What Google says, and what it does not guarantee
E-E-A-T covers experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness. Google says it is not a specific ranking factor. Quality raters examine results without determining positions or feeding their ratings directly into ranking algorithms. Editorial improvements therefore guarantee neither a ranking nor protection from manual actions.
Google added the experience dimension to its rater guidelines in December 2022.
A proposed editorial method for your pages
The following procedure is a working template, not a Google score or certification. Define the reader’s question and the action the page should support. An installation tutorial needs reproducible tests; a comparison needs explicit selection criteria.
1. Inventory claims that affect a decision
Identify figures, outcome promises, operating conditions and recommendations. Record a direct source, date and scope for each consequential claim. When evidence is missing, withdraw the claim or explain that the question remains unresolved. A general reference at the bottom of a page does not validate every sentence.
2. Separate observation, interpretation and illustration
For a test, specify the product, version, environment, steps and observed limits. Then explain your interpretation. A fictional example can teach a method if labelled as such; it must not become a client testimonial or performance evidence.
3. Identify actual responsibilities
State who wrote or reviewed the content and what that person actually checked. A biography should describe relevant, verifiable competence. Do not invent qualifications, clients or field experience. If no specialist reviewer is identified, describe the documentary scope honestly.
4. Plan corrections instead of only changing dates
Define review triggers: a version change, withdrawn source, new restriction or reported error. Keep a record of useful changes. An update date should correspond to a real revision; changing a year in a heading does not demonstrate fresh verification.
Pre-publication worksheet
- Reader question and the conclusion actually supported.
- Source for each consequential claim, with date and scope.
- Tests, environment and limits; clearly labelled fictional examples.
- Writer, any reviewer and verified responsibilities.
- Required correction, owner and next review trigger.
Fictional example: reviewing a backup comparison
A team tests two tools in a demonstration environment. It publishes restoration conditions and observed errors but has no production measurements. Its conclusion describes the tested tasks and open questions instead of turning a limited exercise into a general reliability promise.
Practical questions
Does every page need a case study?
Choose evidence appropriate to the subject. If you only have documentation, explain the documentary method. Do not simulate a client project to fill a section.
How should conflicting information be handled?
Check source dates, versions and contexts. Explain unresolved disagreements that remain relevant and avoid a firm recommendation when uncertainty changes the decision.
Primary sources
References checked on 5 October 2026. The review method above is this site’s editorial proposal.
Make credibility claims verifiable
Google’s helpful-content guidance asks for reliable information and evidence of experience. An acronym or biography alone does not establish quality: sources, accuracy, limits and visible corrections matter to readers.
- Tie fast-changing claims to a source and verification date.
- Name who reviewed the substance and how readers can report errors.
- Fix stale examples instead of merely refreshing the displayed date.
Primary reference: Google Search Central — helpful, reliable content. Related method: read the practical guide.
Check what each cell means
A usable table retains units, periods and headers on mobile and with assistive technology. Empty cells should not be interpreted as zero.
- Task, unit, period and missing values
- Caption, headers and associations
- Mobile, zoom, keyboard, screen reader and sorting
Acceptance case to reproduce
Fictional example: these inputs describe no customer or observed result.
View case inputs
{
"column_headers": [
"2025",
"2026"
],
"row_headers": [
"A",
"B"
],
"cell": {
"row": "B",
"column": "2026",
"value": 42
},
"layout": "mobile"
}Expected decision
The value 42 must remain associated with B and 2026 after adapting the table for mobile.
Verification procedure
- Identify row headers, column headers and units.
- Read a cell with keyboard and assistive technology.
- Keep its context after mobile adaptation and zoom. For a decisive cell, recover row, column and unit after scrolling; a readable value without its heading can change meaning.
Should every table become cards?
No. Choose for the task; comparing rows may be easier in a well-structured table.
Primary reference: W3C WAI — Tables tutorial. Related method: read the practical guide.