Ok, well EAT isn't actually a thing. That's the raters guide that was created for non-search professionals to understand what they were looking at and rating. SEOs started using that term and so some Googlers just rolled with it. There are very few trust related patents/papers and nearly none on 'expertise' and 'authority'. The post in question is also hyperboloc. Google didn't confirm shit. She's just quoting a paper. That's funny, cause it's the kinda shit the paper is about (dealing with misinformation). I lulzed. That paper actually talks about the raters in her so called "statement" from Google. In fact, even in the part Marie highlighted it states, "The resulting ratings do not affect the ranking of any individual website, but they do help us benchmark the quality of our results, " Sooooooooo Furthermore, that paper is more about how they deal with "fake news" etc. Not really about EAT nor is it, again, any form of statement on it's use and how it's calculated. It's really more of a press release. not an information retrieval paper. So, until any SEOs can actually tell me the types of algorithms and associated scoring is used to determine EAT, it's nothing more than suggestions to the raters and webmasters alike. It's not really something you can define and ultimaetly optimize for. Some have drank the Google kool-aid and state "authority" is links. but fine. then worry about link building if that's what you believe. Talking abut EAT tends to just muddy the waters at this point IMO.