the rating of the whole site.** Google writes that any form of deception makes a page untrustworthy to both users and its automated quality systems (Google Search Central).

**What has support in E-E-A-T and what does not**

Five cards with claims about E-E-A-T. Each has a rating (Google confirms, Google denies, not shown in studies, no evidence), the evidence and what I do about it.

*Google confirms and Google denies: directly in documentation, guidelines or a statement by a Google representative. Not shown in studies: a correlation study did not confirm the claim. No evidence: I know of no source or measurement that would confirm it.*

- Fake authors and experts. It is better to sign a text with a real person with no title than with an invented doctor, because Google calls made-up author profiles deception, and the guidelines give them the lowest rating, which I describe in the part on [AI texts](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/e-e-a-t/#what-do-google-s-guidelines-say-about-texts-written-with-ai).
- An “E-E-A-T score” from a tool read as Google's rating. Google does not publish such a score, so the tool calculates it by its own method. I treat such a number as a list of things to check and look at what evidence stands behind the points.
- Stars with a rating of your own company in structured data. Google shows ratings of businesses and organizations only on sites that collect reviews of other businesses, and for a rating of a business on its own site it points to its policy on self-serving reviews (Google Search Central).
- Links to “authorities” added to raise trust with Google. I do not know of confirmation that outgoing links are a trust signal. I give sources for numerical and legal claims for the reader who wants to check them.
- Changing a date without changing the content. Google lists this among the characteristics of content written for search engines and adds that adding or removing content just to make a page look fresh will not help (Google Search Central).
- Hundreds of AI texts with no editing. Many pages made primarily to manipulate rankings, with no value for the reader, are called abuse by Google's spam policies. The boundary between them and an AI text with the author's contribution is shown by the [table in the part on AI texts](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/e-e-a-t/#what-do-google-s-guidelines-say-about-texts-written-with-ai).
- One “expert in everything”. An author who signs texts on loans, medicines and home renovations will not convince anyone that he has expertise in each of these topics. An author's competence should match the topic.

**I will check how your site fares in a rating according to the guidelines for quality raters.** Tell me what the company does and whether the site concerns health, money or law. I will reply with where I would start.

[Get in touch](https://rogala.pro/en/#contact) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lukaszrogala/?locale=en_US) · [WhatsApp](https://wa.me/48570081225)

## Frequently asked questions about E-E-A-T

### Is it written E-E-A-T or EEAT?

Google writes E-E-A-T, with hyphens, but both versions mean the same thing. In the demand data both have the same numbers in Poland, about 590 searches a month and an identical course over 12 months, so the source counts them as one group. In Polish texts you will also meet “zasada E-E-A-T” (the E-E-A-T rule), and the older version of the acronym, E-A-T, lacks the letter for experience that Google added in December 2022.

### Does structured data improve E-E-A-T?

I do not know of evidence that markup alone raises E-E-A-T. A rater reads the page, not the code, so I use structured data to describe a company and authors, that is, who is who, while the evidence of trust has to be visible on the page.

### Can texts written with the help of AI have good E-E-A-T?

Yes. The use of AI alone does not rule it out, because Google rates the quality of content, not the tool that produced it. The text has to be accurate, credible and helpful, show experience or expertise on the topic and have a real author. I describe when an AI text gets a low or the lowest rating in a [separate part](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/e-e-a-t/#what-do-google-s-guidelines-say-about-texts-written-with-ai).

### Where can you find the quality rater guidelines?

Google publishes them as a PDF in English: its documentation calls it “Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines”, and the file itself is titled “General Guidelines”. On October 25, 2026 the version at guidelines.raterhub.com was the one of September 11, 2025, 182 pages. Google released a shorter overview in a separate file, “Search Quality Rater Guidelines: An Overview”.

### Does E-E-A-T apply to online stores?

Yes, because every store handles a customer's money, so the guidelines tell raters to check trust in purchases in it, even when the range of products is not YMYL.

## How do you improve E-E-A-T, and where do you start?

**Improving E-E-A-T means adding evidence that a reader and a rater can check, and it starts with three checks that cost nothing.** First decide which topics on your site are YMYL, because the requirements are highest there. Then open your five most important pages and check whether from each of them you can reach the company's details, contact and an author with a description within two clicks. Finally search for the company name with `-site:` and read what others write about it. Fill the gaps you find according to the letters of E-E-A-T, starting with trust:

- Trust. Company details, contact and terms available from every subpage, and in a store also payments, exchanges and returns, and reviews with content, not just stars (pp. 16, 18 and 23).
- Experience. For reviews and advice, your own photos, measurements and a description of use, that is, what cannot be copied from someone else's text (p. 26).
- Expertise. The byline of a real person with qualifications that match the topic, and on YMYL topics content prepared or checked by an expert (pp. 28 and 36). Give the review date separately from the update date, as Healthline does in its history of changes.
- Authoritativeness. Mentions and publications in other people's media, which you find with the same `-site:` search (p. 23). On your own site everything depends on you, while mentions in other people's media depend on their editors; I describe how I get them in the post on [link building](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/link-building/).

I set the order of this work in the [SEO strategy](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/seo-strategy/). If your site concerns health, money or law and you do not know where to start, that is a good topic for a [consultation](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/when-do-you-need-an-seo-consultant/).

External sources (checked October 25, 2026, and Google's documents on AI content October 26, 2026):

- Google: Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines, version of September 11, 2025 (guidelines.raterhub.com)
- Google: Search Quality Rater Guidelines: An Overview (services.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Tworzenie przydatnych, wiarygodnych treści przeznaczonych dla ludzi (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Our latest update to the quality rater guidelines: E-A-T gets an extra E for Experience (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Wskazówki wyszukiwarki Google dotyczące treści generowanych przez AI (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Spam policies for Google web search (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Zasady dotyczące spamu w wyszukiwarce Google (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Google Search's guidance on generative AI content on your website (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Wskazówki wyszukiwarki Google dotyczące treści utworzonych za pomocą generatywnej AI w Twojej witrynie (developers.google.com)
- Google: An overview of our rater guidelines for Search (blog.google)
- Google: How Search Works, Rigorous testing (google.com)
- Google: Jak wyszukiwarka Google określa ranking wyników (google.com)
- Google: How Google Fights Disinformation (storage.googleapis.com)
- Google Search Central: Google's Guide to Optimizing for Generative AI Features on Google Search (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Przewodnik Google po optymalizacji pod kątem funkcji generatywnej AI w wyszukiwarce Google (developers.google.com)
- Google Search Central: Review snippet structured data (developers.google.com)
- Danny Sullivan on X, October 11, 2019 (x.com)
- Google SearchLiaison on X, January 8, 2024 (x.com)
- Google SearchLiaison on X, February 7, 2024 (x.com)
- Search Engine Land: Google updates search quality raters guidelines adding AI Overview examples & YMYL definitions (searchengineland.com)
- Search Engine Journal: Google Adds Fake Author Warning To Helpful Content Guidance (searchenginejournal.com)
- Marie Haynes: Google Quality Raters now rate AI Overviews (mariehaynes.com)
- Seer Interactive: What It Takes To Rank In Google's AI Overviews in 2026 Isn't What You Think (seerinteractive.com)
- Search Engine Land: Lily Ray on why shortcuts rarely win in SEO or AI search (searchengineland.com)
- Medonet (medonet.pl)
- Healthline (healthline.com)
- x-kom: regulamin (x-kom.pl)
- Bankier.pl (bankier.pl)
- Optyczne.pl (optyczne.pl)

My own data: a catalog of recommendations from 63 audits from 2020-2026 (version of October 11, 2026), the E-E-A-T checklist (42 points, first runs in July 2026), Google results for six keywords pulled three times on October 25, 2026 (DataForSEO), DataForSEO demand (measurement of October 18, 2026), Google results for my first and last name of October 4, 2026.

[Łukasz Rogala](https://rogala.pro/en/#about)

SEO strategist and consultant

Łukasz Rogala is an SEO strategist and consultant, CEO of VerticalSEO and co-founder of Linko. Since 2014 he has delivered 360° SEO: strategy and audits, technical SEO, content and link building, semantic SEO and brand visibility in AI search (GEO).

[About](https://rogala.pro/en/#about) · [Talks](https://rogala.pro/en/#talks) · [How the articles on this site are made](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/e-e-a-t/#how-are-the-texts-on-this-site-made)

Read next

- [How to Do an SEO Audit Step by Step](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/seo-audit/)
- [AI SEO and GEO Without the Myths: What Actually Works](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-seo-geo/)
- [AI Link Building: Links, Mentions and Citations in AI Answers](https://rogala.pro/en/blog/ai-link-building/)

### This article in other languages (26)

- [E-E-A-T: co to jest, skąd się wzięło i jak ocenić stronę według wytycznych Google (Polski)](https://rogala.pro/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: Was es bedeutet, woher es kommt und wie Sie eine Website nach den Richtlinien von Google prüfen (Deutsch)](https://rogala.pro/de/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: qué es, de dónde viene y cómo evaluar una web según las directrices de Google (Español)](https://rogala.pro/es/blog/e-e-a-t-que-es/)
- [E-E-A-T : définition, origine et évaluation d'un site selon les consignes de Google (Français)](https://rogala.pro/fr/blog/eeat-definition-google/)
- [E-E-A-T: cos'è, da dove nasce e come valutare un sito secondo le linee guida di Google (Italiano)](https://rogala.pro/it/blog/e-e-a-t-cose-e-come-valutare/)
- [E-E-A-T: o que é, de onde veio e como avaliar um site segundo as diretrizes do Google (Português)](https://rogala.pro/pt/blog/e-e-a-t-o-que-e/)
- [E-E-A-T: wat is het, waar komt het vandaan en hoe beoordeel je een website volgens de richtlijnen van Google (Nederlands)](https://rogala.pro/nl/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: co to je, jak vzniklo a jak ohodnotit web podle pokynů Google (Čeština)](https://rogala.pro/cs/blog/eeat-co-je/)
- [E-E-A-T: hvad det er, hvor det kommer fra, og hvordan du vurderer en side efter Googles retningslinjer (Dansk)](https://rogala.pro/da/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: vad det är, var det kommer ifrån och hur du bedömer en sajt enligt Googles riktlinjer (Svenska)](https://rogala.pro/sv/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: hva det er, hvor det kommer fra og hvordan du vurderer et nettsted etter Googles retningslinjer (Norsk bokmål)](https://rogala.pro/nb/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: mikä se on, mistä se tulee ja miten arvioit sivuston Googlen ohjeiden mukaan (Suomi)](https://rogala.pro/fi/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: ce este, de unde vine și cum evaluezi un site după ghidurile Google (Română)](https://rogala.pro/ro/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: mi ez, honnan ered, és hogyan értékelhető egy oldal a Google irányelvei szerint (Magyar)](https://rogala.pro/hu/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: τι είναι, πώς προέκυψε και πώς να αξιολογήσετε μια σελίδα με βάση τις οδηγίες της Google (Ελληνικά)](https://rogala.pro/el/blog/e-e-a-t-ti-einai/)
- [E-E-A-T: що це таке, звідки взявся і як оцінити сайт за настановами Google (Українська)](https://rogala.pro/uk/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: ما هو ومن أين جاء وكيف تقيّم موقعًا وفق إرشادات Google (العربية)](https://rogala.pro/ar/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T: מה זה, מאיפה זה בא ואיך לבדוק אתר לפי הנחיות גוגל (עברית)](https://rogala.pro/he/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T Nedir, Nereden Çıktı ve Bir Site Google Yönergelerine Göre Nasıl Değerlendirilir? (Türkçe)](https://rogala.pro/tr/blog/google-eeat-nedir/)
- [E-E-A-Tとは？由来と、Googleのガイドラインでサイトを確認する方法 (日本語)](https://rogala.pro/ja/blog/e-e-a-t-toha/)
- [E-E-A-T란? 뜻과 유래, Google 가이드라인으로 사이트를 평가하는 방법 (한국어)](https://rogala.pro/ko/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T 是什麼？來源、Google 的說法，以及怎麼依品質評分者指南檢查網站 (繁體中文)](https://rogala.pro/zh-hant/blog/e-e-a-t-shi-shenme/)
- [E-E-A-T 是什么：它从哪里来，以及如何按 Google 指南评估网站 (简体中文)](https://rogala.pro/zh-hans/blog/e-e-a-t-shi-shenme/)
- [E-E-A-T คืออะไร มาจากไหน และตรวจเว็บไซต์ตามแนวทางของ Google อย่างไร (ไทย)](https://rogala.pro/th/blog/e-e-a-t/)
- [E-E-A-T là gì, từ đâu ra và cách đánh giá website theo nguyên tắc của Google (Tiếng Việt)](https://rogala.pro/vi/blog/eeat-la-gi/)
- [E-E-A-T: Apa Itu, dari Mana Asalnya, dan Cara Menilai Situs Menurut Pedoman Google (Bahasa Indonesia)](https://rogala.pro/id/blog/e-e-a-t-adalah/)