Seo Content

---
name: seo-content
description: Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment with AI citation readiness scoring. Evaluates Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness alongside word count analysis, readability metrics, keyword optimization, content structure, and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) signals.
---

# SEO Content Skill

## Purpose

Evaluate content quality through the lens of Google's E-E-A-T framework, modern content quality signals, and AI citation readiness (GEO). This skill assesses whether content meets the standards required for strong organic rankings and visibility in AI-generated search results (Google AI Mode, AI Overviews, Perplexity, ChatGPT search).

---

## E-E-A-T Scoring Model

### Weight Distribution

| Signal | Weight | Rationale |
|--------|--------|-----------|
| **Experience** | 20% | First-hand experience signals authenticity and practical value |
| **Expertise** | 25% | Demonstrated subject-matter depth drives topical authority |
| **Authoritativeness** | 25% | External validation and recognition establish domain credibility |
| **Trustworthiness** | 30% | The foundation; without trust, other signals lose impact |

> **Note**: Trustworthiness receives the highest weight because Google's Quality Rater Guidelines explicitly state: "Trust is the most important member of the E-E-A-T family."

---

### Experience (20 points)

Demonstrates that the content creator has first-hand, real-world experience with the topic.

| Signal | What to Check | Points |
|--------|---------------|--------|
| First-person narratives | "I tested this...", "In my experience...", "When I built..." | 4 |
| Original data or research | Proprietary surveys, experiments, case studies with real numbers | 4 |
| Specific examples | Named tools, specific configurations, exact steps taken | 3 |
| Visual proof | Screenshots, photos, videos showing hands-on experience | 3 |
| Timeline references | "Over the past 3 years...", "Since 2021..." | 2 |
| Practical tips | Advice that only comes from doing, not just researching | 2 |
| Limitations disclosed | Honest about what did not work or constraints encountered | 2 |

---

### Expertise (25 points)

Demonstrates deep subject-matter knowledge and technical competence.

| Signal | What to Check | Points |
|--------|---------------|--------|
| Technical depth | Content goes beyond surface level; explains "why" not just "what" | 5 |
| Author credentials | Author bio with relevant qualifications, certifications, roles | 4 |
| Accurate information | Facts are correct, up to date, and verifiable | 4 |
| Nuanced analysis | Acknowledges complexity, trade-offs, and context-dependent answers | 3 |
| Industry terminology | Correct use of domain-specific terms (not keyword stuffing) | 3 |
| Comprehensive coverage | Addresses the topic fully; no obvious gaps | 3 |
| Methodology transparency | Explains how conclusions were reached | 3 |

---

### Authoritativeness (25 points)

Demonstrates that the site, brand, or author is a recognized authority on the topic.

| Signal | What to Check | Points |
|--------|---------------|--------|
| Outbound citations | Links to authoritative sources (academic, industry leaders, government) | 5 |
| Inbound link profile | (When available) Other authoritative sites link to this content | 4 |
| Author recognition | Author is known in the industry; has other published work | 4 |
| Brand authority signals | About page, team page, company history, media mentions | 3 |
| Content depth across topic | Multiple related articles showing topical cluster coverage | 3 |
| Social proof | Testimonials, case studies, client logos, partnerships | 3 |
| Consistent publishing | Regular content updates showing ongoing commitment to topic | 3 |

---

### Trustworthiness (30 points)

Demonstrates that the content, site, and organization can be trusted.

| Signal | What to Check | Points |
|--------|---------------|--------|
| HTTPS enforced | Site uses HTTPS with valid certificate | 4 |
| Contact information | Physical address, phone number, or clear contact form | 4 |
| Privacy policy | Linked and comprehensive | 3 |
| Terms of service | Present and accessible | 2 |
| Editorial policy | Content review process disclosed | 3 |
| Date transparency | Published date and last updated date visible | 3 |
| Source attribution | Claims are backed with citations or links | 4 |
| Error correction | Corrections or updates noted when content changes | 2 |
| No deceptive practices | No misleading headlines, bait-and-switch, or hidden affiliates | 3 |
| Advertising transparency | Sponsored content and affiliate links clearly disclosed | 2 |

---

## Word Count Analysis by Page Type

| Page Type | Minimum | Optimal Range | Maximum Before Concern |
|-----------|---------|---------------|----------------------|
| Blog Post (informational) | 800 | 1,500 to 2,500 | 5,000+ (check for fluff) |
| Blog Post (how-to/tutorial) | 1,000 | 2,000 to 3,000 | 6,000+ (check readability) |
| Blog Post (listicle) | 600 | 1,000 to 2,000 | 4,000+ (check item depth) |
| Landing Page | 300 | 500 to 1,000 | 2,000+ (check conversion focus) |
| Product Page | 200 | 300 to 800 | 1,500+ (check buying intent focus) |
| Category Page | 100 | 200 to 500 | 1,000+ (check user intent) |
| Homepage | 300 | 500 to 1,000 | 2,000+ (check focus) |
| Pillar Page | 2,000 | 3,000 to 5,000 | 10,000+ (check navigation) |
| FAQ Page | 500 | 1,000 to 2,000 | 3,000+ (check relevance) |
| About Page | 300 | 500 to 1,000 | 2,000+ (check focus) |

---

## Readability Assessment

### Flesch Reading Ease Score

| Score Range | Difficulty Level | Target Audience | Assessment |
|-------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------|
| 90-100 | Very Easy | 5th grade | Too simple for most B2B content |
| 80-89 | Easy | 6th grade | Consumer content, broad audience |
| 70-79 | Fairly Easy | 7th grade | Good for general web content |
| 60-69 | Standard | 8th-9th grade | Optimal for most informational content |
| 50-59 | Fairly Difficult | 10th-12th grade | Acceptable for technical/professional |
| 30-49 | Difficult | College | Only for highly technical audiences |
| 0-29 | Very Difficult | College graduate | Likely too complex; consider simplifying |

### Readability Checks

| Check | Target | Severity |
|-------|--------|----------|
| Flesch Reading Ease | 60-70 for general; 50-60 for technical | Medium |
| Average sentence length | 15-20 words | Medium |
| Paragraph length | 2-4 sentences (or 40-80 words) | Low |
| Passive voice usage | Under 10% of sentences | Low |
| Transition words | Present in at least 30% of sentences | Low |
| Subheading frequency | One every 200-300 words | Medium |
| Bullet/list usage | At least one list per 500 words of content | Low |
| Short paragraphs | No single paragraph exceeds 150 words | Medium |

---

## Keyword Optimization

| Check | Pass Criteria | Severity |
|-------|---------------|----------|
| Primary keyword in title | Within first 60 characters of title tag | High |
| Primary keyword in H1 | Present in visible H1 text | High |
| Primary keyword in first 100 words | Appears naturally in opening paragraph | High |
| Primary keyword density | 1-2% (natural usage) | Medium |
| No keyword stuffing | Density under 3%; reads naturally | High |
| Secondary keywords present | 2-3 related keywords used throughout | Medium |
| Semantic variations (LSI) | Synonyms and related terms used naturally | Medium |
| Keyword in URL | Present in URL slug | Medium |
| Keyword in meta description | Included naturally (Google may bold it in SERPs) | Medium |
| Keyword in image alt text | At least one image alt contains keyword | Low |
| Keyword in subheadings | Present in at least one H2 or H3 | Medium |

---

## Content Structure Analysis

| Check | Pass Criteria | Severity |
|-------|---------------|----------|
| Clear heading hierarchy | H1 > H2 > H3 (no skipped levels) | High |
| Table of contents | Present for content over 2,000 words | Medium |
| Introduction with hook | First paragraph establishes topic and reader value | Medium |
| Conclusion with CTA | Clear summary and next step for the reader | Medium |
| Internal links | 3+ links to relevant pages on the same site | High |
| External links | 2+ links to authoritative external sources | High |
| Visual content | At least 1 image per 500 words; tables for data | Medium |
| FAQ section | Present for informational content (addresses related queries) | Medium |
| Scannable format | Short paragraphs, bullet points, bold key terms | Medium |
| Content freshness | Updated within last 12 months (or topic is evergreen) | Medium |

---

## AI Content Assessment

### Per September 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines

Google's position: AI-generated content is acceptable if it is helpful, reliable, and created for people. The focus is on content quality, not content origin.

| Check | What to Evaluate | Severity |
|-------|------------------|----------|
| Adds unique value | Content provides insights, analysis, or perspectives not available elsewhere | High |
| Not generic filler | Avoids vague, surface-level content that could apply to any topic | High |
| Factually accurate | All claims are verifiable and correct | Critical |
| Human editorial oversight | Evidence of human review, editing, and quality control | High |
| Original analysis | Not just rephrased from top-ranking competitors | Medium |
| Personal voice | Consistent tone and perspective throughout | Medium |
| No hallucinated facts | No fabricated statistics, quotes, or citations | Critical |
| Disclosure (if applicable) | AI assistance disclosed where required by regulations or policy | Low |

### Content Quality Red Flags

| Red Flag | What It Indicates | Severity |
|----------|-------------------|----------|
| Generic opening ("In today's world...") | Low-effort, potentially mass-produced content | Medium |
| Repetitive phrasing | Same idea restated multiple ways to inflate word count | High |
| Vague claims without evidence | "Many experts say..." without naming experts | High |
| Perfect grammar with no personality | Robotic tone, no human voice | Medium |
| Excessive hedging | "It could potentially be argued that perhaps..." | Medium |
| Keyword-first writing | Content organized around keywords, not user intent | High |
| No original insights | Entirely derivative of existing top-ranking content | High |

---

## Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) Signals

### AI Search Landscape (Current as of 2025)

| Platform | Feature | Impact on SEO |
|----------|---------|---------------|
| **Google AI Mode** (May 2025) | Full conversational AI search experience | Cited sources get visibility; uncited sources lose clicks |
| **Google AI Overviews** | AI-generated summaries at top of SERPs | Sources cited in overviews see increased CTR |
| **Perplexity** | AI search engine with source citations | Direct citations drive referral traffic |
| **ChatGPT Search** | OpenAI's web search feature | Sources influence AI responses |
| **Bing Copilot** | Microsoft's AI search integration | Cited sources displayed alongside AI answers |

### Helpful Content System (Merged into Core Ranking March 2024)

The Helpful Content System is no longer a separate ranking system; it was merged into Google's core ranking algorithm in March 2024. The principles remain critical:

| Principle | What It Means | Check |
|-----------|---------------|-------|
| People-first content | Written for humans, not search engines | Does removing SEO terms still make this content worth reading? |
| Satisfying experience | Reader gets what they came for | Does the content fully answer the query implied by the title? |
| Demonstrates E-E-A-T | All four signals present | See E-E-A-T scoring above |
| Not search-engine-first | Content not primarily designed to attract search visits | Would you feel confident sharing this with a friend? |
| Adds value beyond sources | Not just rephrasing or aggregating | What does this content provide that source material does not? |

### GEO Optimization Checks

| Signal | Why It Matters for AI Search | Check |
|--------|------------------------------|-------|
| Clear, quotable statements | AI engines extract concise statements for citations | Content contains 2-3 sentence summaries of key points |
| Structured data (JSON-LD) | Helps AI understand content semantics | Schema markup present and accurate |
| Definitive answers | AI prefers content that directly answers questions | Key questions answered in 1-2 sentences before elaboration |
| Statistics and data | AI engines cite sources with specific data points | Original or properly cited statistics included |
| Author authority | AI engines prefer citing authoritative sources | Author bio with credentials, expertise signals present |
| Recency signals | AI engines prefer current information | Published date and last updated date visible |
| FAQ format | Question-answer format is directly extractable by AI | FAQ section with clear, concise answers |
| Source citations | Content that cites sources is itself more citable | Outbound links to authoritative references |
| Topical depth | AI engines favor comprehensive, in-depth coverage | Content covers the topic more thoroughly than competitors |
| Unique perspective | AI engines value novel viewpoints over repetition | Content includes original analysis, opinions, or data |

---

## Output Format

```markdown
# Content Quality Assessment: [URL]
**Analyzed:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Page Type:** [blog/landing/product/etc.]
**Word Count:** [N]
**Primary Keyword:** [keyword]

## E-E-A-T Score: XX/100

| Signal | Score | Max | Assessment |
|--------|-------|-----|------------|
| Experience | XX | 20 | [Strong/Adequate/Weak/Missing] |
| Expertise | XX | 25 | [Strong/Adequate/Weak/Missing] |
| Authoritativeness | XX | 25 | [Strong/Adequate/Weak/Missing] |
| Trustworthiness | XX | 30 | [Strong/Adequate/Weak/Missing] |
| **Total** | **XX** | **100** | |

## Content Quality Metrics

| Metric | Value | Target | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|--------|
| Word Count | [N] | [range for page type] | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |
| Flesch Reading Ease | [N] | 60-70 | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |
| Avg Sentence Length | [N] words | 15-20 | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |
| Keyword Density | [N]% | 1-2% | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |
| Internal Links | [N] | 3+ | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |
| External Links | [N] | 2+ | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |
| Images | [N] | 1 per 500 words | [PASS/WARN/FAIL] |

## AI Content Assessment
[Evaluation of content quality, originality, and helpfulness per QRG]

## GEO Readiness: XX/100
[Assessment of AI citation readiness, quotable statements, structured data]

## Recommendations
1. [Most impactful improvement]
2. [Second improvement]
3. ...
```

---

## Usage

```bash
# Assess content quality of a page
/seo-content https://example.com/blog/article

# Assess with specific keyword focus
/seo-content https://example.com/blog/article --keyword "saas validation"

# Assess with industry context
/seo-content https://example.com/pricing --industry saas
```

---

## Notes

- E-E-A-T is not a direct ranking factor but informs the quality signals that are used for ranking
- The Helpful Content System was merged into core ranking in March 2024; it no longer operates as a separate system
- GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) is an emerging discipline; best practices will evolve
- Google AI Mode launched in May 2025 and represents a fundamental shift in how search results are displayed
- AI content assessment follows the September 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines: quality matters, not origin
- Word count targets are guidelines, not rules; some topics genuinely require more or fewer words
- Readability scores should match the target audience; B2B SaaS content can be more complex than consumer content