The E-E-A-T Pre-Publish Checklist: 26 Signals to Check

Most content problems are discovered after publishing — when rankings are lower than expected, or after a Google core update causes a traffic drop. This checklist is designed to catch E-E-A-T weaknesses before they become ranking problems.

Each item maps to one of Google's four E-E-A-T dimensions. Work through them in order — Experience and Expertise are improvements you make to the content itself, while Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness include both on-page and site-level checks.

How to Use This Checklist

Go through each item for the specific piece of content you are about to publish. Items marked as site-level only need to be set up once — check them the first time, then confirm they are still in place periodically.

If you fail more than 3 items in any single dimension, that dimension is your primary ranking risk and should be addressed before publishing.

Experience Checklist

Experience signals tell Google that the content was written by someone with genuine, direct involvement in the subject — not just someone who researched it from other sources.

• Does the content include at least one specific, first-hand observation? Not a general claim — a concrete detail, outcome, or finding that only direct involvement would produce. Dates, quantities, actual results, or named products all count.
• Is there evidence the author used, tested, or experienced what they are writing about? For product reviews: did they use it? For how-to guides: did they follow the steps? For case studies: were they involved? If the answer is no, the Experience score will be low regardless of how well-written the content is.
• Are edge cases, exceptions, or failure scenarios addressed? Real experience includes knowing where things go wrong. If the content only describes the ideal scenario, it reads as theoretical.
• Is first-person language used naturally and honestly? "We found that..." or "In our testing..." should reflect actual testing. Forced first-person on content you did not produce is a credibility risk, not an improvement.
• Are specific, verifiable details present? Phrases like "we saw a 34% improvement over 90 days" or "after testing on five different laptop models" signal real experience. Vague language like "significant improvement" or "various devices" does not.

Expertise Checklist

Expertise signals demonstrate that the author understands the subject deeply — including the mechanisms behind conclusions, where nuance applies, and what the limits of current knowledge are.

• Is all technical terminology used correctly? Incorrect usage of field-specific terms is one of the clearest expertise failure signals. If you are uncertain about a term, verify it against a primary source before publishing.
• Does the content explain why, not just what? Conclusions without mechanisms ("X is effective") score lower than explanations of causal relationships ("X works because Y, which leads to Z"). The mechanism is what separates expertise from summarisation.
• Are counterarguments, limitations, or areas of genuine uncertainty acknowledged? Expert knowledge includes knowing where the consensus is weak or where different practitioners disagree. Presenting everything as settled fact is a red flag to anyone who knows the field.
• Does the content go deeper than the first page of search results? If your article covers the same points as the top 10 results with no new angle, no additional depth, and no unique information, it adds no expertise value to the web.
• Is there a named author or clear attribution? Anonymous content scores lower on expertise. A byline with relevant context — even brief — makes a material difference.
• Is the information still current? Outdated information is an expertise failure. Check that statistics, recommendations, and referenced tools or policies reflect the current state of the field. Add or update the "last updated" date.

Authoritativeness Checklist

Authoritativeness is about how your content and site are recognised as credible sources within your field — both through what is on the page and through how the broader web perceives you.

• Does the content cite at least 2–3 credible, primary sources? Primary sources include original research, official guidelines, government data, or named expert statements. Secondary sources (blogs that reference studies, summaries of summaries) are weaker and should be traced back to the original where possible.
• Are external links pointing to genuinely relevant, high-quality destinations? Linking to a .gov study, a peer-reviewed paper, or a widely-respected industry publication reinforces authority. Linking to random blogs does not.
• Are any named experts or organisations referenced? "According to Dr. [Name], who specialises in [field]..." is more authoritative than "experts say..." Named sources can be verified; anonymous ones cannot.
• Is this page internally linked from other relevant content on the site? New content that exists in isolation carries less authority than content that is part of a topically coherent site structure. Make sure related pages link to each other.
• Does the site have enough topical depth to support authority on this specific subject? A single article on a topic with no supporting content around it will rank harder than the same article on a site that has demonstrated sustained expertise in that area.

Trustworthiness Checklist

Trustworthiness is the foundation of E-E-A-T. These signals tell Google (and readers) that the content is honest, accurate, and published by a real, accountable source. Many of these are site-level checks that only need to be configured once.

• Is the author's full name (or organisation name) clearly visible on the page? Not just in a sidebar or footer — it should be associated with this specific piece of content.
• Is there a visible publication date and, if the content has been updated, a last-updated date? Undated content is a trust signal failure. Readers cannot assess whether the information is current without knowing when it was written.
• Are all statistics and factual claims accurate and correctly attributed? Check that every number, study reference, or quoted figure matches the source you are citing. Incorrect statistics — even inadvertent ones — undermine trust when discovered.
• Does the content avoid making absolute claims where nuance or uncertainty exists? "X always causes Y" or "X is the best" are red flags unless you can genuinely substantiate them. Qualified language ("X is often associated with Y" or "X is among the most effective for Z") is more accurate and more trustworthy.
• Is there anything on this page that could mislead a reader, even unintentionally? Read the content as someone with no prior knowledge of the topic. Are any implications misleading? Does anything overstate a benefit, understate a risk, or omit important context?
• Is contact information accessible from this page or the site? A working email address or contact form signals accountability. For YMYL content, this is particularly important.
• If this site collects user data, is there a clear, accessible privacy policy? This is both a legal requirement in most jurisdictions and a trust signal.
• If any part of this content was AI-assisted, has it been reviewed and verified for accuracy? AI-generated content is not inherently a trust problem — but unreviewed AI content that contains hallucinated statistics or incorrect claims is. Human review is the quality control step that makes the difference.

Interpreting Your Results

After working through all 26 items:

• 0–2 failures across all dimensions: Your content is well-positioned for E-E-A-T. Publish with confidence.
• 3–5 failures in one dimension: Address that dimension before publishing. Most fixes take under an hour.
• Failures spread across multiple dimensions: The content needs more work before it is ready. Prioritise Trustworthiness first, then Experience and Expertise, then Authoritativeness.
• Systematic failures across all dimensions: The content may need a substantial rewrite rather than incremental fixes. Consider whether the topic is one where you have genuine experience and expertise, and whether the site has the topical authority to support it.

A Note on Velocity

This checklist is most useful when applied consistently, not just occasionally. The sites that build durable E-E-A-T strength are the ones where every piece of published content meets a consistent quality bar — not the ones that publish at maximum volume and fix problems retroactively.

Publishing fewer, stronger articles consistently outperforms publishing many weak articles quickly. Google's systems are getting better at identifying the difference, and the gap between the two strategies in terms of long-term ranking performance is growing with every core update.

Quick Reference: The 26 Checks

Experience (5 checks)

1. At least one specific, first-hand observation or concrete outcome
2. Evidence the author used, tested, or experienced the subject
3. Edge cases, exceptions, or failure scenarios addressed
4. First-person language used naturally and honestly
5. Specific, verifiable details (numbers, dates, named products)

Expertise (6 checks)

1. Technical terminology used correctly throughout
2. Mechanisms explained, not just conclusions stated
3. Counterarguments and uncertainties acknowledged
4. Content goes deeper than existing top-10 results
5. Named author or clear attribution present
6. Information is current; last-updated date is visible

Authoritativeness (5 checks)

1. At least 2–3 primary source citations with links
2. External links point to high-quality, relevant destinations
3. Named experts or organisations referenced by name
4. Page is internally linked from other relevant site content
5. Site has topical depth to support authority on this subject

Trustworthiness (8 checks)

1. Author's full name or organisation clearly visible
2. Publication date and last-updated date visible
3. All statistics and claims accurate and correctly attributed
4. No absolute claims where nuance or uncertainty exists
5. Nothing on the page could mislead, even unintentionally
6. Contact information accessible from this page or the site
7. Privacy policy present if user data is collected
8. AI-assisted content has been reviewed and verified