firefrost-gaming/antigravity-skills-reference
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 3 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
c32d147bbb3d5e93bb61eed2009a3cecd40feb85
antigravity-skills-reference/skills/seo/references/eeat-framework.md
sickn33 7cd2e94d41 feat(skills): import external marketing seo and obsidian skills 
Import and normalize new skills from anthropics/skills, marketingskills, claude-seo, and obsidian-skills.

Align imported skills to repository validation rules, document provenance, and sync generated registry artifacts after the import.
2026-03-21 10:05:13 +01:00

7.3 KiB
Raw Blame History

E-E-A-T Evaluation Framework

Updated per Google Quality Rater Guidelines: September 11, 2025

Plus December 2025 Core Update Implications

Overview

E-E-A-T = Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is the most important factor. It is assessed based on the other three signals plus direct trust indicators.

CRITICAL: December 2025 Core Update

E-E-A-T now applies to ALL competitive queries, not just YMYL.

The December 2025 core update was described as a "watershed moment" that:

  • Extended E-E-A-T evaluation to virtually all competitive queries
  • Made author attribution standards tighter across all categories
  • Penalized anonymous or generic authorship even for non-YMYL content
  • Significantly improved AI content quality detection

Impact by industry:

Industry Traffic Drops
Affiliate sites 71% average decline
Health/YMYL 67% average decline
E-commerce 52% average decline

Key takeaway: Even entertainment and lifestyle content now requires demonstrated expertise. Generic content no longer ranks.

YMYL (Your Money or Your Life)

Topics requiring highest E-E-A-T standards (but E-E-A-T now matters everywhere):

  • 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 (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 (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 (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 (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

New Spam Categories

  • Expired domain abuse: Buying expired domains for their backlinks
  • Site reputation abuse: Using reputable site to host low-quality content
  • Scaled content abuse: Mass-producing content without value

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 December 2025 update elevated the "Experience" dimension as a key differentiator:

  • 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)

  1. Add contact information and about page
  2. Establish author identity with credentials
  3. Implement HTTPS
  4. Remove deceptive elements

30-49 (Major)

  1. Add author bios with credentials
  2. Include first-hand experience content
  3. Get external citations/mentions
  4. Add customer testimonials

50-69 (Moderate)

  1. Deepen content with original research
  2. Build topical authority through content clusters
  3. Pursue industry recognition
  4. Document processes and methodologies

70-89 (Minor)

  1. Maintain freshness with regular updates
  2. Expand author presence across platforms
  3. Pursue speaking/publication opportunities
  4. Add video/multimedia demonstrating expertise

90-100 (Maintenance)

  1. Continue publishing high-quality content
  2. Monitor and respond to reputation issues
  3. Keep credentials and certifications current
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink