What Are the Three Levels of E-E-A-T?

E-E-A-T is a framework, not a single score

Google does not provide a numeric “E-E-A-T score.” E-E-A-T is an umbrella framework — a set of distinct, measurable signals — so you should run an ongoing program (process + tests + telemetry), not chase a single metric.

Why this distinction matters

Many teams treat E-E-A-T like a checkbox: “Add author bios, check.” That feels satisfying, but it’s also the fastest way to waste resources. Google’s systems — automated classifiers, ranking models, and human quality raters — don’t flip one E-E-A-T bit. Instead they evaluate dozens of independent signals (and combinations of signals) at page, site, and entity levels. Those signals interact and compensate for one another: a strong institutional reputation can offset a thin page; a vetted author can boost trust for a new article; original first-hand data can push a page to rank despite weaker backlinks.

Treating E-E-A-T as a program means you design repeatable processes to improve many signals, measure outcomes, and iterate. That’s the difference between ad-hoc “fixes” and durable SEO gains.

What the “many measurable signals” actually are

Think of E-E-A-T as a portfolio of observable items you can improve and track. Key categories include:

• Document signals: citations, quality of sources linked, first-hand experience, presence of review/medical/legal disclaimers, update frequency.

• Behavioral signals: click-through rate (CTR), dwell time, pogo-sticking, return visits for brand queries.

• Site signals: About/contact pages, editorial policy, HTTPS, site speed, topical breadth (content hubs).

• Authority signals: backlink quality & topical relevance, media mentions, citations on trusted domains.

• Author/entity signals: author bios, sameAs links, institutional affiliations, publications, awards and external profiles.

Each of those is measurable. None by itself equals “E-E-A-T.” Together they produce the quality picture Google uses.

How signals combine in practice (short example)

Imagine two pages about the same medical treatment:

• Page A: written by “Admin,” no citations, published on a small blog with no about page.

• Page B: written by a board-certified physician, cites clinical trials, published on a hospital site with an editorial policy and reviewer stamp, and the physician’s profile lists PubMed articles.

Page B wins because multiple signals align: document accuracy, source-entity credibility, and domain trust. If Page A added author credentials and citations but sat on the same low-trust domain, it might still struggle — because it would lack the domain and entity signals Page B has. The point: improving one signal helps, but coordinated improvements across signals produce the biggest, most reliable gains.

Practical implications — what teams should do differently

1. Operate as a program, not a task list. Create quarterly goals for document updates, author reputation work, and domain hygiene (policies, schemas, backlink cleanup).

2. Prioritize by impact + effort. Quick wins: add TL;DR, author byline, citations, dateModified. Bigger bets: original research, author PR, editorial workflows.

3. Instrument everything. Track CTR, impressions, rankings, organic conversions, and brand searches. Correlate these with discrete interventions to learn what works in your niche.

4. Run controlled experiments. Pick a basket of pages, make a set of coordinated changes (document + schema + outreach), and compare performance against a control group.

5. Document provenance and reviewer processes. For YMYL, a visible reviewer policy and reviewer credits are powerful trust signals for humans and bots alike.

6. Build author/organization identity. Author hubs, sameAs links, and visible professional credentials create a durable entity graph that search systems can reference.

How to measure progress (recommended KPIs)

• Page-level: organic impressions, CTR, average position, time on page, bounce rate, conversions.

• Domain-level: branded search volume, referring domains (quality & topicality), direct traffic growth, site authority metrics (from your SEO toolset).

• Source-entity: number of external mentions linking to author pages, author profile pageviews, citations in other authoritative publications.

Don’t try to invent a single E-E-A-T metric — instead build a dashboard that shows movement across these KPIs and how interventions shift them.

Document-level E-E-A-T: make each page unambiguously helpful

Scope: a single page — blog post, product page, service page, FAQ, landing page.

What Google (and users) want to see on the page

• A clear match to user intent (what the searcher came to do).

• Evidence of first-hand experience, when relevant (walkthroughs, case studies, user testimonials, data).

• Accurate factual claims backed by citations to reputable sources.

• Transparency: author name, credentials, date published/updated, and an edit/review log.

• Readability, clarity and a helpful structure (headings, TL;DR, table of contents for long content). SEO Central

Actionable Document checklist (copy/paste & implement)

1. Add a single-line TL;DR immediately under the title that answers the query.

2. Include an author byline with a short credential blurb (e.g., “Jane Doe, CFP — 10 years advising financial planners”).

3. Add at least 2-4 high-quality references (industry sites, peer-reviewed papers, government pages) for factual claims.

4. Show first-hand content where possible (experiment results, screenshots, case numbers).

5. Display datePublished and dateModified visibly and include a short revision note (“Updated to add new research, Oct 2025”).

6. For YMYL pages, add a visible “Reviewed by” note with reviewer name and qualification.

7. Use schema: Article or WebPage plus author Person/Organization. (Example JSON-LD below.)

Mini before/after example

• Before: “How to invest” — generic, no author, no sources, surface tips → low trust.

• After: “How to invest: A CFP’s 3-fund portfolio with allocations and tax notes” — authored by a CFP, contains portfolio screenshots, links to SEC and research, and a reviewer note → higher trust & CTR.