Skip to content
SBMM Cloud
Sign inGet started free

Free Trust Signals Checker

Read one page and see which trust pages your site links to, what its markup says about you, and how many sources it cites.

What a run costs
One free run a day, no account needed
How it runs
In the background
Who it is for
Free: 2 a day. Silver: 5 a day. Gold: 10 a day. Ultimate: unlimited.

A free account raises the daily allowance and keeps your results. Create one — no card needed.

Loading…

Overview

Somebody landing on your site for the first time is deciding whether to believe it. They look for an about page, a way to contact you, a name on the article, a date, a source. This reads the page you give it and reports what they would find: which trust pages the site links to and whether those pages answer, what the structured data declares about the organisation and the author, whether the page says when it was written and last updated, and how many outbound sources it cites.

Why There Is No E-E-A-T Score Here

Tools that audit E-E-A-T usually end with a number out of a hundred and a rating from Excellent to Critical. Google has no E-E-A-T score. E-E-A-T is a concept in the Quality Rater Guidelines describing what human raters are asked to consider; it is not something a page has 78 of. A percentage of checks a vendor picked, weighted by how many checks each section happens to contain, reads like a measurement and is an opinion. This reports what was found instead, and lets you decide.

And Why It Does Not Tell You To Write “I Tested”

The usual version of this tool searches your page for phrases like “in my experience” and “we tested”, then advises you to add them. That is a tool telling you to insert language you have not earned, which is exactly the behaviour Google's guidance on unhelpful content warns about. Every signal here is read from markup or from a page that answered, never from a phrase in prose.

Trust Pages Are Found, Not Guessed

Most auditors try a list of invented paths, /about then /about-us then /company, and report nothing if your about page lives at /who-we-are. This reads your own navigation and footer and follows the links it finds, which is how a reader finds them: one request instead of twenty-five, and a page at any address is seen. If a page exists but nothing links to it from here, the result says so rather than pretending it is missing.

About the tool

What Is The SBMM Trust Signals Checker?

The SBMM Trust Signals Checker reads one page of your site and reports what a first-time reader would find when they went looking for a reason to believe it: which trust pages you link to and whether those pages answer, what your structured data says about the organisation and the author, whether the page declares when it was published and last updated, and how many sources outside your own site it cites.

This is the honest half of what is usually sold as an E-E-A-T audit. E-E-A-T comes from Google's Quality Rater Guidelines, where it describes what human raters are asked to weigh up. It is not a number Google computes, so nothing here produces one. Every line is something that was read from the page or from a page that answered a request.

The checks a person still has to make are listed separately and clearly labelled. Whether the photographs are real, whether the founder actually exists, whether a claim is sourced honestly: none of that can be read from markup, and a tool that scores it anyway is guessing.

Step by step

How To Use This Tool In 3 Steps

  1. Give It A Page

    Usually the home page, because that is where a site links to its about, contact and policy pages. Anything public works.

  2. The Links Are Followed

    The page's own navigation and footer are read, and the trust pages it links to are fetched once each to see whether they answer. No path is guessed at.

  3. Read What Was Found

    Trust pages, organisation and author markup, declared dates, citation counts, and the list of things only a person can check.

Why this tool

Why Use This Tool

  • Trust Pages Found, Not Guessed

    Read from your own navigation, so a page at /who-we-are is found where a list of invented paths would have reported nothing. One request instead of twenty-five, and a page that exists but is unlinked is reported as unlinked rather than as missing.

  • Read From Markup, Not From Prose

    The organisation, its logo, its profiles, its address and the page's author all come from the structured data. A regular expression looking for “PhD” in body text matches a product name and misses a real credential in an image caption.

  • It Notices A Fake Update Date

    A dateModified identical to datePublished is not an update, it is a copy, and it tells every crawler the page has never been touched. That is reported as no rather than as yes.

  • Citations, Counted

    How many outbound links the page carries and how many separate sites they reach. A page that cites nothing is asking to be taken on faith, and that is worth seeing as a number.

  • No Score, And No Phrase Advice

    No number out of a hundred, no rating, and nothing telling you to add “in my experience” to raise it. A tool whose score rises when you insert language you have not earned is teaching the thing Google's guidance warns about.

  • The Human Checklist, Unscored

    Eighteen things only a person can verify, grouped by where they live on the site. Not scored and not saved: a ticked box is not evidence of anything, which is why it is on this list rather than in the table above.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is there no E-E-A-T score?

Because Google does not publish one and does not compute one. E-E-A-T is a concept in the Quality Rater Guidelines describing what human raters weigh up when they assess a page. A percentage of checks a vendor chose, weighted by how many checks each section happens to contain, looks like a measurement and is an opinion about that vendor's checklist.

Other tools give me a number. Is this one less useful?

It is less comfortable and more useful. A number tells you 62 and leaves you guessing which of a hundred and thirteen things to change. A list of what was and was not found tells you the about page is unlinked and the article names no author, which are two afternoons of work with a visible result.

Why does it not check for experience language?

Because searching your page for “we tested” and then advising you to add it is a tool telling you to write phrases you have not earned. It is also wrong in both directions: honest first-hand writing in a different voice fails, and one inserted sentence passes.

My about page exists but the result says no link was found.

Then nothing on the page you gave links to it. That is a real finding: a reader who lands where this run started cannot reach it either. Give it a page that does link to your trust pages, usually the home page, or add the link.

It says my organisation is not declared. What does that mean?

That the page carries no Organization or LocalBusiness in its structured data. The name in your footer is not the same thing: markup is what tells a search engine who publishes the site. Build it with the Schema Markup Generator and check it with the Schema Intelligence Analyzer.

Why does it care whether dateModified matches datePublished?

Because copying one into the other is a common default in content systems, and it tells every crawler the page has never been updated since the day it was written. If you have revised the page, the date should say so; if you have not, leaving it out is more honest than repeating the publication date.

Does this replace an on-page audit?

No, it sits beside one. The On-Page Audit grades one page against the technical checks; this looks at the trust surface of the site around it. Different questions, both worth asking.

Is the checklist saved between runs?

No, and nothing ticks it. It is a printed list of what to go and look at. Storing a checkbox somebody clicked would turn a human judgement into a number, which is the thing this tool exists not to do.