Every few months someone sends me a new trick to rank in AI search. My answer is always the same, because it's Google's answer too: write for people. Google's page on helpful, reliable, people-first content, updated on October 5, 2026, is still the best guide I know.
The questions I ask before publishing
Google suggests self-assessing content with a set of questions. These are the ones I never skip:
- Does it provide original information, research or analysis?
- Does it go beyond the obvious, with insight a reader would not find elsewhere?
- If it uses other sources, does it add real value instead of rewriting them?
- Does the title describe the content honestly, without exaggerating?
- Would you bookmark it, share it with a friend or recommend it?
- Will the reader leave having learned enough to reach their goal?
What E-E-A-T really is
E-E-A-T stands for experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness. Google says trust is the most important, the other three contribute to it, and content doesn't have to show all four. It also says E-E-A-T itself is not a specific ranking factor: its systems use a mix of signals that identify content with good E-E-A-T, and they give it even more weight on topics that affect health, money or safety, which Google calls Your Money or Your Life.
Who, how and why
- Who: a real byline where readers expect one, linked to the author. Google calls fabricated author profiles deceptive.
- How: explain how the content was made when readers would wonder, including how AI was used.
- Why: to help people. If the main reason is attracting search visits, the content is misaligned.
The commodity test
In its generative AI guide, Google contrasts two articles. "7 Tips for First-Time Homebuyers" is commodity content: common knowledge anyone can produce. "Why We Waived the Inspection and Saved Money: A Look Inside the Sewer Line" is non-commodity: it comes from experience. My test is simple: could a competitor with the same AI model and the same public sources write this page? If yes, I don't publish it until it carries something only I know.
Warning signs from Google's own list: writing to a word count, changing dates to look fresh, covering trending topics you would never write about otherwise, and leaving readers needing to search again.
The four attributes behind the questions
When I reread Google's guidance, I group everything into four attributes: effort, originality, skill and accuracy. Effort is visible: real research, real examples, care in the details. Originality means you add something new instead of reshuffling what's already out there. Skill shows in how well the topic is explained and organized. Accuracy is non-negotiable: one wrong fact can cost more trust than ten good paragraphs earn.
Experience is the easiest E to show
Experience means you actually did the thing. You can show it with photos you took yourself, with what went wrong and how you fixed it, with numbers from your own work, and with the decisions you made and why. When I write about paid search, for example, I can draw on managing a $30M/year Google Ads and Search Ads 360 budget for Polaris Industries. That kind of lived detail is what no summary of other articles can reproduce.
Trust signals that are real
- A real byline, linked to a page about the author.
- Clear sources for every important claim.
- Contact details that a reader can actually use.
- Mistakes corrected openly when you find them.
- Dates that change only when the content really changes. Google warns against updating dates just to look fresh.
When the bar is higher
Google gives even more weight to E-E-A-T on topics that could significantly affect people's health, financial stability or safety, or the welfare of society. If your business touches money, like accounting, investments or insurance, raise your standards: cite official sources, have a qualified person sign the content and be precise about what applies to whom.
Ask someone outside your company
Google suggests asking people you trust, who are not affiliated with your site, for an honest assessment. I do this with clients: a fresh reader goes through three pages and tells us which one they would bookmark and why. If you have lost traffic, Google also recommends looking at which pages dropped the most and for which searches, and reviewing those pages against the same questions.
Where AI fits in people-first content
AI is excellent at structure, clarity, spotting gaps and translating. It cannot have your experience. My favorite trick is to flip the roles: I ask the AI to interview me about a project, answer its questions out loud, and then use those answers as the raw material for the article. The result sounds like me, carries my experience, and still benefits from the speed of AI.
A people-first checklist for your next page
Google says that answering yes to these questions means you are probably on the right track:
- Is there an audience for your business that would find this useful if they came directly to you?
- Does it clearly show first-hand expertise and depth of knowledge?
- Does it fit the main purpose of your site?
- Will the reader learn enough to reach their goal, and leave satisfied?
About length
Google is explicit that it has no preferred word count. Length should come from what the reader needs. I write until the question is fully answered, with the examples that make it useful, and then I stop. And I make sure the title and the main heading describe the content honestly, without exaggerating or trying to shock.
In practice, the best content I've helped publish starts with an interview, not a prompt: twenty minutes with the person who does the work, then AI to help structure and draft, then that same person checks every line. Let's do that for your company.
Sources
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content · Google Search Central, updated October 5, 2026
- Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search · Google Search Central, updated July 10, 2026
- Google Search's guidance on using generative AI content on your website · Google Search Central, updated October 1, 2026
How I made this article: I researched and drafted it with the help of Claude, then checked every fact myself against the official documentation listed in the sources.