Google frames this as a distinction between content created to help people and content created primarily to attract search traffic. The distinction is easier to apply than it sounds, because the two produce visibly different artefacts.
The self-assessment questions
Google publishes a list worth answering in writing:
- Does the content provide original information, reporting, research or analysis?
- Does it provide a substantial, complete description of the topic?
- Does it offer insight beyond the obvious?
- Would you cite it as a source?
- Would a reader feel they need to search again to get better information?
E-E-A-T
Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness are not ranking factors in themselves, they are the concepts human raters use to assess whether the ranking systems are working. Trust is the most important of the four, and the other three feed into it.
The “who, how, why” test
Who created this? How was it made (including whether AI was involved)? Why does it exist? A page that cannot answer all three clearly is usually the kind of page these systems are designed to demote.
Alien Road recommends: put a real author on the page, with credentials that can be checked. In competitive sectors, health, finance, law, we treat an unattributed article as unfinished work. It costs an hour to add a byline and a bio; it is the cheapest trust signal available and one of the few you fully control.