E-E-A-T in SEO: review the evidence behind a page
This is a manual planning aid, not a live audit, supplier catalog or ranking prediction. Examples are fictional. Nothing is fetched or submitted; downloaded files stay on your device.
| Dimension | Draft concern | Honest revision | Evidence still needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experience | The fictional draft says every adapter was tested, but no test log exists. | Describe it as a comparison of published specifications, not a hands-on review. | Actual test conditions, observations and limitations before claiming direct testing. |
| Expertise | A generic expert label replaces an explanation of relevant knowledge. | Name the real contributor and accurately explain their role and relevant background. | Appropriate specialist review for claims beyond the contributor’s competence. |
| Authoritativeness | Follower totals are treated as proof that compatibility advice is correct. | Explain the source of the technical information and relevant independent recognition, if verified. | Evidence relevant to this subject; do not manufacture endorsements or credentials. |
| Trustworthiness | Sources, method, commercial relationships and correction history are unclear. | Identify inputs, disclose material relationships, state limits and provide a correction route. | Check each important claim against its source and record what remains unknown. |
How to use the matrix
Our fictional adapter guide claims laboratory testing but contains only manufacturer specifications. The honest revision is a dated specification comparison that clearly says hands-on testing was not performed. The four review rows explain what to change and what evidence would support a stronger claim later.
A missing experience record does not mean every useful source-based page must disappear. Narrow the claim to the work actually done, explain the method and cite the relevant evidence. If the question requires specialist judgment, obtain that review before presenting the answer as authoritative.
Review checklist
- Identify the reader’s task and the risk of error.
- Match each claim to work actually performed.
- Use accurate authorship, sources and disclosures.
- Record unresolved questions instead of awarding a score.
Keep a claim register with the statement, supporting source or observation, responsible person, review date and unresolved limits. Separate proposed evidence from evidence already checked. When a correction changes a conclusion, record the substance of the change rather than merely refreshing the displayed date.