Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment for AI citability — evaluate experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and content structure

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 media mentions, 2 if industry mentions, 0 if none Industry awards or recognition mentioned 3 3 if relevant awards, 1 if tangential, 0 if none Speaker credentials (conferences, events) 3 3 if listed, 0 if none Published in peer reviewed or respected outlets 4 4 if tier 1 publications, 2 if industry outlets, 0 if none Comprehensive topic coverage (topical authority) 3 3 if site covers topic thoroughly, 1 if some coverage, 0 if isolated Brand mentioned on Wikipedia or authoritative references 3 3 if Wikipedia, 2 if other encyclopedic refs, 0 if none What to flag as weak Authoritativeness: Single topic site with no depth of coverage No external validation of expertise claims No backlinks from authoritative sources Claims of authority without evidence (self proclaimed "expert") Trustworthiness — 25 points Signals that the content and its publisher are reliable and transparent. Signals to evaluate: Signal Points How to Score Contact information visible (address, phone, email) 4 4 if full contact info, 2 if email only, 0 if none Privacy policy present and linked 2 2 if present, 0 if absent Terms of service present 1 1 if present, 0 if absent HTTPS with valid certificate 2 2 if valid HTTPS, 0 if not Editorial standards or corrections policy 3 3 if documented, 1 if implicit, 0 if none Transparent about business model and conflicts 3 3 if clear disclosures, 1 if some, 0 if none Reviews and testimonials from real customers 3 3 if verified reviews, 1 if testimonials, 0 if none Accurate claims (no misinformation detected) 4 4 if all claims accurate, 2 if mostly accurate, 0 if errors found Clear affiliate/sponsorship disclosures 3 3 if properly disclosed, 0 if undisclosed or absent What to flag as weak Trustworthiness: No contact information or physical address Missing privacy policy or terms Undisclosed affiliate links or sponsored content Claims that are verifiably false or misleading No way to contact the publisher for corrections Content Quality Metrics Word Count Benchmarks These are floors, not targets . More words does not mean better content. The benchmark is the minimum length to adequately cover a topic for AI citability. Page Type Minimum Words Ideal Range Notes Homepage 500 500 1,500 Clear value proposition, not a wall of text Blog post 1,500 1,500 3,000 Thorough but focused Pillar content / Ultimate guide 2,000 2,500 5,000 Comprehensive topic coverage Product page 300 500 1,500 Descriptions, specs, use cases Service page 500 800 2,000 What, how, why, for whom About page 300 500 1,000 Company/person story and credentials FAQ page 500 1,000 2,500 Thorough answers, not one liners Readability Assessment Target Flesch Reading Ease : 60 70 (8th 9th grade level) This is NOT a direct ranking factor but affects citability — AI platforms prefer content that is clear and unambiguous Overly academic writing (score < 30) reduces citability for general queries Overly simple writing (score 80) may lack the depth needed for expertise signals How to estimate without a tool: Average sentence length: 15 20 words is ideal Average paragraph length: 2 4 sentences Presence of jargon: should be defined when first used Passive voice: < 15% of sentences Paragraph Structure for AI Parsing AI platforms extract content at the paragraph level. Each paragraph should be a self contained unit of meaning. Optimal paragraph structure: 2 4 sentences per paragraph (1 sentence paragraphs are weak; 5+ sentences are hard to extract) One idea per paragraph — do not mix topics within a paragraph Lead with the key claim — first sentence should contain the main point Support with evidence — remaining sentences provide data, examples, or context Quotable standalone — each paragraph should make sense if extracted in isolation Heading Structure One H1 per page — the primary topic/title H2 for major sections — should represent distinct subtopics H3 for subsections — nested under relevant H2 No skipped levels — do not go from H1 to H3 without an H2 Descriptive headings — "How to Optimize for AI Search" not "Section 2" Question based headings where appropriate — these map directly to AI queries Internal Linking Every content page should link to 3 5 related pages on the same site Links should use descriptive anchor text (not "click here") Create a topic cluster structure: pillar page linked to/from all related subtopic pages Orphan pages (no internal links pointing to them) are rarely cited by AI AI Content Assessment AI Generated Content Policy AI generated content is acceptable per Google's guidance (March 2024 clarification) as long as it demonstrates genuine E E A T signals and has human oversight. The concern is not HOW content is created but WHETHER it provides value. Signs of Low Quality AI Content (flag these) Signal Description Generic phrasing "In today's fast paced world...", "It's important to note that...", "At the end of the day..." No original insight Content that only rephrases widely available information Lack of first hand experience No personal anecdotes, case studies, or specific examples Perfect but empty structure Well formatted headings with shallow content beneath them No specific examples Uses abstract explanations without concrete instances Repetitive conclusions Each section ends with a variation of the same point Hedging overload "Generally speaking", "In most cases", "It depends on various factors" without specifying which factors Missing human voice No opinions, preferences, or professional judgment expressed Filler content Paragraphs that could be deleted without losing information No data or sources Claims presented as facts without attribution or evidence High Quality Content Signals (regardless of production method) Signal Description Original data Surveys, experiments, benchmarks, proprietary analysis Specific examples Named products, companies, dates, numbers Contrarian or nuanced views Disagreement with conventional wisdom, backed by reasoning First person experience "When I tested this..." or "Our team found..." Updated information References to recent events, current data Expert opinion Clear professional judgment, not just facts Practical recommendations Specific, actionable advice, not vague guidance Trade offs acknowledged "This approach works well for X but not for Y because..." Content Freshness Assessment Publication Dates Check for visible datePublished and dateModified in both the content and structured data Content without dates is treated as less trustworthy by AI platforms Dates should be specific (January 15, 2026) not vague ("recently") Freshness Scoring Criterion Score Updated within 3 months Excellent — current and relevant Updated within 6 months Good — still reasonably current Updated within 12 months Acceptable — may need refresh Updated 12 24 months ago Warning — review for accuracy No date or 24+ months old Critical — AI platforms may deprioritize Evergreen Indicators Some content remains relevant regardless of age. Flag content as evergreen if: It covers fundamental concepts that do not change (physics, basic math, legal definitions) It is clearly labeled as a reference/guide for lasting concepts It does not contain time dependent claims ("the latest", "currently", "in 2024") Topical Authority Assessment What It Is Topical authority measures whether a site comprehensively covers a topic rather than touching on it superficially. AI platforms prefer citing sites that are recognized authorities on their topics. How to Assess 1. Content breadth : Does the s

geo-content