AI EEAT Checker: Assess Content Quality in Minutes

Rand Zhang

·December 29, 2023

·7 min read

If you lead SEO, publish as a solo creator, or edit YMYL content at scale, this guide shows you how to evaluate and improve a page’s E‑E‑A‑T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trust) in 15–30 minutes. You’ll get a fast, repeatable workflow that maps directly to Google’s Quality Rater Guidelines (QRG), plus a practical example using a Chrome extension. Difficulty: easy for most pages; moderate for YMYL. Prerequisites: a draft URL and edit access.

Estimated time: 15–30 minutes
What you’ll achieve: a prioritized fix list that measurably strengthens E‑E‑A‑T and Page Quality/Needs Met alignment

What E‑E‑A‑T and the QRG mean (and why they matter in 2025)

E‑E‑A‑T isn’t a single ranking factor; it’s a set of signals Google uses to evaluate whether content is helpful, reliable, and safe. Google advises creators to focus on “helpful, reliable, people‑first content,” explicitly asking whether your page demonstrates first‑hand experience, originality, and depth that helps readers accomplish their task, per the Google Developers guidance on creating helpful content (ongoing).

Quality Rater Guidelines (QRG) orient human raters on two core axes:

Page Quality (PQ): how well the page achieves its purpose, including the E‑E‑A‑T of the creator/site and the quality of the main content. See the Search Quality Rater Guidelines PDF for official definitions.
Needs Met (NM): how well the result satisfies the user’s intent, from “Fails to Meet” to “Fully Meets,” also detailed in the QRG PDF above.

In September 2025, Google clarified examples related to AI Overviews and refined YMYL definitions (e.g., civics/government), according to Search Engine Land’s update coverage (Sept 2025). The takeaway hasn’t changed: demonstrate trustworthy expertise, especially on sensitive topics.

Where AI‑generated content fits

Google’s position is consistent: high‑quality content is rewarded “however it is produced,” provided it serves people and not search engines, as stated in Google’s Search and AI content post (2023). At the same time, publishing lots of low‑value or largely unoriginal AI pages can violate spam rules—see Google’s spam policies on scaled content abuse. In short: AI is fine; low‑value at scale is not.

Step 1 — 5–10 minute manual pre‑check (no tools)

Do this once per page before you run any automated checker.

Authorship and experience

Check for a visible byline and a clear author bio. Does the page or bio show relevant credentials or first‑hand experience (e.g., projects, case studies, field work)?
Quick fix if missing: Add a byline, 2–3 sentences on relevant experience, and links to an author profile/LinkedIn and the organization’s About/Contact page.

Evidence and citations

For factual claims or recommendations, list 2–3 authoritative sources you can cite. Prefer primary and consensus references (official docs, standards, academic, government).
Quick fix: Add source-backed stats, quotations, or definitions with precise, descriptive anchors. Avoid “click here.”

Recency and accuracy

If time‑sensitive, verify facts reflect the current year and add a visible “last updated” date.
Quick fix: Update outdated numbers; add a changelog note if you revised guidance.

Site trust signals

Confirm HTTPS, working About/Contact/Policy pages, unobtrusive UX (no deceptive ads), and correct metadata (indexable, canonical if needed).
Quick fix: Repair broken links; add or update privacy/editorial policies.

Intent coverage (Needs Met)

Does the page satisfy the primary query and likely follow‑ups? Would a searcher feel finished?
Quick fix: Add a short FAQ, examples, or a concise summary that answers adjacent questions without forcing pogo‑sticking.

Verification tip: After each fix, ask two of Google’s own people‑first questions from the helpful content page in your editorial checklist (e.g., Does this show first‑hand expertise? Is this substantially more useful than readily available summaries?).

Step 2 — Practical workflow example: run an AI E‑E‑A‑T check (≈10 minutes)

In this section, you’ll see how to speed up the audit using a neutral, browser‑based tool. First, complete Step 1 so the tool’s findings focus on true gaps rather than obvious misses.

Open your draft or published URL in Chrome.
Launch the QuickCreator Chrome extension. Review its “Article E‑E‑A‑T Analysis” checklist items (e.g., byline, sources, evidence) and on‑page SEO basics surfaced in the sidebar. The Chrome Web Store listing describes article/product page analysis, an E‑E‑A‑T checklist, and options to collect content materials for team workflows. Avoid treating any score as a “Google score”—use it as guidance.
Capture findings and create a fix list. I usually note:

Missing or weak byline/bio
Insufficient or low‑authority citations
Out‑of‑date facts or unclear “last updated”
Thin intent coverage (FAQs/examples needed)
Trust/UX blockers (broken links, intrusive ads)

Export or save notes if the extension provides it, then proceed to Step 3 to remediate.
Re‑scan after fixes to confirm the red flags are resolved. Spot‑check manually against the QRG concepts of Page Quality and Needs Met.

Troubleshooting

If the page won’t analyze, ensure you’re on a publicly reachable URL or use the extension on the rendered preview in your CMS.
If the extension flags items you intentionally omit (e.g., no byline on a product docs page), document the rationale and make sure trust signals are strong elsewhere.

Note: AI and automation help you accelerate review, but editorial judgment remains essential—especially for YMYL.

Step 3 — Remediation playbook (10–30 minutes)

Work through these fixes in order of impact. Each item aligns to QRG Page Quality or Needs Met, and to Google’s helpful content guidance.

Strengthen authorship and first‑hand experience

Add a byline and a concise bio that demonstrates relevant experience or credentials.
For reviews/how‑tos, include first‑hand evidence: photos, screenshots, logs, or short “What we tried and learned” sections.
For YMYL, include expert review and list reviewer credentials on the page.

Upgrade citations and evidence

Replace weak references with primary or consensus sources. Use quotations and precise data points with descriptive anchors.
Where claims are contested, represent the consensus and note uncertainty.

Fix recency and accuracy

Update all time‑sensitive data to the current year; add a visible “last updated” date near the byline or top.
If guidance changed, add a one‑line changelog or note to aid reader trust.

Bolster site trust signals

Ensure HTTPS, working About/Contact/Policy pages, and an unobtrusive ad/UX setup.
Fix broken links and ensure the page returns 200 status and is indexable when appropriate.

Improve Needs Met (intent coverage)

Add a compact FAQ covering common follow‑ups and minor interpretations.
Include examples, checklists, or short templates readers can use immediately.

AI content safeguards

If AI assisted drafting, review for originality and depth; replace boilerplate with proprietary data, examples, or quotes.
Avoid scaled, low‑value production. Cross‑check against Google’s spam policies on scaled content abuse and ensure your purpose is people‑first as emphasized in Google’s helpful content guidance.

Verification

Re‑run your extension check and manually confirm: byline present with relevant experience; 2–3 authoritative citations; updated facts; visible last‑updated; HTTPS and policy pages; clear answers to primary and adjacent intents.

Special handling for YMYL topics

YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) includes health, finance, legal, safety, and civics/elections—areas where mistakes cause harm. The QRG expects very high E‑E‑A‑T for these. In late 2025, industry coverage noted clarified YMYL scope and AI Overview examples for raters, per Search Engine Land’s September 2025 summary.

Require SME or credentialed expert review. Display reviewer name, role, and relevant credentials.
Use authoritative, consensus sources (government, medical associations, standards bodies). Avoid speculative or fringe claims.
Add disclaimers and, when relevant, emergency resources. Keep facts current with visible last‑updated and correction notes.

Build this into a team workflow (enterprise‑friendly)

Roles and checkpoints
- Writer: drafts with author bio and first‑hand evidence.
- Editor/SEO: runs the quick E‑E‑A‑T check, verifies citations, and closes intent gaps.
- SME/Legal (for YMYL): reviews for accuracy and compliance; signs off.
Documentation
- Maintain a one‑page checklist mapping your standards to QRG concepts (PQ, NM) and Google’s helpful content questions.
- Store revision notes and reviewer sign‑offs in your CMS for auditability.
Cadence
- Re‑review top URLs quarterly for recency and trust signals.
- After major Search updates, revisit key pages and re‑ask the people‑first questions from Google’s guidance.

FAQ — fast clarifications

Is AI‑generated content allowed? Yes—if it’s helpful, accurate, and people‑first. Google reiterates this in its Search and AI content post (2023). Violations typically stem from low‑value, scaled content, addressed in spam policies.
Does E‑E‑A‑T have a “score” in Google? No official public score. Use checkers as guides to reveal gaps. Your best proxy is aligning with the QRG and the helpful content criteria.
Should I change content after every core update? Focus on helpfulness, originality, and trust, per Google’s ongoing guidance. Reactionary tweaks rarely help compared to substantive improvements.

Resources to keep handy

Google’s guidance on creating helpful, reliable, people‑first content
The public Search Quality Rater Guidelines PDF

Wrap‑up

You now have a rapid, defensible process to evaluate E‑E‑A‑T, close the biggest trust gaps, and verify improvements—all in under 30 minutes for most pages. Start with the manual pre‑check, accelerate with a neutral browser tool, then remediate and verify against Google’s own guidance.

Ready to try it in your browser? Install the QuickCreator Chrome extension to speed up your E‑E‑A‑T checks, then layer your editorial judgment and the QRG for final sign‑off.