---
title: "E-E-A-T and author schema: what is actually verifiable"
url: https://surfil.com/blog/author-schema-eeat-what-is-verifiable
section: research
language: en
published: 2026-07-15T00:00:00.000Z
modified: 2026-07-15T00:00:00.000Z
author: Adam Hafez
topics: ["Content strategy"]
---

# E-E-A-T and author schema: what is actually verifiable

## The short answer

Google's documentation describes E-E-A-T as a concept its raters use to evaluate ranking systems, not a scored ranking input. The commonly cited "8% overall, 24% for YMYL" figure traces to a marketing blog showing no data or formula. A claim about author-schema pages and AI citation rates could not be traced to any named study.

## Key takeaways

- Google Search Liaison Danny Sullivan stated directly that E-E-A-T "is not a ranking factor," calling it a rater-guideline concept instead.
- The commonly cited "8% overall, 24% for YMYL" E-E-A-T weighting traces to DollarPocket, a marketing blog whose page shows no data or formula for how that figure was derived.
- A frequently repeated claim that unattributed pages are "40% less likely" to be cited by AI engines could not be traced to any named, checkable study.
- Google's Article structured data documentation lists the author property as recommended, not required, and ties it to display features, not ranking.
- Google explicitly states structured data does not guarantee that any feature consuming it will appear in search results.

SEO content repeats two kinds of statement about E-E-A-T and author schema markup: what Google itself
has published, and a much larger volume of specific-sounding percentages attributed to studies that
are rarely named or linked. Before citing either kind, we checked both against what a reader could
actually verify.

## Percentages that fail checks

One frequently repeated figure holds that E-E-A-T signals correlate with roughly 8% of ranking weight
across all queries, rising to about 24% for YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) queries, credited to a
"DollarPocket correlation study." DollarPocket is a real, reachable site publishing a page titled
[SEO Ranking Factors Study 2025](https://www.dollarpocket.com/seo-ranking-factors-study). It is not a
research organization: it is a personal finance and internet marketing blog. The page states the 8%
and 24% figures with a generic methodology section but no data or formula, and a note on the page
concedes its category weights exceed 100%. The byline is an "Editorial Team." Nothing on the page
allows a reader to check how those numbers were derived. We
are not using this figure, and any piece that cites it as a study should be read with that in mind.

A second claim, that pages without a named author are "40% less likely" to be cited by AI engines,
turns up constantly in AI-search-optimization content but does not trace to a specific, checkable
study. Coverage of how AI answer engines choose sources does discuss author attribution as one factor
among several - named authors, visible dates, and linked external sources are described as things
that plausibly help a claim get picked up - but none of that coverage produces this particular figure
or names a study behind it. We could not verify it, so it does not appear here as fact.

Neither of these findings proves the underlying idea is wrong. Named authorship and topical expertise
may well correlate with something Google's or an AI engine's systems reward. What can be said is that
these two specific numbers, as commonly repeated, are not traceable to a source that would survive
scrutiny.

## What Google itself actually says

Google's own position on E-E-A-T is more consistent, and more available to check directly, than the
secondary content built on top of it. Search Liaison Danny Sullivan addressed the point directly in
February 2024, [reported by Search Engine
Roundtable](https://www.seroundtable.com/google-eeat-factors-36879.html): "It's not a ranking factor.
It's not a thing that's going to factor into other factors." He was responding to a question about
whether hiring a credentialed expert to write content would itself improve rankings, and the answer
was that it would not, because expertise is not a value Google's systems score on its own.

**Google frames E-E-A-T as a tool for raters, not an input for ranking.** The [December 2022 Search
Central
announcement](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/12/google-raters-guidelines-e-e-a-t)
that added the second E, for experience, describes E-E-A-T as part of the guidelines Google's human
search quality raters use "to help evaluate the performance of our various search ranking systems,"
and states plainly that the guidelines "don't directly influence ranking." That is a specific,
important distinction: raters use E-E-A-T to judge whether Google's systems are behaving as intended,
which is a different mechanism than a page's content being scored against an E-E-A-T value at query
time.

**"Seek to reward" is looser than "a scored input."** Google's [helpful content
documentation](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content)
says that aligning with E-E-A-T generally is aligning with "what our core ranking systems seek to
reward," and the December 2022 announcement ties the guidelines to "the different signals that our
automated systems use to rank content." That phrasing avoids both extremes: it is not "E-E-A-T does
nothing," and it is not "E-E-A-T is a ranking factor with a number attached."

## What Google says about author

Google's [Article structured data
documentation](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/article) states
that Article markup, which covers Article, NewsArticle and BlogPosting types, has no required
properties at all - only recommended ones, and author is one of several recommended fields alongside
headline, image, and date properties.

**The stated purpose is display, not ranking.** The documentation says this markup can help Google
"understand more about the web page and show better title text, images, and date information for the
article in search results." Nowhere does it say author markup, or Article markup generally, moves a
page's position in results.

**Google explicitly disclaims a ranking guarantee.** The same documentation states outright that
Google "does not guarantee that features that consume structured data will show up in search
results." That single sentence covers author markup along with every other recommended property on
the page: adding it makes a page eligible for certain display treatments, not entitled to them, and
says nothing about ranking position either way.

## Why we care

Publishers can verify two things independently, and should treat them differently. First: Google's
own statements, quoted above, are checkable and consistent - E-E-A-T is a rater-guideline concept the
company has repeatedly said is not a scored ranking factor, and author schema markup is documented as
a display aid with an explicit no-guarantee disclaimer, not a ranking lever. Second: the specific
percentages circulating around both topics - an 8% or 24% E-E-A-T weight, a 40% AI-citation penalty
for missing bylines - are marketing content dressed as research, and neither traces to a source worth
citing. The practical guidance that survives this is unglamorous: publish real author bios with
verifiable credentials because that is good practice and matches what Google's raters are told to
look for, add Article and Person schema because it is free and may earn display features, and do not
repeat a specific percentage about either one unless you can find - and link to - the study yourself.

## Common questions

### Is E-E-A-T a Google ranking factor?

Google says no. Search Liaison Danny Sullivan stated directly that E-E-A-T "is not a ranking factor" and "not a thing that's going to factor into other factors." Google's helpful content documentation says its core ranking systems "seek to reward" content aligned with E-E-A-T, while its raters use the concept to evaluate those systems, not to score pages directly.

### Does adding author schema markup improve rankings?

Google's Article structured data documentation does not make that claim. It lists author as a recommended, not required, property, and ties its purpose to display features such as better title text and date information in search results. The same documentation states structured data does not guarantee that any feature consuming it will actually appear in results.

### Where does the "8% overall, 24% for YMYL" E-E-A-T figure come from?

It traces to DollarPocket, a personal finance and internet marketing blog publishing under an "Editorial Team" byline, with no data or formula showing how those percentages were derived. That does not meet a bar for citation, so this piece does not use the figure.

## Sources

1. [Our latest update to the quality rater guidelines: E-A-T gets an extra E for Experience](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/12/google-raters-guidelines-e-e-a-t) - Google Search Central (primary)
2. [Article (Article, NewsArticle, BlogPosting) structured data](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/article) - Google Search Central (primary)
3. [Google Says EEAT Is Not A Ranking Factor Nor A Thing That Factors Into Other Factors](https://www.seroundtable.com/google-eeat-factors-36879.html) - Search Engine Roundtable
4. [SEO Ranking Factors Study 2025: Analysis of 10M Search Results](https://www.dollarpocket.com/seo-ranking-factors-study) - DollarPocket
5. [Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content) - Google Search Central