Skip to content
SBMM Cloud
Sign inGet started free

Free Trust Signals Checker

Reads the trust pages your site links to and a small sample of its articles, and shows the evidence: authors, dates, citations, publisher markup and declared profiles.

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: 15 a day. Ultimate: 50 a day.

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

Loading…

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 starts from the page you give it, reads the trust and policy pages the site links to, then reads a small sample of its articles - at most five, picked from the site's own links in a fixed order - and reports what a reader would find on them: who wrote each one and how that is shown, the dates it gives in its text and in its markup, the sources it links to from its own content, and who the site says publishes it.

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 reads like a measurement and is an opinion. This reports the evidence instead - every line opens onto where it was read - 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. Nothing here asks you to add a phrase, and nothing is inferred from one: an author is read from a byline or the article's markup, never from a name in the prose.

Evidence, Not Guesses

Trust pages are found from the site's own links, on whole phrases and whole addresses, and confirmed only when the page's own title or heading agrees; anything less is shown as a likely match to review. Articles are counted only on combined evidence. Citations are links from an article's own content, never its menu or footer. A declared profile is listed as declared, and a request that is refused is reported as could not verify, not as a failure. Every figure says how much was read: a sample, never the whole site.

What Is The SBMM Trust Signals Checker?

The SBMM Trust Signals Checker reads the trust and policy pages your site links to and a bounded sample of its articles, and shows the evidence a first-time reader would find there: the about, contact, privacy, terms and editorial pages, who wrote each sampled article and how that is shown, the dates each one gives in its text and its markup, the sources it links to from its own content, the publisher your markup declares and the profiles it lists.

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, and nothing here says whether a site is trustworthy or an author is an expert. Every line is something that was read, with where it was read.

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 a page, and a tool that scores it anyway is guessing.

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 trust pages and its latest articles. Anything public works.

  2. Its Own Links Are Followed

    The trust pages the site links to are read, then up to five of its articles, picked in a fixed order, and the author and reviewer pages those articles link to. robots.txt is obeyed and every request counts against a fixed limit.

  3. Read The Evidence

    A summary of what was observed and how much was read, each line opening onto the page, the value and the words around it, plus the list of things only a person can check.

Why Use This Tool

  • Trust Pages Found, Not Guessed

    Read from your own links on whole phrases and addresses, so a page at /who-we-are is found and a guide called “Child Support Grant” is not mistaken for your contact page. A page is confirmed only when its own title or heading agrees; otherwise it is a likely match to review.

  • Authors, Visible And In Markup

    The byline a reader sees and the author your Article markup declares, side by side for each sampled article, with reviewers and editors read only where the page labels them. A difference is shown as something to review. Nothing is inferred about anyone's expertise.

  • Dates, Compared

    The dates an article shows, its article meta tags and its markup, compared after time zones are set aside. A difference is reported as a mismatch to review; which date is right is yours to say.

  • Citations From The Article Itself

    Links out of each sampled article's own content, with the anchor, the words around it and a description of the domain - government, academic or general. Menus, footers, share buttons and social profiles are kept apart, so they cannot inflate anything.

  • Publisher And Declared Profiles

    The publisher name your markup, articles and policy pages give, compared for consistency, and the sameAs profiles you declare, checked for shape and, for a few, whether the address answers. A declared profile is listed as declared, never as verified.

  • The Human Checklist, Unscored

    The things only a person can verify, grouped by identity, creators, editorial process, originality and commercial transparency. Not scored and not saved: a ticked box is not evidence of anything.

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 looks like a measurement and is an opinion about that vendor's checklist. This shows the evidence and leaves the judgement with you.

Does it read my whole site?

No. It reads the page you give it, the trust pages that page links to, up to five articles picked from the site's own links, and the author and reviewer pages those articles link to - within a fixed request limit. Every figure says so: “on 4 of 5 sampled pages”, never a percentage of the site.

How does it pick the articles?

In a fixed order, never at random: links in the home page's main content that look editorial, then editorial links inside the articles already read, then the sitemap if the links run out. A page counts as an article only on combined evidence, such as Article markup, a byline, a date and an article body. Listing pages and policy pages are left out, with the reason shown.

Does it tell me whether my authors are experts?

No. It shows whether an author is named and how - a byline, a profile link, the article's markup - and what the author's page declares, such as a job title or a biography. Whether that adds up to expertise is a judgement a tool cannot make from markup.

Are government sources marked as trusted?

No. A citation is described by its domain - government, academic or research, general - and that describes the address, not how reliable the source is. A public body on an ordinary domain is described as general.

A profile I declared says “could not verify”. Is it broken?

Not necessarily. Many platforms refuse automated requests or ask them to slow down, and that is reported as could not verify rather than as a failure. Even an address that answers only shows it exists, not that the profile belongs to you.

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.

Does this replace an on-page audit?

No, it sits beside one. The On-Page Audit checks one page against the technical checks; this looks at the trust and editorial evidence around it. Different questions, both worth asking. To build or check the Organization markup it reads, use the Schema Markup Generator and the Schema Intelligence Analyzer.