Unit outcome: Specify content that has a reason to exist and make experience, expertise, authority, and trust visible without reducing E-E-A-T to a checklist score.
Specify content that has a reason to exist and make experience, expertise, authority, and trust visible without reducing E-E-A-T to a checklist score. Work through the four lessons, apply each exercise to a real, approved, personal, or sandbox site, and retain the result in your continuing portfolio.
Recommended prerequisite: access to a real, client-approved, personal, or sandbox website. Units 1–3 require no prior SEO experience.
Progress is self-reported. Mark a lesson complete only when you are satisfied with the applied work—not because you reached the bottom of the page.
Want completion marks to survive navigation? Save progress in this browser. Without opt-in, progress lasts only on the current page.
Lesson 4.1Not started
Purpose and Information Gain
Original evidence, point of view, first-hand experience, tools, examples, media, and decision utility.
Open on YouTube. Interfaces, platform policies, and product details may have changed; learn the durable principle rather than memorizing buttons.
Learn
The working idea
Original evidence, point of view, first-hand experience, tools, examples, media, and decision utility.
Translate this principle into an observable decision: identify the audience task, the evidence available, the business consequence, and the verification method. Keep facts, assumptions, and recommendations separate.
Do the work
Exercise
Review five competing pages. Create a “sameness ledger” and identify three additions your page can uniquely provide.
Acceptance check: your output should name its source evidence, assumptions, intended user or business outcome, and how the conclusion could be verified.
Quick check
Compare your reasoning
1. Is rewriting the same SERP consensus a strong differentiator?
Compare with guidance
No; it may satisfy baseline coverage but gives little reason to prefer the page.
2. Name two forms of original value.
Compare with guidance
Original data, first-hand tests, expert interviews, a useful tool, proprietary examples, or clearer decision criteria.
Portfolio handoff
File the evidence
Save the exercise output in your own course workbook or project folder. This site does not upload or retain your work.
Lesson 4.2Not started
E-E-A-T as a Quality and Trust Framework
Experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trust, YMYL sensitivity, and reputation.
Assignment note: E-A-T in Google Search, Google Discover, and Beyond — Duda with Lily Ray; instructor must explain the later addition of Experience.
Open on YouTube. Interfaces, platform policies, and product details may have changed; learn the durable principle rather than memorizing buttons.
Learn
The working idea
Experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trust, YMYL sensitivity, and reputation.
Translate this principle into an observable decision: identify the audience task, the evidence available, the business consequence, and the verification method. Keep facts, assumptions, and recommendations separate.
Do the work
Exercise
Audit one page for first-hand evidence, expert review, author transparency, sourcing, policies, contact information, corrections, and reputational corroboration.
Acceptance check: your output should name its source evidence, assumptions, intended user or business outcome, and how the conclusion could be verified.
Quick check
Compare your reasoning
1. Is E-E-A-T a single public score?
Compare with guidance
No. It is a quality framework reflected in many observable signals and evaluation concepts.
2. Which element is often most important when claims could cause harm?
Compare with guidance
Trust, supported by accuracy, transparency, expertise, and safe processes.
Portfolio handoff
File the evidence
Save the exercise output in your own course workbook or project folder. This site does not upload or retain your work.
Lesson 4.3Not started
Authors, Entities, and Corroboration
Expert review, byline integrity, entity consistency, digital footprints, and third-party corroboration.
Open on YouTube. Interfaces, platform policies, and product details may have changed; learn the durable principle rather than memorizing buttons.
Learn
The working idea
Expert review, byline integrity, entity consistency, digital footprints, and third-party corroboration.
Translate this principle into an observable decision: identify the audience task, the evidence available, the business consequence, and the verification method. Keep facts, assumptions, and recommendations separate.
Do the work
Exercise
Create an author/reviewer evidence plan: qualifications, relevant experience, review responsibilities, source policy, profile consistency, and claims the person is actually qualified to make.
Acceptance check: your output should name its source evidence, assumptions, intended user or business outcome, and how the conclusion could be verified.
Quick check
Compare your reasoning
1. Why is adding a fake expert byline harmful?
Compare with guidance
It is deceptive, undermines trust, and can create legal or reputational risk.
2. Does an author schema property prove expertise?
Compare with guidance
No; markup identifies an entity but does not create real credentials or reputation.
Portfolio handoff
File the evidence
Save the exercise output in your own course workbook or project folder. This site does not upload or retain your work.
Translate this principle into an observable decision: identify the audience task, the evidence available, the business consequence, and the verification method. Keep facts, assumptions, and recommendations separate.
Do the work
Exercise
Write a brief with a one-sentence purpose test: “This page exists to help [audience] decide/do [task] using [unique evidence].” Add claims requiring verification and topics deliberately excluded.
Acceptance check: your output should name its source evidence, assumptions, intended user or business outcome, and how the conclusion could be verified.
Quick check
Compare your reasoning
1. Why can an over-prescriptive brief create generic content?
Compare with guidance
It can force the writer to copy competitor structure and terms rather than solve the user’s task.
2. What belongs in an evidence requirement?
Compare with guidance
Claim, required source type, recency, and whether first-hand validation is needed.
Portfolio handoff
File the evidence
Save the exercise output in your own course workbook or project folder. This site does not upload or retain your work.
Unit 4 exam
Apply it without pretending the browser is your professor.
Status: Not attempted
Knowledge prompts
Define information gain as a content lens; distinguish experience from expertise; explain why E-E-A-T is not a single score; identify two trust controls.
Practical assignment
Submit a content brief, competitor sameness ledger, evidence plan, author/reviewer plan, and one original asset specification.
A passing submission identifies what the page uniquely contributes and how important claims will be substantiated. Cosmetic author boxes alone do not pass.
This site does not calculate a grade. Use the rubric honestly or ask a qualified reviewer to evaluate the work.