← Về thư mục
E-E-A-T Evaluation Framework
Per Google Quality Rater Guidelines (September 11, 2025); currency-checked June 2026
Overview
E-E-A-T = Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness
Trust is the most important member of the family (Google's own wording);
Experience, Expertise, and Authoritativeness support the assessment of Trust.
E-E-A-T is a concept in the Quality Rater Guidelines, not a direct ranking
score — it informs the core ranking and helpful-content systems.
No "watershed" framing. Google never characterized the December 2025 (or
any 2026) core update as "extending E-E-A-T to ALL competitive queries," and
never published per-industry traffic-drop percentages. Those figures and the
"watershed" narrative are third-party SEO-blog interpretation — do not assert
them as Google fact. Google's only on-record description of broad core updates
is generic ("a regular update designed to better surface relevant, satisfying
content … from all types of sites").
Continuous core updates. Google now documents (changelog 2025-12-09) that
it continually makes smaller, unannounced core updates between the major
ones — so content improvements can lift rankings without waiting for the next
major update. Treat helpful-content evaluation as always-on.
YMYL (Your Money or Your Life)
Topics requiring the highest E-E-A-T standards (E-E-A-T applies broadly, but YMYL carries the highest bar):
- Health and safety
- Financial advice and transactions
- Legal information
- News and current events
- Elections and civic trust (added Sept 2025)
- Democratic processes (added Sept 2025)
- Groups of people (potential for harm)
Experience (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 20%)
First-hand knowledge and personal involvement with the topic.
Signals to Check
- [ ] Author has demonstrable first-hand experience with the topic
- [ ] Content includes original photos, screenshots, or data
- [ ] Case studies or real-world examples with specific details
- [ ] Personal process documentation or methodology descriptions
- [ ] Before/after results or outcome data
- [ ] Specific anecdotes that couldn't be fabricated
Scoring
- Strong: Multiple first-hand experience signals, original content
- Moderate: Some personal experience evident
- Weak: Generic information, no personal touch
- None: Clearly AI-generated or scraped content
Expertise (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 25%)
Formal qualifications, training, and demonstrated knowledge.
Signals to Check
- [ ] Author credentials relevant to topic (bio, certifications)
- [ ] Technical accuracy and depth appropriate for audience
- [ ] Claims supported by evidence or sources
- [ ] Specialized vocabulary used correctly
- [ ] Up-to-date with current developments in the field
- [ ] Byline with author name and credentials visible
Scoring
- Strong: Verified credentials, deep technical accuracy
- Moderate: Demonstrable knowledge, some credentials
- Weak: Surface-level information, no credentials
- None: Factual errors, misinformation
Authoritativeness (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 25%)
Recognition by others as a go-to source.
Signals to Check
- [ ] Site recognized as authority in its niche
- [ ] Author recognized as expert (external citations, speaking, publications)
- [ ] Content cited by other authoritative sources
- [ ] Industry awards, certifications, or accreditations
- [ ] Consistent publication history in the topic area
- [ ] Featured in reputable media outlets
- [ ] Professional affiliations
Scoring
- Strong: Widely recognized authority, cited by others
- Moderate: Growing recognition, some external validation
- Weak: No external recognition
- None: Negative reputation, known for misinformation
Trustworthiness (claude-seo internal scoring weight: 30%)
The most important factor, overall reliability and transparency.
Signals to Check
- [ ] Clear contact information (physical address, phone, email)
- [ ] Privacy policy and terms of service
- [ ] HTTPS with valid certificate
- [ ] Transparent about who creates content and why
- [ ] Customer reviews and testimonials
- [ ] Corrections and update history visible
- [ ] No deceptive practices (hidden ads, clickbait)
- [ ] Secure payment processing (for e-commerce)
- [ ] Return/refund policy visible
Scoring
- Strong: Full transparency, verified business, positive reputation
- Moderate: Good trust signals, minor gaps
- Weak: Missing key trust signals
- None: Deceptive practices, scam indicators
September 2025 QRG Updates
AI Content Assessment
Raters now formally evaluate whether content appears AI-generated:
- AI content is acceptable if it demonstrates genuine E-E-A-T
- Low-quality AI content (generic, no unique value) is penalized
- The presence of AI-generated content is not inherently penalizing
- What matters: does the content provide unique value regardless of creation method?
Markers of Low-Quality AI Content
- Generic phrasing without specificity
- Lack of original insight or unique perspective
- No first-hand experience signals
- Factual inaccuracies
- Repetitive structure across multiple pages
- No author attribution or expertise signals
Spam Policies (updated 2026-05-15)
- Expired domain abuse: Buying expired domains for their backlinks
- Site reputation abuse: Using a reputable site to host low-quality content (parasite SEO)
- Scaled content abuse: Mass-producing content without value — Google's policy now explicitly names "using generative AI tools to generate many pages without adding value" (also covers automated transformations like synonymizing/translating).
- Back-button hijacking (NEW, malicious practices): manipulating browser history (
history.pushState/replaceState, including via third-party ad/library scripts) so users can't use the Back button. Announced 2026-04-13; enforcement live since 2026-06-15 (manual actions + automated demotions).
AI Overview Evaluation
Raters assess quality of AI-generated summaries in search results.
RSL 1.0 (Really Simple Licensing)
New machine-readable content licensing standard (December 2025) for AI training:
- Backed by: Reddit, Yahoo, Medium, Quora, Cloudflare, Akamai, Creative Commons
- Allows publishers to specify AI licensing terms
- Augments robots.txt for AI-specific permissions
Experience Signals Are Critical Differentiators
The "Experience" dimension is a key differentiator, especially against scaled/AI content:
- First-person narrative ("I tested this...", "In my experience...")
- Original photos and screenshots (not stock images)
- Specific examples with verifiable details
- Process documentation showing actual work done
Why: AI can generate expertise-sounding content but cannot fabricate genuine experience.
Overall Scoring Guide
| Score |
Description |
| 90-100 |
Exceptional E-E-A-T, authority site, recognized expert, full transparency |
| 70-89 |
Strong E-E-A-T, demonstrated expertise, good trust signals |
| 50-69 |
Moderate E-E-A-T, some signals, room for improvement |
| 30-49 |
Weak E-E-A-T, minimal signals, significant gaps |
| 0-29 |
Very low E-E-A-T, no visible signals, potential trust issues |
Improvement Recommendations by Score
0-29 (Critical)
- Add contact information and about page
- Establish author identity with credentials
- Implement HTTPS
- Remove deceptive elements
30-49 (Major)
- Add author bios with credentials
- Include first-hand experience content
- Get external citations/mentions
- Add customer testimonials
50-69 (Moderate)
- Deepen content with original research
- Build topical authority through content clusters
- Pursue industry recognition
- Document processes and methodologies
70-89 (Minor)
- Maintain freshness with regular updates
- Expand author presence across platforms
- Pursue speaking/publication opportunities
- Add video/multimedia demonstrating expertise
90-100 (Maintenance)
- Continue publishing high-quality content
- Monitor and respond to reputation issues
- Keep credentials and certifications current