Does this page look trustworthy to an AI?

Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trust. It comes from Google's search quality rater guidelines, a document written for the humans Google pays to grade search results. We are not promising this tool moves any Google ranking. The same underlying signals, a named author, real dates, sourced claims, are now used industry-wide as a shorthand for what makes content worth citing, including by AI answer engines that were never mentioned in the original document.

When an assistant is deciding which source to trust for a claim, an anonymous page and a page with a named, linkable author carrying real credentials are not equally credible inputs. A byline is a small signal, but it is one more reason to trust a source over an unnamed competitor saying the same thing.

A visible date is for a human reader. A datePublished or dateModified field in Article schema is for a machine to parse without guessing. Undated content leaves an engine unable to tell whether a fact is current or years stale, so it has no reason to prefer it over a fresher source.

It also does the opposite of what it looks like: outbound citations are the on-page half of authority. A page that names its sources reads as researched, not just asserted, and that is part of what a citing engine is weighing when it decides which source to quote.

You can add a byline, a date, and a schema block in an afternoon. That is worth doing. But signals without substance do not hold up: a named author with nothing else backing them, or citations to irrelevant domains, are easy for both humans and engines to see through. Most of what actually earns trust is built off-site, over time, in what other sources say about you.

Our server fetches the page you give it once, reads the HTML and any schema on it, and returns what it found. Nothing is stored, and no AI model reads or scores your content, every verdict here is a plain rule applied to what the page contains.