Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-14
Build an author bio and page-level E-E-A-T brief that states real credentials instead of generic trust-signal language
Produces an author bio and a set of on-page trust signals grounded in a real author's actual experience and credentials, refusing to invent expertise the author doesn't have — built specifically for pages where Google's quality raters would weigh E-E-A-T heavily.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Write an author bio and page-level trust-signal recommendations for a piece, grounded strictly in this author's real background — do not invent or embellish credentials. AUTHOR'S ACTUAL BACKGROUND A staff writer with 4 years covering personal finance journalism, no CFP or financial-advisor license, has interviewed licensed advisors for past pieces but doesn't hold a credential herself. PAGE TOPIC AND WHY IT MATTERS FOR TRUST An article on how to choose between a Roth and traditional IRA — a YMYL (your-money-your-life) financial topic where Google's quality guidelines weigh expertise signals heavily. WHAT CREDENTIALS OR EXPERIENCE THE TOPIC ACTUALLY CALLS FOR Ideally a CFP or someone with direct tax/retirement-planning credentials, since this involves specific tax-treatment guidance readers may act on financially. CURRENT AUTHOR BYLINE SETUP (if any) Currently just "By Staff Writer" with no bio or reviewer credited. STEP 1 — HONEST FIT CHECK Compare the author's actual background against what this specific topic calls for in terms of credibility. If the author's real experience genuinely matches or exceeds the bar (a licensed professional writing in their own field, someone with direct hands-on experience doing the exact thing described), say so and proceed. If there's a real gap — the author has general expertise but not the specific credential this topic would ideally have (medical, legal, financial specifics) — say that plainly rather than writing a bio that implies more authority than the author has, and recommend either a credentialed reviewer credit alongside the byline or a disclosure line about the author's actual role and its limits. STEP 2 — WRITE THE BIO Write a two-to-three sentence author bio using only the real background given, specific enough to establish genuine relevant experience (a named number of years, a specific real project type, an actual credential) rather than vague trust language like "passionate expert" or "trusted authority," which readers and quality raters alike recognize as unverifiable filler with no actual evidentiary content. STEP 3 — PAGE-LEVEL TRUST SIGNALS Recommend concrete, real trust elements this specific page should surface given the topic's credential bar: a visible last-reviewed or last-updated date if the topic is time-sensitive, a named reviewer if the fit check identified a gap, links to the author's other real work in this specific area if it exists, or a sourcing/citation approach appropriate to the claims being made on the page. Do not recommend a generic trust badge or vague "expert-reviewed" label unless a real reviewer is actually named. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. Fit-check verdict (match, partial gap, or significant gap) with a one-sentence reason. 2. The author bio text. 3. Page-level trust-signal recommendations as a short list, each tied to something real, not generic.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The most common failure in E-E-A-T content advice is treating it as a copywriting exercise — adding trust-sounding language like "expert-reviewed" or "trusted authority" to a byline regardless of whether a real credential backs it — when Google's quality rater guidelines and its broader ranking systems for YMYL topics specifically evaluate demonstrable expertise and experience, not the presence of trust-adjacent vocabulary, meaning invented or embellished credentials add zero real signal and create actual reputational and legal exposure if a reader relies on advice from a byline that overstates the author's qualifications. This prompt's honest fit-check step exists specifically to stop that pattern: forcing a genuine comparison between what the author actually has and what the topic calls for, with an explicit "partial gap" or "significant gap" verdict as a valid and expected outcome rather than always producing a flattering bio, is what keeps the output from becoming a confidence-building exercise disconnected from the real facts given. Specificity in the bio — a named number of years, a real project type, an actual credential — matters mechanically because vague trust language is exactly the kind of unverifiable filler both human readers and automated content-quality signals have gotten better at discounting; a bio that could describe literally any writer conveys no real information, while "four years covering personal finance, has interviewed licensed CFPs for past reporting" is a checkable, specific claim that actually functions as an expertise signal. Recommending a named reviewer credit specifically when a genuine credential gap exists, rather than only ever polishing the existing byline, addresses the real solution E-E-A-T gaps call for on YMYL topics — pairing non-credentialed writing with credentialed review is a legitimate and common pattern, and the prompt treats it as the correct fix for exactly the case where inventing author authority would otherwise be the tempting shortcut.
What you get back
Fit check: partial gap — strong finance journalism experience, but no financial-planning license, and this topic involves specific tax-treatment guidance. Bio: "Jane Doe has covered personal finance for four years, reporting on retirement planning and interviewing licensed CFPs for reader-facing guides." Trust signal recommendation: add a named reviewer credit from a licensed CFP who reviewed the tax-treatment claims, plus a visible last-reviewed date given how often IRA contribution limits change.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-14
Changelog
- 2026-08-14 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Building this for real?
This is a free starting point. If you'd rather have SEO built and running for your business, that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE SEO
