Google Quality Raters Guidelines: news for January 2025
Expired domains exploited to manipulate rankings, mass-created content with the help of generative AI, and deceptive approaches to exploit the reputation of authoritative sites are increasingly insidious practices well known to the Google Search system. The big news these days is that they now also “enter” within the Google Search Quality Raters Guidelines, which in the latest version just updated introduce new tools for evaluating AI-generated content and improve parameters for detecting forms of spam capable of compromising users’ web experience. While not having a direct impact on rankings, these guidelines reflect a clear message: there is increasing evidence of Google’s focus on rewarding content that is useful, authentic, and responsive to user needs, while at the same time reinforcing efforts and continuing to vigorously counter illicit strategies that undermine the experience on Search. In this in-depth discussion, we will explore the highlights of the new rules and their implications for those of us involved in SEO and digital marketing.
What changes with the January 2025 update to the Quality Raters Guidelines
More than ten months after the last revision in March 2024, on January 23, 2025 Google released a new update to the Quality Raters Guidelines, the document that guides the work of its quality raters, human evaluators charged with judging the quality of search results to continually refine its ranking algorithms.
As we know and often reiterate, these guidelines-which now number 181 pages compared to 170 in the previous edition-don’t directly affect page rankings, but they are a useful tool for refining Google’s ranking systems and offer relevant insights into what types of content the search engine considers to be of quality and value.
Specifically, the update introduces significant changes on two central issues, reflecting Google’s new priorities for an increasingly authentic, useful web free from practices that compromise its quality.
- The treatment of content generated by generative artificial intelligence, now clearly defined and put under the magnifying glass of quality raters.
- The detailed identification of new forms of spam, including the abuse of expired domains, scaled content and the reputation of established sites.
In addition, as usual there are also minor technical changes, such as expansion of examples on evaluation of interpretations and minor intent for met needs assessments, removal of outdated examples, correction of typos, updating browser requirements, and so on.
The focus on generative AI
Google chooses to address one of the most radical revolutions in digital copywriting: generative artificial intelligence. The spread of tools capable of rapidly generating text, images, and other types of content has from early on raised questions about the quality and purpose of such production, and now even quality raters “know” how to respond to these challenges.
The updated document devotes a central position to generative AI in section 2.1 on key definitions, with clear guidance for evaluators and specific criteria for assessing the impact and usefulness of content.
No pre-emptive condemnation of AI, but rigorous verification of the actual ability of these tools to bring unique value to users. This is, in a nutshell, Google’s position on generative artificial intelligence, which also finds a precise definition in the dedicated section, identified as “a type of machine learning model that uses what it has learned from past examples to create new content, such as text, images, music, and code.”
This definition is not only technical, but reflects a clear awareness of the current dynamics of the web, where the indiscriminate use of AI models risks compromising the overall quality of search results. In particular, Google expresses concern about automatically created content without human-editorial review that is generic or even misleading, unable to provide real benefit to users.
The message is clear: human expertise and professional oversight remain critical to ensure the creation of relevant and authentic content.
The updated guidelines make it clear that the use of AI tools for content production is not, per se, contrary to Google’s guidelines. On the contrary, AI can be a valuable ally in creative processes, but only under one specific condition: the content generated must offer original value, avoiding superficiality or redundancy.
The guidelines warn against tactics that exploit artificial intelligence to produce huge amounts of low-cost content that, while properly formatted, does not bring useful or new information to users. This falls under the practices Google identifies as scaled content abuse.
A concrete example given in the paper is that of an article blatantly generated by language models, with an explicit statement such as “As a language model, I do not have access to real-time data…” and content often left incomplete or broken. These texts not only fail in the purpose of responding to specific user intent, but also damage the overall perception of web quality.
AI tools, therefore, will not be penalized for their nature, but their misuse – for manipulative purposes or with low editorial care – will be increasingly subject to negative evaluations. From this perspective, the update represents both a warning and an opportunity for those who know how to use AI strategically and ethically.
Fighting spam and detecting new abusive practices
At the heart of the new update is the expansion of the sections devoted to low and very low quality content , reinforcing the criteria for identifying and combating emerging spam techniques. Google has also integrated into the guidelines the three new categories of abuse introduced in the March 2024 spam update, which require specific attention from those who manage sites or publish content.
Just to recap, we talk about:
- Abuse of expired domains
This practice occurs when expired domains are purchased and reused solely to take advantage of any legacy SEO signals, without introducing real content or value to users. It is a misuse of the historical potential of domains, often subservient to purely ranking manipulation logic.
Google highlights the abuse of sites with established reputations, exploited to host third-party content solely to gain SEO visibility. In these cases, the content lacks utility and quality, making the practice subject to negative ranking. Incidentally, almost simultaneously with the guidelines update Google seems to have extended the application of this policy to European regions as well, with lots of manual actions sent to European-based sites starting January 23, 2025.
- Scaled content abuse
Also known as scaled content abuse, this type of technique leverages automation, often with AI tools, to generate a huge volume of pages that turn out to be redundant or poorly informative. The new guidance points out how this approach goes against the basic principles of creating content designed to help users.
The document’s extension for quality raters clearly indicates Google’s desire to raise the expected level of quality. The identification of these three specific practices demonstrates that ranking systems will continue to evolve to counter manipulative approaches and provide users with a more reliable web. For anyone working in the digital sector, the call is for them to review their strategies, paying particular attention to transparency and the concrete value of content.
Strengthening the assessment of minor query intent
Minor changes also affected the “Needs Met” scale, the system that quality raters use to rate the level of satisfaction a search result provides in relation to the user’s query. Google inaftti expanded the guidelines by providing more precise guidance for analyzing and evaluating the query’s so-called “minor interpretations and intents.” Nothing transcendental, let’s be clear, because there has been no revolution in evaluation methodology, but a refinement that aims to make query analysis more balanced. With the new instructions, quality raters now have additional elements to interpret not only the major needs that a query may represent, but also those that are secondary, less common or not predominant, while still falling within the context of the overall intent.
“Minor interpretations” are those variations of the search intent that, while not representing the main query, reflect plausible needs that deserve consideration by search results. For example, a generic query such as “pasta recipes” may have a dominant intent (finding generic recipes) and less frequent secondary intents (recipes for gluten-intolerant people, options for children, and so on). With the update, Google has added practical examples and more detailed criteria to help raters identify and validate these variations as well, contributing to a more comprehensive and nuanced view of how to determine the degree of satisfaction a result provides with respect to the query. This does not imply that such minority interpretations should override the main intent, but that they can still affect the overall assessment.
In addition to the theoretical explanation, the updated paper includes illustrative examples showing how to distinguish, classify and deal with different interpretations of queries. These examples, which enrich the Needs Met evaluation framework in the final paper, help raters better understand when and how to account for a variant of intent. For example, if a result responds exclusively to the minority portion but completely leaves out the main intent of the query, that result will likely be judged insufficient. Conversely, a result that manages to consider both the main intent and less common interpretations will have a better chance of being rated favorably.
Practical impacts for us: what to learn from this update
As usual, the Quality Raters Guidelines offer interesting insights for optimizing our SEO activity in line with the values and priorities tracked by Google, and of course the update is a clear indication of what the search giant sees as the priorities for the future of the web. In fact, each change-from the treatment of AI-generated content to countering manipulative practices to analyzing less common queries-is an invitation to build stronger strategies aligned with ever-growing standards.
Digital marketers, copywriters and SEO specialists can seize several opportunities from this update, translating the new features of the guidelines into actions capable of improving positioning and creating value for users, reviewing operational techniques and broadening the vision on site and content management, where quality, authenticity and transparency become the indispensable foundations.
- Integrating generative AI without losing control
Artificial intelligence offers a unique opportunity to optimize content creation processes, but the risk of exploiting it superficially is always just around the corner. Pushing beyond mere automation means having a clear strategic vision: each piece of content must respond to user intent, enrich available knowledge, and, most importantly, maintain editorial control. No AI model, no matter how advanced, can by itself guarantee the consistency and reliability of what is produced.
In a concrete SEO strategy, this implies redefining workflows so that every output generated is deeply analyzed, fact-checked, consistent with brand identity, and always contextualized with respect to audience demands. AI must be a support, not a replacement: as we have often said, technologies such as our AI Writer can also speed up production, but human oversight remains central in giving uniqueness, tone of voice, and real value to what is published.
- Transparency and control: protecting the fundamentals of reputation
A site that publishes content can no longer afford any ambiguity. A cross-cutting theme throughout the update is the call for transparency, most evident in the fight against manipulative practices such as the abuse of expired domains or the reputation of established sites, and Google seems to be sending an unequivocal message: building quality results starts with absolute clarity about the origin and structure of the content published.
Another essential key cue is also reiterated: a domain’s reputation is its main asset (we also “proved” this with our analysis of EEAT ‘s weight in relation to ranking!), and it is also the first element questioned when shortcuts are adopted. Practices such as abusing expired domains or publishing “bounce” content on the established reputation of others may seem attractive temptations for immediate results, but in the long run they deteriorate credibility and visibility.
Our goal, then, must be totally the opposite: to consolidate site identity through clear standards, transparency in content origin, and timely editorial control. This is especially important when managing external collaborations: sponsored posts, guest blogging, syndication, and editorial contributions must be evaluated with the same attention given to internal content. Building a strong, authentic, and consistent online identity does not happen by accident, but is the result of meticulous and conscious content management.
Toward a more conscious SEO approach
This update to the Quality Raters Guidelines invites us to reevaluate technical strategies and in general an ethical and responsible approach to working on SEO. Creating an ecosystem of reliable content that is responsive to user needs and consistent with Google’s new expectations is now imperative for those aiming for lasting results. Adapting strategies is not easy, but today there is no room for shortcuts or unsupervised automation. Working with transparency, relying on a tool that can guide every step-from keyword analysis to reputation management to monitoring less common queries-becomes the necessary step to anticipate trends and maintain competitiveness.
