Please check out the accompanying podcast episode for this article. You can find it on Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
play...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
👏
Great advice!
Love the website! Really clean layout and vet informative.
Thank you. It is done using Astro and a few custom APIs. Be sure to subscribe to catch my latest articles as they come out.
Love this!
I am overwhelmed by the positive feedback. You can keep up to date with my latest content by following at facebook.com/danielsasserii or by subscribing to my blog.
really loved this strategy
Thank you. I have been putting a lot of work into tuning this thing in. I am still surprised at how popular my content has grown over the past year. There are still a few things I didn't discuss in this article, but you can stay up to date on all my latest AI tech and business tips by following me at facebook.com/danielsasserii.
I look forward to seeing you there. Be sure to say hi 👋 on some of the posts.
Pretty Impressive 👍
This might be useful if you're interested in how a piece of content scores for EEAT, but EEAT is not something that can be measured and isn't a factor that improves SEO. Google confirmed this a few days ago: searchenginejournal.com/google-con....
Hey Scott, I appreciate you sharing that article—I actually reference the same one in my piece.
You're right that E-E-A-T isn't a direct ranking factor and can't be “added” like a tag or plugin. John Mueller confirmed that.
But what’s often missed is that E-E-A-T does influence how content is evaluated, both by quality raters and algorithmically, especially in areas where trust matters—like AI, education, and thought leadership.
That’s what I’m showing in the article:
Not that you can game the system with E-E-A-T, but that you can build trust signals intentionally by focusing on clarity, experience, and credible sourcing.
In fact, the article you shared makes that point when it says E-E-A-T comes into play algorithmically for certain sites.
So, while E-E-A-T isn't a metric, it still affects outcomes.
That’s the nuance most people miss.
Feel free to ask Gemini to give you a review of the article and the validity of it. That's what I always do before I post.
Where do you reference the article?
EEAT only matters if your content covers Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) topics, like health or finance:
So even if your subject matter does touch on YMYL topics, Google doesn’t say what those EEAT ranking signals are, and it would be difficult to pinpoint how Google evaluates EEAT, even in the limited topics it considers EEAT for.
Further:
So for topics like you mentioned (AI, education, and thought leadership), EEAT is not required and it's not a ranking focus.
Hey Scott, thanks again for continuing the discussion—this is a valuable exchange.
You're right that E-E-A-T originally focused on YMYL content, and that’s what the quality rater guidelines emphasized in the earlier versions. But Google's position has evolved significantly over the last few years, especially in response to misinformation, AI-generated content, and search manipulation.
While Google still places the highest emphasis on E-E-A-T for YMYL topics like health and finance, they’ve clearly stated that trust signals are now being considered more broadly—particularly in emerging areas like AI, education, productivity, and social commentary.
In fact, in late 2023 and early 2024, Google made updates that specifically mentioned how content about high-interest or trending topics (like AI) is held to a higher standard—not because it’s YMYL by default, but because of the risks of misinformation.
That’s why we’re now seeing E-E-A-T-related signals (like source credibility, authorship, original insights, and citations) showing up as indirect but influential components in rankings, even for non-YMYL topics.
Also, you asked where I referenced the article. I did include the SEJ piece in my References section to support the point that you can’t add E-E-A-T like code. But my entire article is about how you build it intentionally through clarity, structure, and reputation—especially in fields like AI, where trust is now critical due to widespread confusion and content saturation.
So while you're technically right that it's not a "ranking factor" in the traditional sense, it absolutely influences rankings—even outside of YMYL—through indirect signals that Google continues to refine.
Appreciate the pushback. These conversations help sharpen how we all interpret what Google actually means in practice.
I don't see the article in your references.
How can these two things be true at the same time?
Anyway, it's a little pointless to continue the discussion considering you're talking around my points and not addressing them, and using an LLM to write your responses. All the best.
All the best to you as well.
And yes, I always run my responses through my trained AI assistant before posting.
I start with what I want to say, have it validated for accuracy, and then refine the draft.
Because I care about truth and take misinformation seriously.
Sorry to see that you’re still confused on this—hopefully this clears things up.
Think of E-E-A-T like building a good reputation. Google wants to show people websites they can trust and that know what they're talking about. You can't just 'add' trust, but if you do things like show who wrote the article, make sure it's correct, and easy to read, people will like your site more. When people like your site, Google notices, and that helps your website show up higher in searches.
And an explanation from Gemini
An article and direct quote from Trust Signal
Mastering Google EEAT: Boost Your SEO Effectively
"Content that adheres to EEAT principles tends to rank higher on search engine results pages (SERPs) due to its perceived quality and authority. Google’s quality raters follow comprehensive guidelines to evaluate both live and experimental search results, ensuring they meet high standards of content quality.
These raters maintain the integrity of search results by assessing content’s expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. "Human-created content generally ranks higher than AI-generated content, highlighting the importance of personal experience and expertise.
Google's John Mueller clarified that E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) is a framework used by Google's quality raters to assess content quality, particularly for Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) topics like health and finance. It's not a metric that can be directly added to a webpage by SEOs. Mueller emphasized that attempting to "add E-E-A-T" to a site is a misunderstanding, as it's not a checklist item but a guideline for evaluating content quality. For non-YMYL topics, such as recipe blogs, E-E-A-T is less critical, and excessive emphasis on it isn't necessary (source searchenginejournal.com/google-con...)
TThanks for sharing that, Ronnie. Solid clarification on what Mueller said about E-E-A-T.
That said, my article goes deeper. It shows how E-E-A-T has expanded far beyond just Your Money or Your Life content.
With misinformation spreading faster than ever, trust signals now matter across almost every type of content, not just health or finance.
I'm not treating E-E-A-T like a checklist. I'm explaining how understanding it helps you think like AI and build content that earns long-term credibility and visibility.
These terms evolve constantly. You can't rely on one article or quote and assume you have the full picture. That's why I cited multiple sources and broke it down with real strategy.
And just to prove it, look up my name. Even search “Dan EEAT.” I'm not in a YMYL niche, yet I score high and show up under that subject repeatedly.
That only happens when your content is built with purpose, structure, and earned authority.
Appreciate the link and the discussion.
And a follow up assisted by ChatGPT who is very familiar with my work.
EEAT isn’t just for YMYL—it’s for anything Google wants to rank with confidence. And since I’m outranking universities for SERPs such as "Biochemical Hybrid Intelligence", I’d say I’m on the right track.