{"id":28085,"date":"2026-09-06T21:26:40","date_gmt":"2026-09-06T20:26:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inboundcph.dk\/?p=28085"},"modified":"2026-09-10T13:27:08","modified_gmt":"2026-09-10T12:27:08","slug":"e-e-a-t","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inboundcph.dk\/en\/e-e-a-t\/","title":{"rendered":"E-E-A-T: How to Demonstrate Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trustworthiness"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

What is E-E-A-T?<\/h2>\n

E-E-A-T is Google\u2019s framework for assessing whether the content on a page is created by someone with experience and subject matter knowledge that others recognize, and whom the reader can trust. The acronym stands for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. In Danish: experience, expertise, authority, and trustworthiness. The framework originates from Google\u2019s Search Quality Rater Guidelines, the document that Google\u2019s human quality raters use as a guide when evaluating whether search results are of sufficient quality.<\/p>\n

At InboundCPH, we translate these four concepts into four questions a skeptical reader asks herself before taking a website seriously. Has the author personally tried what\u2019s described? Does the author know more about the topic than I do? Do others cite the author as a source? And can I verify that what\u2019s written is true? E-E-A-T isn\u2019t a score you can look up. The framework is a description of what must be provable on the page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Concept<\/th>\nDanish<\/th>\nThe question behind it<\/th>\nThe evidence on the page<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Experience<\/td>\nExperience<\/td>\nDid the sender do it themselves?<\/td>\nOriginal data, original examples, case studies with names<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Expertise<\/td>\nExpertise<\/td>\nDoes the sender know more than the reader?<\/td>\nAuthor by name with a professional background<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Authoritativeness<\/td>\nAuthority<\/td>\nDo others refer to the sender?<\/td>\nMentions, quotes, and third-party links<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Trustworthiness<\/td>\nCredibility<\/td>\nCan the claims be verified?<\/td>\nSources, dates, contact information, corrections<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Google itself states that credibility is the most important of the four, because a page lacking credibility has low E-E-A-T, no matter how experienced or reputable the author may appear to be. It\u2019s worth keeping that priority in mind when allocating your efforts. A nice author bio won\u2019t help if the figures on the page can\u2019t be traced back to a source.<\/p>\n

Why did the extra \"E\" appear at the same time as the AI content?<\/h2>\n

Google added \u201cExperience\u201d to the framework on December 15, 2022, two weeks after ChatGPT was made available to the public on November 30, 2022. Until then, the framework was known as E-A-T. The new \u201cE\u201d poses one additional question regarding the content: Does the page demonstrate that the author has firsthand experience with the topic? Has the reviewer used the product, has the consultant handled similar cases, has the writer personally measured what is being described?<\/p>\n

Google hasn\u2019t said that the addition was due to ChatGPT, and you shouldn\u2019t claim that either. But the coincidence explains why \u201cexperience\u201d suddenly got its own entry. A language model can write a flawless text on the subject without ever having witnessed a shot being made. It can summarize everything others have written, but it cannot contribute anything it has experienced itself. Experience is one of the four concepts that cannot be generated. That makes it the surest way to stand out from the thousands of dictionary entries that say the same thing.<\/p>\n

That policy became clearer in January 2025, when Google updated its Search Quality Rater Guidelines again. Raters were asked to give the lowest rating to pages where the main content was created using generative AI tools without any significant originality or original effort. This is stated in Google\u2019s own guidelines and was mentioned by, among others, Search Engine Land<\/a>. AI-generated content is therefore not prohibited. Content for which there is no evidence that an experienced human was behind it is what is penalized. At InboundCPH, we interpret it this way: E-E-A-T has become Google\u2019s answer to the question, \u201cWhy should I show this particular page when a hundred others say the same thing?\u201d.<\/p>\n

How do Google and language models view E-E-A-T in practice?<\/h2>\n

Google and language models don\u2019t read the Quality Rater Guidelines, but they look for the same clues. These clues include a named author, an organization that can be looked up, sources that can be followed, and a date showing that someone has viewed the page recently. The difference lies in where these clues should be found. Google can read structured data and weigh links. A language model like ChatGPT or Gemini weighs what\u2019s written in the text it retrieves and what other pages say about you. Ahrefs\u2019 analysis of 75,000 brands showed that brand mentions correlate with AI visibility at a strength of 0.66, compared to 0.22 for backlinks. Authority in AI responses is therefore built more on being mentioned than on being linked to.<\/p>\n

In InboundCPH\u2019s AI-SEO Tools, we save the full AI response along with a list of sources every time we analyze a question. When we compare the pages that are cited with those that were retrieved but excluded, it\u2019s the same four factors that set them apart. Below, we\u2019ve translated these into actionable steps you can use.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
01 \u00b7 Author<\/div>\n

Author schema and visible byline<\/h3>\n

Each article has a named author with a title, a two- to three-line description of their professional background, and a link to a profile page. In structured data, it reads author<\/code> of the type Person<\/code> with sameAs<\/code> on LinkedIn and other sites where the person can be verified. The profile page must be indexable. A noindexed employee page proves nothing.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
02 \u00b7 Organization<\/div>\n

Fold-out page<\/h3>\n

The \"About\" page explains who you are, where you\u2019re located, when you were founded, and who\u2019s behind the company. The address, CVR number, and the name of a contact person belong here. In structured data, it is Organization<\/code> with sameAs<\/code> to your official profiles. This is the page that both Google and a language model use to determine whether the sender is a real business.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
03 \u00b7 Sources<\/div>\n

Claims that can be traced back to their source<\/h3>\n

Each figure has a source that includes the name, year, and a link. \u201c68 % of Google searches end without a click (SparkToro\/Similarweb, 2026)\u201d can be verified. \u201cMost searches end without a click\u201d cannot be verified. Your own measurements are the strongest source of all, because they also demonstrate experience. Describe how you measured this and when.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
04 \u00b7 Date<\/div>\n

Update date that is genuine<\/h3>\n

The page clearly shows when it was last revised, and dateModified<\/code> Structured data conveys the same message. The date is only updated once the content has actually been reviewed. A language model treats a page without a date as potentially outdated, and for topics that evolve rapidly, outdated is synonymous with useless.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

These four themes are related to what we describe in our Introduction to AI-SEO<\/a>: The language model must be able to vouch for the answers it provides. It therefore selects sources that have taken the initiative to make themselves traceable. The technology behind the markup is described in our guide to schema markup<\/a>.<\/p>\n

How do you check your own 20-point E-E-A-T?<\/h2>\n

InboundCPH\u2019s E-E-A-T checklist with 20 criteria is a page-by-page review, with five points per concept, where each point can either be demonstrated on the page or not. Use it on your five most important pages first. It\u2019s rare for the entire site to have a problem. Typically, it\u2019s the pages that need to win the commercial battle that are lacking evidence. Count the points per concept and start with the one that has the lowest score.<\/p>\n

Experience: Does the page show that you've done this yourselves?<\/h3>\n