geo-content

# GEO Content Quality & E-E-A-T Assessment

Purpose

AI search platforms do not just find content — they evaluate whether content deserves to be cited. The primary framework for this evaluation is **E-E-A-T** (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), which per Google's December 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines update now applies to **ALL competitive queries**, not just YMYL (Your Money Your Life) topics. Content that scores high on E-E-A-T is dramatically more likely to be cited by AI platforms.

This skill evaluates content through two lenses:

1. **E-E-A-T signals** — does the content demonstrate real expertise and trust?

2. **AI citability** — is the content structured so AI platforms can extract and cite specific claims?

How to Use This Skill

1. Fetch the target page(s) — homepage, key blog posts, service/product pages

2. Evaluate E-E-A-T across the 4 dimensions (25% each)

3. Assess content quality metrics (structure, readability, depth)

4. Check for AI content quality signals

5. Evaluate topical authority across the site

6. Score and generate GEO-CONTENT-ANALYSIS.md

---

E-E-A-T Framework (100 points total)

Experience — 25 points

First-hand knowledge and direct involvement with the topic. AI platforms increasingly distinguish between content that reports on a topic and content from someone who has DONE it.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score |

|---|---|---|

| First-person accounts ("I tested...", "We implemented...") | 5 | 5 if present and specific, 3 if generic, 0 if absent |

| Original research or data not available elsewhere | 5 | 5 if original data, 3 if references original work, 0 if none |

| Case studies with specific results | 4 | 4 if detailed with numbers, 2 if general, 0 if none |

| Screenshots, photos, or evidence of direct use | 3 | 3 if authentic evidence, 1 if stock/generic, 0 if none |

| Specific examples from personal experience | 4 | 4 if specific and unique, 2 if somewhat specific, 0 if generic |

| Demonstrations of process (not just outcome) | 4 | 4 if step-by-step from experience, 2 if partial, 0 if none |

**What to flag as weak Experience:**

- Content that only summarizes what other sources say without adding new perspective

- Generic advice that could apply to any situation ("It depends on your needs")

- No mention of actual usage, testing, or direct involvement

- Hedging language that suggests lack of direct knowledge ("reportedly", "supposedly", "some say")

Expertise — 25 points

Demonstrated knowledge depth and professional competence in the subject matter.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score |

|---|---|---|

| Author credentials visible (bio, degrees, certifications) | 5 | 5 if full credentials, 3 if basic bio, 0 if no author |

| Technical depth appropriate to topic | 5 | 5 if thorough technical treatment, 3 if adequate, 0 if superficial |

| Methodology explanation (how conclusions were reached) | 4 | 4 if clear methodology, 2 if some explanation, 0 if none |

| Data-backed claims (statistics, research citations) | 4 | 4 if well-sourced, 2 if some data, 0 if unsupported claims |

| Industry-specific terminology used correctly | 3 | 3 if accurate specialized language, 1 if basic, 0 if errors |

| Author page with detailed professional background | 4 | 4 if dedicated author page, 2 if brief bio, 0 if none |

**What to flag as weak Expertise:**

- Claims without supporting evidence or sources

- Surface-level coverage of complex topics

- Misuse of technical terminology

- No visible author or author without relevant credentials

- Content that is broad and generic rather than deep and specific

Authoritativeness — 25 points

Recognition by others as a credible source on the topic.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score |

|---|---|---|

| Inbound citations from authoritative sources | 5 | 5 if cited by major sources, 3 if some citations, 0 if none |

| Author quoted or cited in press/media | 4 | 4 if me