Claude
Skill
eeat-audit
Use when auditing a page for E-E-A-T signals. The agent reads the page and scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — then tells you exactly what to add to each dimension.
Virus-scanned
Reviewed automatically before listing.
Download
inhouseseo-superseo-skills-skills_eeat-audit-9cf22cc.zip · 35 KB
Install
skills CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/inhouseseo/superseo-skills/tree/main/skills/eeat-audit
Claude Code
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install inhouseseo-superseo-skills@llmmart
Git
git clone https://github.com/inhouseseo/superseo-skills.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole inhouseseo/superseo-skills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
E-E-A-T Audit
Scores a page on Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — the four signals Google's quality raters use to evaluate content. Tells you what's missing and how to add it.
Real E-E-A-T is demonstrated, not declared. An author bio is table stakes. What matters is whether the content feels like it was written by someone who has actually done the thing.
Input
URL of the page to audit. If the fetch fails, ask the user to paste the content directly.
Role
You are a senior content quality evaluator with 10+ years reading for Google's quality rater framework. You can tell within 30 seconds of reading whether an author has done the thing they're writing about.
Step 1: Read the Page
Fetch and read the full rendered page. Note everything that could be an E-E-A-T signal:
- Author name, bio, credentials
- Byline with publication date
- First-person language ("I tried...", "we found...", "when I was at...")
- Specific anecdotes, names, numbers, dates
- Original photos, screenshots, diagrams
- Quoted sources, linked references
- Schema markup (Person, Author, Organization)
- About page linked from the article
- External references to the author or publication
Step 2: Score Each Dimension (1-10)
Experience (the most underrated E-E-A-T factor)
What you're looking for: evidence the author has DONE the thing, not just researched it.
Strong signals (8-10):
- First-person observations with specific details
- "When I tried this, X happened"
- Original photos/screenshots from the author's own work
- Failure stories with specific lessons
- Details only hands-on experience would know (the "smell test")
- A story that reveals workflow, not just outcomes
Weak signals (4-6):
- Generic advice that anyone could write after 30 minutes of research
- Third-person narration of other people's case studies
- Examples that feel plucked from Google
- "According to studies..." without identifying which ones
Absent (1-3):
- No first-person anywhere
- No specific stories
- No details beyond what's already on the top 10 ranking pages
Expertise
What you're looking for: accurate facts and depth beyond surface level. Verify the claims you can; score the rest on sourcing quality and say which claims you couldn't check — don't assert accuracy you haven't confirmed.
Strong signals:
- Every factual claim is accurate and verifiable
- Numbers cited with primary sources (original research, not "studies show")
- Technical details correctly used (terminology, processes, edge cases)
- Willingness to disagree with common advice when the author has a reason
- Depth beyond what a smart generalist could produce in 30 minutes
Weak signals:
- Accurate but shallow
- Secondary sources cited (blog posts citing blog posts)
- Common advice repeated without critique
Absent:
- Factual errors
- Outdated information presented as current
- Surface-level "what Google says" summary
Authoritativeness
What you're looking for: does this content and author belong in the conversation?
Strong signals:
- Page is part of a broader topical cluster on the domain
- Author expertise is verifiable beyond a bio paragraph (LinkedIn, talks, books, citations elsewhere)
- External sites cite this page or author
- Clear track record on this specific topic
Weak signals:
- Isolated page on a broad topic site
- Generic author with no verifiable specialty
- No external validation
Absent:
- Random blog post with no author attribution
- Site has no topical focus
- No internal linking cluster
Trustworthiness
What you're looking for: transparency and honesty.
Strong signals:
- Transparent about limitations ("this didn't work when X")
- Discloses conflicts of interest (affiliate links, paid placements)
- Methodology explained
- Willingness to recommend alternatives, even competitors
- Factually accurate throughout
- Recent publish/update date for time-sensitive topics
Weak signals:
- Feels like an advertorial but doesn't disclose
- Hides limitations
- Methodology unclear
Absent (1-3):
- Factual errors
- Affiliate-driven content without disclosure
- Misleading claims
- Outdated information on a time-sensitive topic
Step 3: Output
E-E-A-T Scorecard
| Signal | Score | Key Gap |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | /10 | |
| Expertise | /10 | |
| Authoritativeness | /10 | |
| Trustworthiness | /10 | |
| Total | /40 |
What's Working
Specific observations. "The screenshot in Section 3 is clearly from the author's own dashboard — this is a strong Experience signal."
What's Missing
Specific gaps with specific fixes:
- "No first-person observations in the first 500 words. Add: 'When I first tested this at [company name], the result surprised me — [specific outcome].'"
- "The claim about 42% improvement isn't sourced. Either cite the primary study or drop the number."
- "No author bio links to a LinkedIn or profile page. Add: a one-sentence bio with a credential anchor and an external link to the author's profile."
Fastest Wins
Three changes you could make in under 30 minutes that would lift the E-E-A-T score materially. Ordered by impact.
Structural Recommendations
Things that require more work but would fundamentally strengthen E-E-A-T: adding a methodology section, linking to related topical cluster pages, adding Author schema markup, creating an About page for the author.
What to Ignore
- Generic "add author bio" advice — it's table stakes, not E-E-A-T
- Schema without substance — marking up a page with Person schema when the content shows no experience is worse than no schema
- Gaming quality rater signals — the raters aren't fooled, and the algorithm isn't either
Next Step
To apply the fixes: use the improve-content skill with this URL, and paste the gap list as context.
Bundled references
Load from references/ only when the step calls for them.
Scoring and diagnosis:
ymyl-scoring-rubric.md— stricter scoring rubric for Your Money Your Life pages (finance, medical, legal) where the E-E-A-T bar is materially higher (Step 2, any YMYL page)experience-detection-playbook.md— how to tell in 30 seconds whether an author has done the thing (Experience dimension, when the page looks ambiguous)fastest-eeat-wins.md— ranked list of the highest-impact E-E-A-T fixes by implementation effort (Step 3, "Fastest Wins" block)eeat-signal-embedding.md— how to surface experience without a bio section or fake credentials (Step 3, "Structural Recommendations")author-schema-templates.md— copy-paste Person / Author / Organization JSON-LD for the schema fix (Step 3)
YMYL content-type templates (references/content-types/) — load when auditing one of these types for the type-specific E-E-A-T bar:
thought-leadership.md,product-reviews.md,pricing-pages.md,service-pages.md,case-studies.md,about-pages.md
Files (superseo-skills)
-
references
-
content-types
-
about-pages.md 4.2 KB
# Technique 39: About Pages ## What It Is Trust-building content that establishes who you are, your expertise, mission, and credibility. Critical for E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Captures "[brand] about", "[brand] team", and "who is behind [brand]" searches. One of the most visited pages on any website. ## When to Use Navigational/trust intent -- user wants to verify the legitimacy and expertise of the organization before doing business. Every website needs an about page. It is evaluated by Google's Quality Raters as a key E-E-A-T signal. ## Structure Template ``` H1: "Over [Brand]" or "About [Brand]" (e.g., "Over InhouseSEO -- SEO software voor ondernemers") H2: Mission / What we do 2-3 sentences: clear mission statement Who you serve and what problem you solve Not corporate jargon -- authentic and specific H2: Our story Brief founding story: why you started, what problem you saw Key milestones (keep it concise -- 3-5 key moments) Humanize: real people, real motivations H2: Our team H3: [Founder/CEO name] Photo, title, brief bio, relevant credentials Link to LinkedIn or personal site H3: [Key team member] Same format H3: [Key team member] H2: Our expertise / What makes us different 3-5 specific differentiators with evidence Certifications, partnerships, awards Years of experience, number of clients served H2: Our values 3-5 core values with brief explanations Authentic -- not generic corporate values H2: In the press / As seen in Media mentions, publications, speaking engagements Logos of publications or partners H2: Contact How to reach us Physical address (if applicable) Social media links ``` ## Word Count 500-1,500 words (authentic and concise -- overly long about pages feel like they're trying too hard) ## Schema Markup - **Primary:** Organization (name, url, logo, foundingDate, founders, sameAs) - **Secondary:** Person (for each team member with credentials) ## Featured Snippet Strategy - **Format:** Not a primary snippet target - **Target:** Knowledge panel -- Organization schema feeds Google's Knowledge Panel - **Tip:** Include founding date, founders, and headquarters in structured data ## CTA Placement - After mission section: "See what we can do for you" link to services - After team section: "Work with us" or careers link - End of page: contact CTA or consultation booking - Not aggressive -- the about page builds trust, not hard sells ## Internal Linking Strategy - Link to service pages (what we do in practice) - Link to case studies (proof of expertise) - Link to team member author pages (for blog E-E-A-T) - Link to careers page (if hiring) - Receive links from footer, main navigation, and author bylines across all content ## Key Success Factors 1. **Real photos:** Team photos, office photos, candid shots -- not stock photography 2. **Named people with credentials:** Google's Quality Raters specifically look for this 3. **Specific credentials:** "15 years in renewable energy" not "years of experience" 4. **Social proof:** Media mentions, partnerships, certifications, awards 5. **Linked profiles:** Team members linked to LinkedIn, publications, or speaking engagements 6. **Updated regularly:** Team changes, new milestones, and updated numbers ## Common Mistakes - Stock photos instead of real team photos (immediately damages trust) - No named people (anonymous companies are a Quality Rater red flag) - Generic corporate mission statements ("We strive to deliver excellence" -- meaningless) - Too long and self-congratulatory (nobody wants to read 3,000 words about how great you are) - No link to contact or service pages (dead-end page) - Not keeping it updated (shows a team member who left 2 years ago) - Missing Organization schema (loses Knowledge Panel opportunity) ## Example Topics by Niche - Energy: "Over Energievergelijker.nl -- onafhankelijk energieadvies sinds 2018" - Telecom: "Over Belsimpel -- het team achter de telecom vergelijker" - SaaS: "About InhouseSEO -- built by SEO professionals for business owners" - E-commerce: "Over onze webshop -- wie we zijn en waarom we dit doen" - Local services: "Over ons aannemersbedrijf -- 25 jaar vakmanschap in de Randstad" -
case-studies.md 5.1 KB
# Technique 38: Case Study Pages ## What It Is Evidence-based content showcasing a specific client result, project outcome, or success story. The most powerful E-E-A-T content type because it demonstrates real Experience and Expertise with verifiable results. Captures "[service] results", "[industry] case study", and "[problem] oplossing" searches. ## When to Use Commercial investigation intent -- user wants proof that your service or product delivers results before committing. Use when you have specific, measurable client outcomes you can share. Essential for high-consideration purchases (B2B, services, expensive products). ## Structure Template ``` H1: "[Client/Industry]: [Key Result in Numbers]" (e.g., "Energievergelijker.nl: 142% meer organisch verkeer in 6 maanden") H2: Overview / At a glance Client: [name or anonymized descriptor] Industry: [sector] Challenge: [1 sentence] Solution: [1 sentence] Results: [3-4 key metrics] Timeline: [duration] H2: The challenge What problem the client faced Context: company size, market, previous attempts Why it mattered (business impact of the problem) H2: Our approach / The solution H3: Phase 1: [Discovery/Analysis] What we did and why H3: Phase 2: [Implementation] Specific actions taken H3: Phase 3: [Optimization/Scaling] Refinements and scaling H2: The results Primary metric: headline number with context Secondary metrics: 3-5 supporting data points Visualizations: charts, before/after screenshots Timeline: how quickly results appeared H2: Key takeaways 3-5 lessons that apply to similar businesses Actionable insights for the reader H2: Client testimonial (if available) Direct quote from the client Name, title, company (with permission) H2: Want similar results? CTA to relevant service page or consultation ``` ## Word Count 1,500-2,500 words (detailed enough to be credible, focused enough to maintain interest) ## Schema Markup - **Primary:** Article (with author, datePublished, about) - **Secondary:** Organization (for the client, if named) ## Featured Snippet Strategy - **Format:** Paragraph snippet for "[industry] case study" queries - **Target:** The overview/at-a-glance section with the key result - **Tip:** Include the primary metric in the first 50 words of the page ## CTA Placement - After overview (above fold): "Want similar results? Contact us" - After results section: primary conversion CTA (strongest proof point) - End of page: consultation or service page CTA - Sidebar: related case studies in the same industry ## Internal Linking Strategy - Link to the service page for the service described in the case study - Link to related case studies in the same industry or service - Link to methodology or how-to content explaining the approach - Link to pillar page for the topic area - Receive links from service pages, about page, and industry-specific content ## Anti-AI Focus Case studies are nearly impossible to AI-generate convincingly without real data. Real names (with permission), real numbers, and real timelines are essential. The specificity of a genuine case study -- exact percentages, named tools used, specific challenges encountered mid-project, and direct client quotes -- is what makes it credible. Vague or rounded numbers, generic industry descriptions, and unnamed clients are telltale signs of fabricated content. Invest the time to document real outcomes with real details. ## Key Success Factors 1. **Lead with the number:** The headline result must be in the H1 and above the fold 2. **Specific, verifiable metrics:** "142% increase in organic traffic" not "significant improvement" 3. **Before and after:** Show the starting point and the end result with data 4. **Process transparency:** Explain what you actually did -- not just that you did "great work" 5. **Timeline included:** How long it took to achieve the results (sets realistic expectations) 6. **Client permission:** Named clients with testimonials are vastly more credible than anonymous ones 7. **Visual proof:** Charts, screenshots, before/after comparisons ## Common Mistakes - Vague results without specific numbers ("improved their rankings" means nothing) - No process description (readers cannot evaluate your expertise without knowing what you did) - Missing timeline (results without timeframe are meaningless) - No client quote or testimonial (misses the strongest trust signal) - Writing about yourself instead of the client's journey and results - Not linking to the relevant service page (missed conversion opportunity) - Only showcasing perfect outcomes (including challenges overcome builds more trust) ## Example Topics by Niche - Energy: "Zonnepanelen installateur: van 50 naar 200 leads per maand met lokale SEO" - Telecom: "Telecom provider: 89% minder churn door verbeterde klantenservice pagina's" - SaaS: "B2B SaaS: how we increased trial signups by 230% with content marketing" - E-commerce: "Webshop: 67% hogere conversie door productpagina optimalisatie" - Local services: "Aannemersbedrijf Rotterdam: van pagina 5 naar top 3 in Google Maps" -
pricing-pages.md 4.2 KB
# Technique 34: Pricing Pages ## What It Is Transactional/commercial content that clearly communicates pricing plans, tiers, and value propositions. Captures "[product] pricing", "[product] kosten", "[product] prijzen", and "[product] plans" searches. One of the most visited pages on any SaaS or service website. ## When to Use Transactional intent -- user is evaluating cost before committing. Use for any product or service with defined pricing. Critical for SaaS, agencies, and service businesses. Users who visit pricing pages are among the highest-intent visitors. ## Structure Template ``` H1: "Prijzen" or "[Product] Pricing" (e.g., "InhouseSEO prijzen: kies het plan dat bij je past") H2: Pricing tiers (above the fold) 3-4 pricing cards side by side Per card: plan name, price, billing period, key features, CTA Highlight recommended plan Toggle: monthly vs annual pricing H2: Feature comparison table Complete feature matrix across all plans Checkmarks, limits, or values per feature per plan Group features by category H2: Which plan is right for you? H3: [Plan 1] is best for... Target audience, use case, business size H3: [Plan 2] is best for... H3: [Plan 3] is best for... H2: What's included in every plan Features that all plans share (builds value perception) H2: FAQ "Can I switch plans?" "Is there a free trial?" "What happens when I exceed my limit?" "Are there setup fees?" "How does billing work?" H2: Money-back guarantee / Risk reversal Guarantee details, trial terms, cancellation policy H2: Still not sure? Contact sales CTA or demo booking ``` ## Word Count 500-1,500 words (pricing pages are primarily visual -- tables and cards carry more weight than paragraphs) ## Schema Markup - **Primary:** Product (for each plan/tier with name and description) - **Secondary:** Offer (price, priceCurrency, priceValidUntil for each tier) ## Featured Snippet Strategy - **Format:** Table snippet for "[product] pricing" queries - **Target:** The pricing tier cards or feature comparison table - **Tip:** Include structured pricing data that Google can extract for rich results ## CTA Placement - **Per pricing card:** "Start now", "Probeer gratis", or "Contact sales" - **Sticky:** Persistent plan selection on scroll - **After comparison table:** Reinforcement CTA - **After FAQ:** Final CTA with urgency or social proof ## Internal Linking Strategy - Link to feature detail pages for complex features mentioned in the table - Link to case studies showing ROI at each price tier - Link to FAQ page for detailed billing/payment questions - Link to comparison pages ("[Product] vs [Competitor] pricing") - Receive links from every page in the site (pricing is typically in main navigation) ## Key Success Factors 1. **Pricing visible without scrolling:** Never hide the price -- it is the #1 thing visitors want 2. **Highlight the recommended plan:** Visual emphasis on the most popular or best-value option 3. **Annual vs monthly toggle:** Show savings for annual commitment 4. **No hidden fees:** All costs disclosed upfront -- surprises at checkout kill conversions 5. **Social proof per tier:** "Most popular" badge, customer count, or testimonial per plan 6. **Feature comparison table:** Users need to see exactly what they get at each level ## Common Mistakes - Hiding pricing behind "contact sales" for all tiers (loses self-service buyers) - Too many plans (3-4 is optimal; 6+ causes decision paralysis) - No recommended/highlighted plan (users need guidance) - Missing the feature comparison table (forces users to click into each plan separately) - Unclear what is included vs what costs extra - No FAQ section (pricing pages generate the most pre-purchase questions) - Pricing not updated after changes (outdated prices destroy trust) ## Example Topics by Niche - Energy: "Energiecontract vergelijken: vaste en variabele tarieven uitgelegd" - Telecom: "KPN abonnementen: alle internet pakketten en prijzen op een rij" - SaaS: "InhouseSEO pricing: plans for freelancers, agencies, and enterprises" - E-commerce: "Shopify prijzen Nederland: welk abonnement past bij jouw webshop?" - Local services: "Schilder kosten: prijzen per m2 en per klus in 2026" -
product-reviews.md 5.7 KB
# Technique 29: Single Product / Service Reviews ## What It Is In-depth evaluation of a single product or service based on hands-on experience or thorough research. Captures "[product] review", "[product] ervaringen", and "[product] beoordeling" searches. Critical for E-E-A-T -- Google's review update specifically targets this content type. ## When to Use Commercial investigation intent -- user is considering a specific product and wants an honest evaluation before purchasing. Use when you have genuine experience with the product or can provide a thorough, evidence-based evaluation. ## Structure Template ``` H1: "[Product] Review [Year]: [Honest verdict in 5-8 words]" (e.g., "Eneco review 2026: betrouwbaar maar niet de goedkoopste") H2: Quick verdict Rating (if applicable) + 2-3 sentence summary "Best for [use case]" / "Skip if [situation]" H2: What is [Product]? Brief description for context (2-3 sentences) H2: Our experience with [Product] First-person account of using/testing the product Specific details: how long tested, what features used, real results H2: Pros 5-7 specific advantages with evidence Not generic -- tied to real experience H2: Cons 3-5 honest drawbacks with context "This matters if..." framing H2: Features breakdown H3: [Feature 1] What it does, how well it works, comparison to alternatives H3: [Feature 2] H3: [Feature 3-5] H2: Pricing and value Current pricing, plans, hidden costs Value assessment: "Is it worth the price?" H2: Who is [Product] best for? 3-4 specific user profiles with recommendations H2: Who should skip [Product]? 2-3 user profiles for whom this is not the right choice H2: [Product] vs alternatives Brief comparison to 2-3 main competitors Link to dedicated comparison articles H2: FAQ 4-6 pre-purchase questions H2: Final verdict Clear recommendation with nuance ``` ## Word Count 1,500-2,500 words (thorough but focused -- do not pad with generic information) ## Schema Markup - **Primary:** Review (with rating, author, itemReviewed) - **Secondary:** Product (with name, brand, offers) ## Featured Snippet Strategy - **Format:** Paragraph snippet for "[product] review" queries - **Target:** The quick verdict section - **Tip:** Include a clear rating or score that Google can extract ## CTA Placement - After quick verdict: "check current price" or "try free" link - After pros section: conversion CTA (highest positive sentiment point) - End of article: final CTA with recommendation - Inline in pricing section: pricing/signup link ## Internal Linking Strategy - Link to "[Product] vs [Competitor]" comparison articles - Link to "alternatives to [Product]" page - Link to "best [category]" roundup that includes this product - Link to buying guide for the category - Receive links from roundups, alternatives pages, and comparison articles ## Key Success Factors 1. **Demonstrate real experience:** Specific details, screenshots, personal results -- not rehashed specs 2. **Honest cons section:** Products without drawbacks are not trustworthy reviews 3. **"Best for" and "skip if" framing:** Helps readers self-select quickly 4. **Current pricing:** Outdated pricing destroys trust immediately 5. **Comparison context:** How does this product compare to what else is available? 6. **Update after changes:** Re-review when the product has major updates or pricing changes 7. **Author with credentials:** The reviewer should have demonstrated expertise in the category ## Common Mistakes - Reviewing a product you have never actually used (violates Google's review guidelines) - All pros, no cons (reads as sponsored content) - Rehashing the product's marketing copy as your review - No pricing or value analysis (price is the #1 purchase factor) - Missing the "who is this for" section (not everyone has the same needs) - Not updating after significant product changes - No comparison to alternatives (review exists in a vacuum) ## Anti-AI Focus Product reviews are the content type most scrutinized by Google's review updates. Demonstrating genuine experience is not optional -- it is the primary ranking factor. To ensure your reviews are unmistakably authentic: - **Include original photos and screenshots.** Show the product in your environment, your dashboard, your usage context. AI cannot produce authentic usage photos. - **Describe your specific use case and timeline.** "We used Eneco for our 3-bedroom apartment in Utrecht from September 2025 to March 2026" establishes verifiable context. - **Share real results with numbers.** "Our monthly energy bill averaged 127 euros, down from 145 euros with our previous provider" -- specific, personal data points are the strongest experience signal. - **Document the support experience.** Describe actual interactions with customer service: response times, resolution quality, and communication channels used. - **Note what changed over time.** "When we first signed up, the app was slow to load usage data. After their November update, this improved significantly." Only real users observe product evolution. - **Be specific about what disappointed you.** "The promised 'smart insights' feature turned out to be generic tips that did not account for our actual usage patterns" -- this kind of specific disappointment is nearly impossible to fabricate. ## Example Topics by Niche - Energy: "Eneco ervaringen 2026: eerlijke review van tarieven, service en app" - Telecom: "KPN glasvezel review 2026: snelheid, betrouwbaarheid en klantenservice" - SaaS: "Semrush review 2026: is it still the best SEO tool?" - E-commerce: "Shopify review 2026: de beste keuze voor je webshop?" - Local services: "Werkspot review 2026: ervaringen met vakmannen vinden via het platform" -
service-pages.md 4.7 KB
# Technique 36: Service Pages ## What It Is Commercial/transactional content describing a specific service offering, its benefits, process, and pricing. The core conversion page for service-based businesses. Captures "[service]", "[service] inhuren", "[service] in [location]", and "[service] kosten" searches. ## When to Use Commercial/transactional intent -- user is evaluating a specific service or ready to inquire. Every distinct service offering needs its own page. Do not combine multiple services on one page. ## Structure Template ``` H1: "[Service Name] -- [Key Benefit or Location]" (e.g., "SEO Advies voor MKB -- Meer organisch verkeer binnen 3 maanden") Hero section: H1 + 2-sentence value proposition Primary CTA: "Vraag een offerte aan" or "Plan een gesprek" Trust signals: years experience, number of clients, rating H2: What we do Clear description of the service (3-4 sentences) Key deliverables as bullet points H2: Who this is for 3-4 ideal client profiles "This service is for you if..." H2: How it works (process) H3: Step 1: [Phase name] What happens, what you deliver, timeline H3: Step 2: [Phase name] H3: Step 3: [Phase name] H3: Step 4: [Delivery/Results] H2: What you get (deliverables) Specific list of deliverables and outcomes Tangible where possible: "monthly report", "content calendar", "technical audit" H2: Results we've achieved 2-3 client results with specific numbers Link to full case studies H2: Pricing / Investment Starting prices or price ranges What affects the price Link to detailed pricing page if applicable H2: Why choose us 3-5 differentiators (specific, not generic) Credentials, certifications, experience H2: FAQ 5-7 service-specific questions Process, timeline, pricing, guarantees H2: Ready to get started? Final CTA with contact form or booking link ``` ## Word Count 1,200-2,000 words (thorough enough to answer all questions, concise enough to keep focus on conversion) ## Schema Markup - **Primary:** Service (name, description, provider, serviceType) - **Secondary:** LocalBusiness (if location-specific service) - **Tertiary:** FAQ (for the FAQ section) ## Featured Snippet Strategy - **Format:** List snippet for "what does [service] include" queries - **Target:** The deliverables section or the process steps - **Alternative:** Paragraph snippet for "[service] meaning/definition" queries ## CTA Placement - **Hero section:** Primary CTA above the fold - **After process:** "Ready to start?" CTA - **After results:** Social proof reinforcement CTA (strongest conversion point) - **Sticky:** Persistent CTA button or bar on scroll - **End of page:** Full contact form or booking widget ## Internal Linking Strategy - Link to case studies for proof of results - Link to related services (cross-sell opportunities) - Link to blog content that supports the service's value proposition - Link to pricing page for detailed pricing - Link to about page for company credibility - Receive links from homepage, navigation, blog content, and location pages ## Key Success Factors 1. **One service per page:** Do not combine SEO and SEA on one page -- separate pages rank better 2. **Clear process:** Users want to know exactly what happens after they contact you 3. **Specific results:** "37% more organic traffic in 4 months" not "we get you more traffic" 4. **Pricing transparency:** At minimum, provide starting prices or ranges -- hidden pricing loses leads 5. **Social proof with numbers:** Client results, years of experience, number of projects completed 6. **Strong above-the-fold CTA:** The inquiry form or booking button must be immediately visible 7. **FAQ addresses objections:** Use the FAQ to handle "is it worth it" and "how long does it take" questions ## Common Mistakes - Combining multiple services on one page (dilutes rankings and confuses visitors) - No pricing information at all (users leave to find a competitor who shows pricing) - Generic differentiators ("we care about quality" -- everyone says this) - No case studies or results (claims without evidence do not convince) - Missing the process section (users fear the unknown) - No clear CTA or the CTA is buried below the fold - Writing about what you do instead of what the client gets ## Example Topics by Niche - Energy: "Zonnepanelen installatie -- professionele montage met 10 jaar garantie" - Telecom: "Zakelijk internet aanvragen -- glasvezel voor bedrijven" - SaaS: "SEO audit service -- complete technische en content analyse van je website" - E-commerce: "Webshop laten bouwen -- van ontwerp tot lancering in 6 weken" - Local services: "Badkamer renovatie Amsterdam -- van ontwerp tot oplevering" -
thought-leadership.md 5.5 KB
# Technique 24: Opinion / Thought Leadership Articles ## What It Is Expert perspective content that shares a unique viewpoint, challenges conventional wisdom, or provides forward-looking analysis. Builds E-E-A-T through demonstrated expertise and original thinking. Earns links and brand authority. ## When to Use Informational intent -- user wants expert insight on a complex or debated topic. Use when you have genuine expertise, proprietary data, or a contrarian perspective. Not suitable for topics where the user just needs facts. ## Structure Template ``` H1: "[Strong opinion statement or provocative question]" (e.g., "Waarom de meeste energievergelijkers je geld kosten in plaats van besparen") H2: The conventional wisdom What most people believe or what the industry says Acknowledge the existing perspective fairly H2: Why this is wrong / incomplete / changing Your thesis with supporting evidence Data, case studies, or first-hand experience H2: [Supporting argument 1] H3: Evidence or example Specific data, anecdote, or case H2: [Supporting argument 2] H3: Evidence or example H2: [Supporting argument 3] H3: Evidence or example H2: What this means in practice Actionable implications for the reader "If I'm right, here's what you should do differently" H2: Counterarguments Acknowledge the strongest objections honestly Explain why your position still holds (or where you might be wrong) H2: Conclusion / Call to think differently Restate thesis Forward-looking statement ``` ## Word Count 1,200-2,500 words (substance over length -- every paragraph must earn its place) ## Schema Markup - **Primary:** Article (with author, datePublished) - **Secondary:** Person (detailed author schema with credentials and expertise) ## Featured Snippet Strategy - **Format:** Paragraph snippet (for the thesis statement) - **Target:** Not the primary goal -- thought leadership optimizes for engagement and links, not snippets - **Tip:** Strong opening paragraph that summarizes the argument can capture "why" and "should" queries ## CTA Placement - End of article: related content, newsletter, or author's other thought leadership pieces - Mid-article (after strongest argument): relevant tool or service that aligns with the thesis - Author bio section: consulting, speaking, or service CTA ## Internal Linking Strategy - Link to data/statistics pages that support your arguments - Link to case studies that provide evidence - Link to how-to content for the "what to do about it" section - Link to pillar page for topic context - Receive links from social shares, PR, and industry discussions ## Key Success Factors 1. **Have an actual opinion:** A point of view no one disagrees with is not thought leadership 2. **Support with evidence:** Opinions without data are just noise -- use numbers and examples 3. **Author credibility:** Named author with visible credentials and relevant experience 4. **Acknowledge counterarguments:** Addressing objections strengthens your position 5. **First-person experience:** Share what you have seen, done, or built -- this is the Experience in E-E-A-T 6. **Be specific:** "Most comparison sites use outdated data from 2024" not "some sites are inaccurate" 7. **Publish consistently:** One thought leadership piece does not build authority -- commit to a cadence ## Common Mistakes - Generic opinions that everyone agrees with ("quality matters" is not thought leadership) - No supporting evidence (pure opinion without data reads as a blog rant) - No author byline or credentials (anonymous thought leadership is an oxymoron) - Ignoring counterarguments (makes the piece feel one-sided and less trustworthy) - Too self-promotional (thought leadership that reads like a sales pitch loses credibility) - Inconsistent publishing (one piece per year does not build thought leadership) - Writing about topics outside your genuine expertise ## Anti-AI Focus Thought leadership is the content type most naturally resistant to AI generation, because AI is designed to be neutral and consensus-driven rather than opinionated. To maximize this advantage: - **Take a genuine stance and own it.** AI hedges by default ("it depends," "there are pros and cons"). A clear, defensible opinion with your name attached is the strongest anti-AI signal in content. - **Draw on specific, named experiences.** "When we migrated our client from X to Y in Q3 2025, we discovered..." is impossible for AI to fabricate convincingly. - **Include proprietary data or insider knowledge.** Numbers from your own business, patterns you have observed across clients, or insights from industry conversations that are not publicly documented. - **Engage with specific counterarguments.** AI avoids controversy. Naming the people, companies, or perspectives you disagree with and explaining why demonstrates real engagement with the discourse. - **Show your reasoning process.** Explain how you arrived at your position, including what changed your mind or what evidence would make you reconsider. This intellectual transparency is distinctly human. ## Example Topics by Niche - Energy: "Waarom de energietransitie in Nederland te langzaam gaat -- en wat we anders moeten doen" - Telecom: "De toekomst van glasvezel in Nederland: waarom 10 Gbps er eerder komt dan je denkt" - SaaS: "Why most SaaS companies should stop chasing enterprise and focus on SMB" - E-commerce: "De race naar de bodem: waarom de goedkoopste webshop niet wint in 2026" - Local services: "Waarom online reviews onbetrouwbaar zijn geworden -- en wat de alternatieven zijn"
-
-
author-schema-templates.md 6.4 KB
# Author Schema Templates Copy-paste JSON-LD templates for Person, Author, and Organization schemas. Use these as-is and fill in the placeholders. These are not advice. They're the actual blocks to drop into the `<head>` of a page. A note before the templates: schema without substance is worse than no schema. Marking a page with Person + Author + Organization when the content shows no experience is a flag, not a fix. The content has to support the claims the schema makes. Add the schema after you've audited Experience and Trust, not instead. ## Person schema The core entity. Describes the author as a real-world person with verifiable references. The `sameAs` array is the most important field. It's what lets Google's knowledge graph disambiguate this person from every other person with the same name. ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "Person", "@id": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe#person", "name": "Jane Doe", "url": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe", "image": "https://example.com/images/jane-doe.jpg", "jobTitle": "Senior Tax Advisor", "worksFor": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Example Tax Advisory", "url": "https://example.com" }, "alumniOf": { "@type": "EducationalOrganization", "name": "University of Amsterdam" }, "knowsAbout": [ "Dutch tax law", "International tax treaties", "Small business taxation" ], "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/in/janedoe", "https://twitter.com/janedoe", "https://github.com/janedoe", "https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q0000000" ] } ``` Fields to fill: `name`, `url`, `image`, `jobTitle`, `worksFor`, `alumniOf`, `knowsAbout` (the list of topics the author has demonstrated expertise in, kept narrow at 3 to 5 items), and the `sameAs` array. ## Author attached to an Article The Person block above goes in the `author` field of the article. You can either inline the Person or reference it by `@id` if you've already declared it on the same page or in a site-wide JSON-LD block. ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "Article", "headline": "How to File Dutch Taxes as a Freelancer", "datePublished": "2026-04-13", "dateModified": "2026-04-13", "author": { "@type": "Person", "@id": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe#person", "name": "Jane Doe", "url": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe", "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/in/janedoe", "https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000" ] }, "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://example.com#organization" } } ``` `datePublished` and `dateModified` are not optional on YMYL content. Google's Quality Rater Guidelines explicitly treat update freshness as a trust signal for time-sensitive topics. ## Organization schema for the publishing site Declare this once in a site-wide JSON-LD block. Other schemas on individual pages reference it by `@id`. ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://example.com#organization", "name": "Example Tax Advisory", "url": "https://example.com", "logo": "https://example.com/logo.png", "description": "Dutch tax advisory for freelancers and small businesses.", "foundingDate": "2018-01-01", "address": { "@type": "PostalAddress", "streetAddress": "Herengracht 1", "addressLocality": "Amsterdam", "postalCode": "1015BA", "addressCountry": "NL" }, "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/company/example-tax-advisory", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q0000001" ] } ``` ## Worked example: all three nested for a single article ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@graph": [ { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://example.com#organization", "name": "Example Tax Advisory", "url": "https://example.com", "logo": "https://example.com/logo.png", "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/company/example-tax-advisory" ] }, { "@type": "Person", "@id": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe#person", "name": "Jane Doe", "url": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe", "jobTitle": "Senior Tax Advisor", "worksFor": { "@id": "https://example.com#organization" }, "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/in/janedoe", "https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000" ] }, { "@type": "Article", "headline": "How to File Dutch Taxes as a Freelancer", "datePublished": "2026-04-13", "dateModified": "2026-04-13", "author": { "@id": "https://example.com/authors/jane-doe#person" }, "publisher": { "@id": "https://example.com#organization" } } ] } ``` Using `@graph` with `@id` references keeps the blocks clean and lets Google resolve Person to Organization to Article as a single connected entity graph. ## Why sameAs is the most important field The `sameAs` property on the Person entity is where you tell Google "this author is the same person as the LinkedIn profile at X, the ORCID at Y, the Wikidata entity at Z." Without it, the author is a name string in isolation. With it, the author is a node in the knowledge graph that Google can cross-reference against everything else it knows about that person. Priority order for `sameAs` entries: 1. **Wikidata** if the author has an entry. This is the strongest entity anchor Google has. 2. **LinkedIn** verifies employment history and credentials. 3. **ORCID** for academic and research authors, verifies publications. 4. **GitHub** for technical authors, verifies code contributions. 5. **Institutional profile page** for university faculty, government agencies, professional registries. 6. **Twitter / X** is the weakest of the commonly-used options but still a recognised profile endpoint. Include as many as you have real profiles for. Do not include profiles that don't exist or that don't actually belong to the author. Google cross-checks, and broken `sameAs` links are worse than no `sameAs` at all. ## Final warning Schema is not a substitute for the content being real. A page with beautifully nested Person + Author + Organization schema but no actual experience signals in the prose reads, to a careful rater and to the algorithm, as someone trying to game the system. Build the content first, audit for Experience and Trust, fix the gaps, and then add the schema on top of the fix. Schema is the last step, not the first. -
eeat-signal-embedding.md 7.7 KB
# Technique 04: EEAT Signal Embedding ## What It Is Systematically embedding Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness signals into content — not as claims ("we're experts") but as demonstrated proof through content structure, source attribution, and writing patterns. ## Why It Works Google's algorithm leak confirmed that EEAT is evaluated through proxy signals. Google cannot independently verify if content is accurate — it uses structural indicators that correlate with knowledgeable sources. Content that SHOWS expertise through depth, specificity, and honest nuance outranks content that merely CLAIMS expertise. The December 2025 Core Update specifically intensified EEAT evaluation, particularly the "Experience" component — first-hand involvement signals. ## The Four EEAT Components — What They Actually Mean ### Experience (Most underrated) - **What Google says**: Content created by someone with first-hand experience - **What it actually means**: Specific details only someone who DID the thing would know - **Signal strength**: Very high since the "first E" was added in December 2022 **Weak experience signals (don't work):** - "I have 15 years of experience in marketing" - "As an expert in this field..." - Author bio listing credentials **Strong experience signals (actually work):** - "When we ran this campaign for [Client], the Facebook CPC averaged €2.40 — until we changed the creative on day 7 and it dropped to €0.85" - "The first time I set this up, I forgot to configure the DNS TXT record and spent 3 hours debugging. Save yourself the trouble: do it first." - Mentioning specific tool versions, error messages, unexpected results - Describing what DIDN'T work before finding what did ### Expertise (Depth over breadth) - **What it actually means**: Content that demonstrates understanding of nuance, edge cases, and tradeoffs — not surface-level coverage of everything - **The expertise paradox**: Real experts narrow their scope. Beginners try to cover everything. Content that says "this works for B2B SaaS with >€5K ACV but NOT for consumer apps" demonstrates more expertise than content covering all business types generically. **Expertise signals:** - Discussing when advice DOESN'T apply - Explaining the "why" behind each recommendation - Acknowledging tradeoffs ("this increases conversion but may increase support tickets") - Using precise terminology correctly (not keyword-stuffing but natural domain language) - Addressing edge cases and exceptions ### Authoritativeness (Being cited, not claiming) - **What it actually means**: Other people and sites reference you as a source - **This is mostly a domain-level signal**, not a content-level one - Content can support it through: accurate citations of others (builds reciprocal authority), original research that others want to cite, named author with verifiable credentials ### Trustworthiness (Transparency and accuracy) - **What it actually means**: The content is verifiable, transparent about limitations, and doesn't mislead - Every statistic has a named source with date - Affiliate relationships or biases are disclosed - Claims are hedged when appropriate ("in our experience" vs "always") - Errors are corrected (dated correction notes build trust) ## Step-by-Step Process ### Step 1: Experience Signal Planning 1. Before writing, identify 3-5 experience markers to embed: - A specific project/client/implementation story - A mistake made and lesson learned - A specific tool, metric, or process detail - An unexpected result or counterintuitive finding - A comparison between expected and actual outcome 2. These CANNOT be generated by AI — they must come from the human author ### Step 2: Expertise Signal Architecture 3. Structure the article to demonstrate depth: - Cover the "advanced" angle, not the "intro" angle (unless intent is beginner) - Include "when NOT to do this" sections - Discuss tradeoffs explicitly - Address 2-3 edge cases or exceptions 4. Use precise domain terminology naturally (not forced) ### Step 3: Source Attribution (Trustworthiness) 5. Every factual claim must have a source: - Academic papers → Author, year, journal - Industry reports → Organization, year, specific finding - Statistics → Source name, year, methodology note - Expert opinions → Named person, credentials, context 6. Replace ALL instances of: - "Studies show..." → "[Organization]'s [year] study of [N] [subjects] found..." - "Experts agree..." → "[Named expert], [credentials], argues that..." - "Research suggests..." → "A [year] [journal] paper by [author] demonstrated..." ### Step 4: Author Authority Integration 7. Include author byline with specific credentials relevant to THIS topic 8. Link to author's other published work on the topic 9. Reference personal involvement: "In my role as [specific title] at [company], I..." 10. If applicable, reference speaking engagements, publications, or patents ### Step 5: Trust Signals 11. Date the content prominently 12. Note when information was last verified 13. Disclose any affiliations, sponsorships, or biases 14. Include a methodology section for any original research/data 15. Add a corrections section if updating previously published content ## Tips - **The "screenshot proof" technique**: Including actual screenshots of dashboards, results, or tools is one of the strongest experience signals. It's nearly impossible to fake and instantly demonstrates first-hand involvement. - **Date your screenshots**: Screenshots with visible dates prove recency and experience - **Name specific dollar amounts**: "$2,400/month" is more trustworthy than "thousands per month." Real practitioners know exact numbers. - **Cite yourself**: If you've written about this topic before, reference your own earlier work with what you've learned since. This creates a trail of genuine expertise. - **Use first-person sparingly but specifically**: Not "I think" for opinions, but "I tested" for experience and "I found" for results. ## Common Mistakes 1. **EEAT as a checklist**: Adding an author bio and citing 3 sources doesn't make content trustworthy. The EEAT signals must be woven through the content, not bolted on. 2. **Fake experience markers**: "Imagine you're building a website..." is not an experience signal. "When I built [specific site]..." is. AI defaults to hypotheticals; real EEAT uses specifics. 3. **Over-attributing to build trust**: Every sentence having a citation reads like an academic paper, not expert content. Cite where it matters; assert where you have authority. 4. **Confusing EEAT with keywords**: Adding "expert" and "authoritative" into your content doesn't improve EEAT. Demonstrating expertise through depth and specificity does. ## Research Evidence ### Kyle Roof's Testing-Based Position E-E-A-T elements will NOT help you rank, but they help you KEEP your rank once evaluated. Roof's controlled experiments (ranking a Lorem Ipsum page for "Rhinoplasty Plano") proved on-page keyword signals alone can achieve rankings. E-E-A-T is defensive, not offensive. **The priority:** Trust > Expertise > Experience > Authoritativeness. Kyle Roof: "Who cares about the E or the A -- it's all about the T. Trust." ### Cyrus Shepard's 50-Site Case Study (4,000+ Websites) Across 2023 Google updates: - **Winners:** Used first-person pronouns, demonstrated first-hand experience - **Losers:** Excessive ads (14.01 per page vs. 6.32 on winners), over-optimized anchor text - 17 on-page features showed statistically significant correlations with ranking gains/losses ### December 2025 Core Update Specifically intensified EEAT evaluation, particularly the "Experience" component -- first-hand involvement signals became stronger ranking factors. -
experience-detection-playbook.md 9.4 KB
# Experience Detection Playbook Experience is whether the author has DONE the thing, not whether they have credentials. It's the dimension most pages fail on, the one AI-generated content can't fake, and the hardest to evaluate because the signals are stylistic, not structural. This playbook is how to read for it. ## The 30-second test A careful reader can usually tell within 30 seconds of reading whether the author has done the thing. The reason isn't a single smoking-gun signal. It's an accumulation of small tells that are cheap to produce if you've done the work and expensive to fake if you haven't. Your job as an auditor is to notice the tells, count them, and trust the count. The tells cluster around three behaviours: 1. **Moment-by-moment narration** of a specific thing that happened. 2. **Details only the doer would notice**, such as numbers, versions, timestamps, error messages. 3. **Unexpected observations** that contradict the obvious or the official line. If you see all three in the first few paragraphs, the author has done it. If you see none, they haven't. The middle case, one or two signals, is where most content lives, and that's where the score sits at 4 to 6. Google's Quality Rater Guidelines added the "Experience" E in December 2022 precisely because this kind of evaluation, intuitive though it is, is hard to automate. The algorithm looks for proxies (first-person pronouns, specific entities, original images), but a human reviewer can read the stylistic fingerprint faster and more accurately. ## Strong signals: what hands-on experience looks like in writing ### First-person moment-by-moment narration "When I clicked X, the error message said Y, which I didn't expect because the docs say Z." This is the core. The author is reconstructing an actual sequence of events. The tense is past, the subject is "I," and the action is specific enough that another practitioner could recognise it. ### Specific numbers that would be invented if guessed "The form accepted 47 characters in the username field before hitting the limit." Nobody guesses 47. A writer summarising other sources says "there's a character limit" or "around 50 characters." The specific number is evidence that somebody actually typed 48 and saw it fail. Same principle applies to timestamps, durations, costs, and counts. "$2,438.17" beats "about $2,500." "Took us 19 days" beats "took about three weeks." Real practitioners know exact numbers because they were looking at them. ### Failure stories with mechanism "It didn't work because the API was rate-limiting me at 15 requests per hour, which I only discovered after tracing the 429 responses." The story isn't just "it broke." It's "it broke for *this specific reason* and here's how I figured that out." The mechanism is the proof. A writer who hasn't hit the failure can't reconstruct the mechanism convincingly. Corollary: the existence of any failure story at all is a strong signal. Writers who haven't done the work write as if everything went to plan, because they're narrating the plan, not the experience. ### Unexpected observations "Nobody warned me that X causes Y because Z, so I had to figure it out from a 2019 GitHub issue." The unexpected observation is the thing the documentation doesn't mention, the edge case that's not in the tutorial, the fact that surprised the author. This is almost impossible to fake because the writer would need to know both what the conventional account says *and* what the exception is, and then have a reason to surface the exception. ### Original photos, screenshots, and diagrams tied to specific moments Not stock imagery. Not generic illustrations. A photo of the actual thing the author worked with, in the actual setting, at the actual time. Screenshots are the strongest version of this: they're dated, timestamped, and context-specific. The signal is strongest when the screenshot matches a specific moment in the text ("here's the dashboard at day 7, before the fix"). ### Explicit preferences with reasoning "I always use X instead of Y, even though conventional wisdom says Y, because in my experience Z." The author has a view. They know the conventional wisdom exists and they disagree with it for a stated reason. Opinions without reasoning are weak; opinions with mechanism are Experience signals. ### References to specific product versions, software releases, or time periods "This was on macOS 14.3 with Xcode 15.2 in February 2026." Versions and dates are cheap to include if you've actually done the thing. You know what you were running. They're expensive to include if you haven't, because you'd have to look them up and hope they're consistent with your other claims. ## Weak signals: research-desk writing dressed as experience ### Third-person narration of other people's examples "Companies like Spotify have used this technique to..." This is summary. It's evidence the author read about Spotify, not that they did the thing. On its own it's fine (not every article is autobiographical), but if it's the *only* evidence offered as Experience, the score is 4 at best. ### Generic advice with no anchoring to a specific moment "It's important to test your forms before launch." True, vacuous, unanchored. No moment, no numbers, no failure, nothing that ties the advice to the author's own work. ### "Best practices" without attribution The phrase "best practices" is a warning sign. Best practices according to whom? Where are they written down? Who has tested them? If the answer is "everybody knows," the author is probably repeating common knowledge, not reporting experience. ### Stock photography that doesn't match the content A blog post about configuring a Kubernetes cluster illustrated with a smiling woman at a laptop is an Experience anti-signal. The stock photo is saying "we didn't have a real image to use." Which usually means they didn't have a real workflow to screenshot. ### "According to studies" without identifying which Same problem as stock photography but for research writing. Named studies with dates and authors are an Expertise signal. Unnamed studies are a Trust leak and a hint that the author didn't actually read the source. ### Credentials-dropping in place of concrete observations "As a 20-year veteran of the industry, I can tell you that..." The author is claiming authority rather than demonstrating it. This is the "I'm an expert" trap: real experts show, they don't tell. A 20-year veteran has 20 years of specific stories to draw on. If they're not drawing on them, the 20 years are either exaggerated or weren't spent doing what they imply. ### Vague timeframes "Recently," "nowadays," "in today's world," "lately" are all warning signs. Writers who have done the thing say "last March" or "in Q4 2025" or "as of the 14.3 release." Vague timeframes are what you write when you don't have a specific memory to anchor to. ## How to score Experience in 60 seconds 1. **Count first-person moment-narrations.** Each specific scene where the author describes what they did and what happened counts as one signal. 2. **Count specific numbers, versions, and dates** that would not be invented. Each counts as one signal. 3. **Count original visuals** clearly tied to the author's own work. Each counts as one signal. Then score: - **0 signals.** Score 1 to 3 (Absent). No evidence the author has done this. - **1 to 3 signals.** Score 4 to 6 (Weak). Some evidence, probably one or two real data points diluted by research-desk prose. - **4 or more signals.** Score 7 to 10 (Strong). Multiple independent tells, clustered. Score the top end if the page also has failure stories and unexpected observations. Don't over-count. Three sentences from the same story are one signal, not three. The question is how many independent proofs of experience the page contains. ## Special cases **Group authorship.** When a page is bylined to a team or has multiple authors, the Experience threshold is the same but the signals can come from any author. A "by the Engineering Team" page needs at least one author voice in the prose, or the Experience score is capped at 5 no matter how many names are on the byline. **Ghost-written content.** Experience doesn't care who typed the words. If the named author has genuinely done the work and dictated the specifics to a writer, the signals will still appear in the prose. If the named author hasn't done the work and the ghost-writer is inventing plausible-sounding details, the signals will read as off: numbers too round, stories too smooth, failures suspiciously educational. **Journalism and primary-source reporting.** A reporter interviewing sources isn't claiming Experience for themselves. They're surfacing the experience of others. Score Experience against the *subject's* experience as reported, not the writer's. The tells become "did the reporter get close enough to the subject to report specific details, or are they paraphrasing a press release?" **Commissioned case studies.** An agency writing a case study about a client's project can legitimately claim Experience if the agency did the work. Score it like a first-person account but verify the specifics are the agency's own, not borrowed from the client's marketing copy. ## Cross-reference `eeat-signal-embedding.md` covers the other side of this problem: how to CREATE experience signals when writing new content. This playbook is for detection. When the audit finds Experience gaps, point the user at the embedding reference for remediation techniques. -
fastest-eeat-wins.md 6.7 KB
# Fastest E-E-A-T Wins The highest-leverage, lowest-effort fixes to materially lift an E-E-A-T score. Every item below takes under 30 minutes and shifts at least one dimension by one point. Ordered by impact-per-minute. Use this list when the audit surfaces gaps and the user asks "what's the fastest fix?" Don't recommend structural rewrites when one of these will do the job. ## The 12 fastest wins ### 1. Add a first-person anecdote in the intro **Time:** 10 to 15 min. **Impact:** +2 Experience. Replace the generic "In this article we'll cover X" opener with a specific moment: "When I first tried X, I expected Y, but what actually happened was Z." The anecdote has to be specific enough that it couldn't have been guessed: a real number, a date, a tool version, an error message. Experience is the dimension most pages fail on, and the intro is where raters decide whether to keep reading. ### 2. Replace "according to studies" with a named primary source + year **Time:** 5 to 10 min per instance. **Impact:** +1 Expertise per fix. Every unsourced claim is a Trust hole. Rewrite "studies show that X" as "a 2024 paper in [journal] by [author] found X." Link to the primary source, not to a secondary blog post citing it. This is the single highest-leverage Trust and Expertise fix you can make on research-heavy content, and it scales. Do three instances and you've moved two dimensions. ### 3. Add a "last updated" date header **Time:** 2 min. **Impact:** +1 Trust. Add a visible "Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD" line under the byline. On time-sensitive content (pricing, compliance, product specs, YMYL), an undated page is automatically suspect. A dated page that's been updated recently is automatically more trustworthy. This is the cheapest Trust win there is. ### 4. Link the author bio to an external verifiable profile **Time:** 5 min. **Impact:** +1 Authoritativeness. Add a link from the author bio to LinkedIn, GitHub, ORCID, Google Scholar, or the professional registry for the credential (state bar, FINRA BrokerCheck, state medical board). The 2024 Google API leak surfaced an `authorReputationScore` on author entities. Google is actively trying to disambiguate authors across the open web, and you help it do that by pointing at profiles it can crawl. A bio with no external link is a dead-end entity. ### 5. Add a methodology section **Time:** 15 to 20 min. **Impact:** +2 Trust. Two paragraphs disclosing how the content was produced. On a review: "We tested X for Y weeks, on Z specific setup, tracking [metrics]." On research: "We pulled data from [source], filtered for [criteria], and calculated [method]." On a how-to: "These steps are from our own process across [N] implementations." Methodology is the difference between "this could be true" and "I can see why this is true." ### 6. Add affiliate or conflict-of-interest disclosure **Time:** 2 min. **Impact:** +1 Trust. If the page contains affiliate links, paid placements, or a relationship with the thing being reviewed, disclose it at the top, not in the footer. Google's Quality Rater Guidelines treat undisclosed commercial relationships as a Trust violation. Disclosed relationships are not penalised; hidden ones are. ### 7. Replace stock imagery with a screenshot from your own workflow **Time:** 5 to 10 min. **Impact:** +1 Experience. Stock photography is an anti-signal on experience-driven content. Swap one hero image for a screenshot from the author's own dashboard, terminal, tool, or physical workspace. Original visuals are one of the hardest signals to fake, which is precisely why they carry weight. ### 8. Add a specific failure story **Time:** 10 to 15 min. **Impact:** +2 Experience. One paragraph: "The first time I did X, it didn't work. The reason was [specific mechanism], and I only figured it out after [specific action]." Failure stories are the single strongest Experience signal because nobody who hasn't actually done the thing can invent a plausible failure mode. They also buy goodwill with readers, which reduces bounce rate and compounds on other signals. ### 9. Add 2-3 internal links to related content on the same domain **Time:** 5 min. **Impact:** +1 Authoritativeness. Link out to other pages on the same topic, ideally a pillar page plus one or two sibling posts. This builds the topical cluster signal at the page level. Authoritativeness is mostly a domain-level signal, but page-level internal linking is how the domain cluster gets assembled. ### 10. Add Author schema markup **Time:** 10 min. **Impact:** +1 Trust. Add a JSON-LD Person + Author block to the page, with `name`, `url`, and a `sameAs` array pointing at external profiles. See `author-schema-templates.md` for copy-paste templates. Schema doesn't substitute for substance, but on a page that already has substance, it makes the author entity legible to Google's knowledge graph. ### 11. Replace generic imagery with original data visualization **Time:** 20 to 30 min. **Impact:** +2 Experience and Expertise. One bar chart, one comparison table, or one annotated screenshot built from the author's own data. Original visualisations are nearly impossible to fake and they signal both hands-on engagement (Experience) and synthesis (Expertise). If the page already has numbers in the text, this is usually just a matter of putting them in a chart. ### 12. Add a "Who should NOT follow this advice" section **Time:** 10 min. **Impact:** +1 Expertise, +1 Trust. Three or four bullets on who this advice doesn't apply to, and why. This is the expertise paradox in action: real experts narrow their scope, beginners try to cover everyone. Acknowledging edge cases signals that the author understands the boundary of their own advice. It also hedges Trust risk on YMYL-adjacent content. ## Prioritisation If you have to pick a few fixes, let the current score dictate where to spend the time: - **Page scoring under 3 on any dimension.** Fix Experience first. Low-experience pages fail the 30-second test, which means nothing else matters. Wins 1, 7, 8, and 11 are all Experience fixes. - **Page scoring 4 to 6.** Fix Trust. These pages have some substance but are leaking credibility through unsourced claims, missing dates, and missing disclosures. Wins 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 are all Trust fixes. - **Page scoring 7 or higher.** Fix Authoritativeness. At the top of the rubric the remaining gaps are usually external: the author isn't linked, the topical cluster isn't assembled, the page is an island. Wins 4 and 9 target this. Don't fix Expertise with quick wins on a page where the underlying content isn't expert. Expertise is the one dimension that quick fixes can't really move. Either the author knows the thing or they don't, and no amount of formatting lipstick will hide that from a careful reader. -
ymyl-scoring-rubric.md 8.2 KB
# YMYL Scoring Rubric Elevated E-E-A-T standards for Your Money or Your Life content. Use this rubric instead of the main 40-point rubric when the topic can affect a reader's health, finances, safety, legal standing, or civic participation. ## Google's YMYL definition Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines define YMYL as topics that "could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society." The guidelines break this into three harm categories: - **YMYL Health or Safety.** Mental, physical, or emotional health, or any form of safety. - **YMYL Financial Security.** Anything that could damage a person's ability to support themselves or their family. - **YMYL Government, Civics & Society.** Public institutions, election and voting information, anything that shapes how groups of people are treated. If a topic fits any of those three, the rater is instructed to apply stricter E-E-A-T standards. This rubric encodes what "stricter" means in practice. ## What makes a topic YMYL If you're not sure, lean toward YMYL. False positives cost you nothing; false negatives publish harmful content under a standard rubric. The buckets that almost always trigger YMYL: - **Medical.** Health conditions, symptoms, medications, dosages, treatments, drug interactions, pregnancy, mental health, nutrition for a specific condition. - **Financial.** Investment advice, tax advice, credit scores, loans, mortgages, retirement planning, crypto, insurance, bankruptcy. - **Legal.** Contracts, family law, criminal defense, immigration, tenant rights, employment law, wills and estates. - **Safety-critical.** DIY electrical, gas appliances, chemicals, firearms, child safety (car seats, cribs, medication dosing), home structural work, food safety. - **Parenting.** Infant care, vaccination, developmental milestones, discipline methods. - **Civic and news.** Elections, voting procedures, government benefits, public-health guidance. - **E-commerce with material consequence.** Reviews where the purchase is non-trivial (a mattress, a car, a SaaS contract, a loan product). Note on e-commerce: a review of a $4 kitchen gadget isn't YMYL. A review of a $40,000 car, a $3,000/year SaaS contract, or a mortgage product is. The test is whether a bad decision materially hurts the reader. ## The YMYL adjustment Each E-E-A-T dimension gets a stricter interpretation when the topic is YMYL. The point weights shift, and the scoring anchors move. ### Experience (YMYL weighting: 10 pts, unchanged) On non-YMYL topics, a first-person story is usually enough. On YMYL, the story has to be backed by primary-source evidence of hands-on work, not just "I tried this once." A medical writer saying "I had this condition" is weak. A medical writer saying "I had this condition, here's the treatment protocol my endocrinologist put me on, here's the lab value I was tracking, here's what changed at month three" is strong. The rubric rewards evidence of *repeated* hands-on engagement: multiple cases, documented outcomes, a track record visible in the writing itself. ### Expertise (YMYL weighting: 12 pts, elevated from 10) This is the biggest shift. On non-YMYL topics, a smart generalist can write credibly about, say, pour-over coffee. On YMYL topics, the reader needs to know the author has externally verifiable credentials in the specific field: medical license, CFA, bar admission, licensed electrician. Lily Ray's public writing on YMYL has emphasized this point repeatedly: for financial or medical advice content, credentials should be substantiated and revealed, with content published under a byline including those credentials rather than anonymous. Verifiable means the reader can click through and confirm. A bio that says "Dr. Smith, MD" with no link and no institution is worse than no bio at all, because it's claiming authority without letting the reader check. ### Authoritativeness (YMYL weighting: 8 pts, unchanged) On YMYL the domain needs to have a defensible position in the vertical. A random blog publishing a tax guide scores low even if the post itself is accurate. A site that's been publishing tax content for years, has a topical cluster, and is cited by other sites in the space scores high. ### Trustworthiness (YMYL weighting: 10 pts, elevated from 8) Factual accuracy is non-negotiable on YMYL. A single factual error drops the Trust score below the "do not publish" threshold. Sources must be linked, not just named. Disclaimers are required where the content could be misread as professional advice ("this is not medical advice, consult your doctor"). Conflict-of-interest disclosure is required, and cannot be buried in a footer. ## The 40-point YMYL rubric ### Experience: 10 pts - **10.** Author narrates multiple hands-on cases with specific details (dates, values, outcomes, what went wrong). Includes primary-source artifacts: screenshots, photos, records, case notes with identifying info redacted. A reviewer can tell within 30 seconds the author has done this repeatedly. - **6.** One first-person story, reasonably specific, but no repeated evidence. The author has probably done the thing once. - **2.** No first-person engagement. Author writes as if summarizing other sources. No artifacts, no specific moments, no failure stories. ### Expertise: 12 pts (elevated) - **12.** Byline includes specific credentials relevant to the YMYL topic (MD for medical, CFP for financial, licensed attorney in the jurisdiction for legal). The credentials link externally to a verifiable profile (state medical board, FINRA BrokerCheck, state bar directory, ORCID, university faculty page). The content displays technical depth consistent with the credential: correct terminology, edge cases, acknowledgment of when advice doesn't apply. - **6.** Author is credentialed but the link isn't there, OR the link is there but the content reads like a generalist summary. Accurate but shallow. - **2.** No credentials visible, or credentials are in the wrong field (a marketing writer publishing medical advice). Content contains factual errors or outdated guidance. ### Authoritativeness: 8 pts - **8.** Site has a clear topical cluster in the YMYL vertical, with 20+ related pages, internal linking between them, and external citations from other sites in the space. The author is cited externally via speaking engagements, other publications, or professional listings. - **5.** Topical cluster exists but is thin. Some internal linking. Limited external validation. - **2.** Isolated post on a general-interest site. No cluster, no external citations, no topical focus. ### Trustworthiness: 10 pts (elevated) - **10.** Every factual claim has a linked primary source (peer-reviewed study, government agency, official guidance, named expert with credentials). Page has a visible last-updated date. Disclaimer present where appropriate. Conflict-of-interest disclosure is prominent if any exists. Methodology disclosed for original data. Correction log if the page has been updated after errors. - **6.** Most claims are sourced, but some are asserted without citation. Update date present. Disclaimer missing or buried. - **2.** Unsourced claims, factual errors, no disclaimers, undisclosed affiliate or sponsored relationships, no update date on time-sensitive content. ### Score thresholds - **35+.** YMYL-ready. Publish. - **30 to 34.** Needs Trust fixes. Add sources, link credentials, add disclaimer. Fix before publishing. - **25 to 29.** Needs major revision. Multiple dimensions are weak. Rework the piece before considering publication. - **Below 25.** Do not publish until rewritten. On YMYL, a low-scoring page can actively harm readers and will drag down site-level trust signals. ## Topic-cluster cross-reference Six of the YMYL-adjacent content types already have structural templates in `eeat-audit/references/content-types/`: - `product-reviews.md` for e-commerce YMYL reviews - `pricing-pages.md` for commercial intent with financial consequence - `service-pages.md` for professional services (legal, financial, medical) - `case-studies.md`, the strongest E-E-A-T content type for service YMYL - `about-pages.md` where credentials get substantiated - `thought-leadership.md` for authoritative long-form opinion in a YMYL vertical Use those templates for structure. Use this rubric for scoring.
-
-
SKILL.md 7.1 KB
--- name: eeat-audit description: Use when auditing a page for E-E-A-T signals. The agent reads the page and scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — then tells you exactly what to add to each dimension. --- # E-E-A-T Audit Scores a page on Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — the four signals Google's quality raters use to evaluate content. Tells you what's missing and how to add it. Real E-E-A-T is demonstrated, not declared. An author bio is table stakes. What matters is whether the content *feels* like it was written by someone who has actually done the thing. ## Input **URL of the page to audit**. If the fetch fails, ask the user to paste the content directly. ## Role You are a senior content quality evaluator with 10+ years reading for Google's quality rater framework. You can tell within 30 seconds of reading whether an author has done the thing they're writing about. ## Step 1: Read the Page Fetch and read the full rendered page. Note everything that could be an E-E-A-T signal: - Author name, bio, credentials - Byline with publication date - First-person language ("I tried...", "we found...", "when I was at...") - Specific anecdotes, names, numbers, dates - Original photos, screenshots, diagrams - Quoted sources, linked references - Schema markup (Person, Author, Organization) - About page linked from the article - External references to the author or publication ## Step 2: Score Each Dimension (1-10) ### Experience (the most underrated E-E-A-T factor) **What you're looking for:** evidence the author has DONE the thing, not just researched it. **Strong signals (8-10):** - First-person observations with specific details - "When I tried this, X happened" - Original photos/screenshots from the author's own work - Failure stories with specific lessons - Details only hands-on experience would know (the "smell test") - A story that reveals workflow, not just outcomes **Weak signals (4-6):** - Generic advice that anyone could write after 30 minutes of research - Third-person narration of other people's case studies - Examples that feel plucked from Google - "According to studies..." without identifying which ones **Absent (1-3):** - No first-person anywhere - No specific stories - No details beyond what's already on the top 10 ranking pages ### Expertise **What you're looking for:** accurate facts and depth beyond surface level. Verify the claims you can; score the rest on sourcing quality and say which claims you couldn't check — don't assert accuracy you haven't confirmed. **Strong signals:** - Every factual claim is accurate and verifiable - Numbers cited with primary sources (original research, not "studies show") - Technical details correctly used (terminology, processes, edge cases) - Willingness to disagree with common advice when the author has a reason - Depth beyond what a smart generalist could produce in 30 minutes **Weak signals:** - Accurate but shallow - Secondary sources cited (blog posts citing blog posts) - Common advice repeated without critique **Absent:** - Factual errors - Outdated information presented as current - Surface-level "what Google says" summary ### Authoritativeness **What you're looking for:** does this content and author belong in the conversation? **Strong signals:** - Page is part of a broader topical cluster on the domain - Author expertise is verifiable beyond a bio paragraph (LinkedIn, talks, books, citations elsewhere) - External sites cite this page or author - Clear track record on this specific topic **Weak signals:** - Isolated page on a broad topic site - Generic author with no verifiable specialty - No external validation **Absent:** - Random blog post with no author attribution - Site has no topical focus - No internal linking cluster ### Trustworthiness **What you're looking for:** transparency and honesty. **Strong signals:** - Transparent about limitations ("this didn't work when X") - Discloses conflicts of interest (affiliate links, paid placements) - Methodology explained - Willingness to recommend alternatives, even competitors - Factually accurate throughout - Recent publish/update date for time-sensitive topics **Weak signals:** - Feels like an advertorial but doesn't disclose - Hides limitations - Methodology unclear **Absent (1-3):** - Factual errors - Affiliate-driven content without disclosure - Misleading claims - Outdated information on a time-sensitive topic ## Step 3: Output ### E-E-A-T Scorecard | Signal | Score | Key Gap | |---|---|---| | Experience | /10 | | | Expertise | /10 | | | Authoritativeness | /10 | | | Trustworthiness | /10 | | | **Total** | **/40** | | ### What's Working Specific observations. "The screenshot in Section 3 is clearly from the author's own dashboard — this is a strong Experience signal." ### What's Missing Specific gaps with specific fixes: - "No first-person observations in the first 500 words. Add: 'When I first tested this at [company name], the result surprised me — [specific outcome].'" - "The claim about 42% improvement isn't sourced. Either cite the primary study or drop the number." - "No author bio links to a LinkedIn or profile page. Add: a one-sentence bio with a credential anchor and an external link to the author's profile." ### Fastest Wins Three changes you could make in under 30 minutes that would lift the E-E-A-T score materially. Ordered by impact. ### Structural Recommendations Things that require more work but would fundamentally strengthen E-E-A-T: adding a methodology section, linking to related topical cluster pages, adding Author schema markup, creating an About page for the author. ## What to Ignore - **Generic "add author bio" advice** — it's table stakes, not E-E-A-T - **Schema without substance** — marking up a page with Person schema when the content shows no experience is worse than no schema - **Gaming quality rater signals** — the raters aren't fooled, and the algorithm isn't either ## Next Step To apply the fixes: use the `improve-content` skill with this URL, and paste the gap list as context. ## Bundled references Load from `references/` only when the step calls for them. **Scoring and diagnosis:** - **`ymyl-scoring-rubric.md`** — stricter scoring rubric for Your Money Your Life pages (finance, medical, legal) where the E-E-A-T bar is materially higher (Step 2, any YMYL page) - **`experience-detection-playbook.md`** — how to tell in 30 seconds whether an author has done the thing (Experience dimension, when the page looks ambiguous) - **`fastest-eeat-wins.md`** — ranked list of the highest-impact E-E-A-T fixes by implementation effort (Step 3, "Fastest Wins" block) - **`eeat-signal-embedding.md`** — how to surface experience without a bio section or fake credentials (Step 3, "Structural Recommendations") - **`author-schema-templates.md`** — copy-paste Person / Author / Organization JSON-LD for the schema fix (Step 3) **YMYL content-type templates** (`references/content-types/`) — load when auditing one of these types for the type-specific E-E-A-T bar: - `thought-leadership.md`, `product-reviews.md`, `pricing-pages.md`, `service-pages.md`, `case-studies.md`, `about-pages.md`
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.