Evidence and accountability
Free E-E-A-T checker
Find authorship, publisher, source and date cues on a public page. Use the checklist to decide what needs a closer trust review.
Use the E-E-A-T checker
Your input
No account required. Fair-use limits apply. This check analyses the input you provide.
Check the details. Then check the answers.
See when AI names your brand and which pages it cites in a free visibility report.
Get your free reportGather evidence for a trust review
Start with a published page
Enter the public article or page whose authorship, publisher and sources you want to review.
Find the supporting cues
The check looks for author metadata, publisher and contact links, external references and date information in its HTML.
Verify the evidence yourself
Review the named authors, linked sources and dates. Use missing cues to decide what would help a reader assess the page.
These cues guide a manual review. They do not verify credentials, factual accuracy or an E-E-A-T score.
Who stands behind the content?
Find authorship, publisher and source cues in the page.
A reader should be able to find who wrote the page, who publishes it and what supports its important claims. This checker gathers the authorship, publisher, reference and date cues available in the page’s HTML.
Use the checklist to choose what to investigate next: an author’s relevant experience, the publisher’s editorial process or the evidence behind a claim. The result organizes that review; it does not certify expertise or factual accuracy.
A practical workflow
How to use the E-E-A-T checker
Choose a page where trust matters
Use an article, guide or product page with substantive claims. Enter its complete public URL rather than a general homepage by default.
Separate present from credible
Read the observed cues, then open author, publisher and reference pages. Record what you verified rather than treating a green check as proof.
Improve the evidence itself
Correct unclear authorship, explain the editorial process and replace weak references. Make accurate dates reflect meaningful content changes.
Trust claims need something a reader can inspect
Follow three parts of a trust review: who wrote the page, what supports its claims and who publishes it.
An author with relevant, stated experience
Compare the detected author information with the visible byline, then open the author page to investigate relevant experience.
What E-E-A-T means here
A useful checklist cannot replace judgment.
Google describes experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness as qualities considered through a mixture of signals. Its guidance does not present E-E-A-T as one specific ranking factor. This page therefore avoids a percentage that would imply the software measured those qualities.
The practical question is whether readers can understand who made the content and why they should trust it. Evidence of hands-on work, relevant qualifications or a transparent method may matter. The checker cannot establish those facts from the presence of HTML properties alone.
A review specimen
Follow the claim back to the person and evidence.
Connect authorship, publisher information and source links to the questions a reader needs answered.
Make responsibility for the content clear.
Compare the detected author information with the visible byline. Open the author page and look for experience relevant to the advice.
- Metadata<meta name="author" content="Alex Morgan">
- Visible bylineWritten by Alex Morgan
- Manual questionWhat relevant experience does this person show?
Keep the byline and author information consistent.
Look beyond the detected cues
Fresh dates and many links can still mislead.
A date in article metadata or JSON-LD is an observable declaration. It does not prove that someone reviewed the content recently. Check whether the substance changed and whether time-sensitive statements remain correct before updating the displayed date.
Similarly, an external link count says nothing about the quality of each destination. Prioritize references that support nearby claims, are understandable to the reader and preserve the limitations of the original evidence. The tool does not open those destinations.
SEO analyzer & auditor
Inspect titles, headings, metadata, image alt attributes and indexing directives.
GEO audit
Review answer structure, source cues and publisher context in a public page’s HTML.
AI landing page analyzer
Check a landing page’s heading, audience cues and action links in its HTML.
Further reading
Questions, answered
E-E-A-T checker: your questions answered
A closer look at the inputs, method and next steps.
Will I receive an E-E-A-T score?
No. The result is a checklist of observable cues. A page-level number would imply that the tool can measure experience, expertise, authority and trustworthiness, which it cannot.
Does a detected author prove expertise?
No. Author metadata or a JSON-LD property only indicates that authorship information was supplied. Identity, qualifications, first-hand experience and relevant work need separate verification.
Why is authorship missing when I can see a byline?
The authorship check looks for an author meta tag or JSON-LD author property. A visible prose byline can exist without either, so compare the finding with the page before changing it.
Does the checker verify references?
No. It observes outbound-link cues in the supplied page’s HTML. It does not fetch the cited documents, judge their reputation or confirm that they support the surrounding claims.
Can a page pass and still be unreliable?
Yes. A page can contain all the detected elements and still make unsupported claims. Treat the report as a guide to investigation, not a certification of reliability.
Does it inspect the whole website?
No. A run examines one public HTML page. Publisher and policy links are cues from that page; site-wide reputation, off-site reviews and other pages are outside its scope.
What should I fix first?
Start with material claims readers must rely on. Clarify responsibility, verify evidence and correct misleading information before adding metadata merely to satisfy a checklist.
Navigate the AI landscape. Place your brand on the map.
See when AI names your brand, which competitors appear, and the pages those answers cite. Turn what you find into a practical next step.
Five AI engines. No card required.