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 som