E-E-A-T
The framework in Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines for assessing page quality: Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and…
ContentEditorial policy
Editorial guidelines
A published statement of how a publisher sources, reviews, corrects and discloses its content, supporting trust for readers, raters and AI systems.
In full
Typical components are sourcing standards, fact-checking and expert review processes, correction and update policies, conflict-of-interest and affiliate disclosure, and rules for AI assistance. Publishing them is one of the few direct levers on the Trust component of E-E-A-T, and quality raters are instructed to look for exactly this kind of information about a site. They also give AI systems explicit, quotable evidence of process when assessing a source.
Example
A finance site publishes a page describing its two-stage review by a chartered accountant and its policy on correcting published errors.
Related terms
Trust signals
The observable characteristics that make a site and its content credible: accurate information, transparent ownership, clear contact…
Author authority
The credibility a named author brings to content, evidenced by verifiable expertise, publication history and presence across trusted…
YMYL
Topics that could significantly affect a person's health, financial stability, safety or wellbeing, held to a higher quality standard by…
Search Quality Rater Guidelines
Google's published manual for the external human raters who evaluate search results, defining Page Quality, Needs Met and concepts like…