Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines: the complete guide
Google has never hidden its goal, which is to provide users with relevant, reliable and useful search results. But how do you measure these factors and how do you evaluate the quality of a web page? Or, even better, who decides what “quality” really means in this context? For years now, as we know, there has been a team of thousands of quality raters whose job is to examine the online content indexed by Google, applying detailed criteria to identify pages that are reliable and really useful to users. And their compass is the Search Quality Rater Guidelines, the official document for these checks, which offer precise indications on what distinguishes an authoritative website from one that is not very credible. Although they don’t directly influence the ranking, these guidelines establish the standards with which Google refines its algorithms, influencing the development of the rules of organic visibility. They contain concepts such as Page Quality Rating, Needs Met Rating, but above all YMYL and EEAT, which we can consider principles on which those involved in SEO and content marketing can structure their work effectively. Let’s analyze in detail what the Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines contain, how they are applied by evaluators and how their principles can be translated into operational strategies to improve online visibility and reputation.
What are the Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines?
The Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines are the detailed instructions provided to raters in charge of examining the reliability and quality of the web pages shown in search results, with the aim of improving the ranking algorithms.
This is an official document of over 180 pages that defines the criteria used by thousands of quality raters to examine the websites, pages and contents: As repeatedly reiterated and emphasized by Google sources, the guidelines (and the work of the raters) do not directly influence the positioning of the sites, but help calibrate the algorithms that determine the search engine result pages (SERP), collecting useful data to refine the automatic ranking systems of Google.
By analyzing the evaluations provided by the quality raters, the search engine checks to see if its systems are really rewarding the best content in terms of relevance and reliability. Changing perspective, understanding the logic of this model allows you to adapt your site to the standards promoted by the search engine, improving both the user experience and the solidity of the online brand.
The role of the guidelines in Search operation
The “guidelines for quality raters in Search” are therefore a quality control system that allows Google to continuously improve the way it selects, orders and improves the search experience, refining not only the relevance but also the validity of the pages proposed to users.
The first recipients and users are the quality raters, the patrol of external collaborators who work for Google through third-party companies, with the task of analyzing samples of web pages and applying standardized evaluation criteria, in order to help identify any problems or anomalies in the search results.
Each evaluator performs the tests using specific scenarios provided by Google and assigns scores based on parameters such as the overall quality of the page (Page Quality Rating) and the level of satisfaction of the user’s intent (Needs Met Rating).
In theory, if a series of updates leads to an increase in misleading, low-quality or unreliable pages among the top results, the feedback collected helps Google engineers to understand the critical issues and refine the ranking systems in subsequent updates – without directly affecting the position of individual websites in the SERP, we repeat!
A central element in this process is the E-E-A-T framework (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), used to distinguish truly valid content from that offering inaccurate or unreliable information. Pages that demonstrate direct experience in the subject matter, reliable sources and a positive reputation obtain higher scores, providing useful data for improving the algorithm.
The history of the Quality Rater Guidelines: a public document in constant evolution
The guidelines for Search Quality Raters are not static, but are regularly updated to adapt to changes in the online content ecosystem.
The first official version was published in 2013, initially as a confidential document, then made public by Google in 2015 to ensure greater transparency and allow SEO professionals to access the same criteria with which sites and content are evaluated, offering a valuable resource for understanding the logic applied by the search engine.
Since then, several revisions have been released to include new evaluation metrics and reflect the evolution of quality criteria. The main points of this timeline are:
- 2013. First internal version used by quality raters.
- 2015. Google publishes the document online for the first time, making the evaluation criteria officially accessible.
- 2018. Introduction of E-A-T (Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), a key concept for evaluating content quality.
- 2022. Evolution of the model from E-A-T to E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), with the addition of Experience as a distinctive parameter for authoritative content, and a new definition of YMYL.
- 2023-2024. Focus on AI-generated content, information reliability and combatting sites that use spam techniques to manipulate SERPs.
- January 2025. Latest revision with new spam specifications and updates to Needs Met Rating metrics.
How (and why) the guidelines for quality raters change
The Search Quality Rater Guidelines are therefore constantly updated to ensure that the evaluation criteria reflect the evolution of the web and the way people search for and use information, as we have said. A revision does not always introduce significant changes, but it is still useful for improving the content quality analysis process and countering incorrect strategies that could compromise the reliability of the SERPs.
As we have already seen, in recent years Google has refined the concept of E-E-A-T, redefined the way it evaluates the use of artificial intelligence in content and has intervened on key aspects related to spam and search intent, indicating an evolution increasingly aimed at the quality of information and the ability of pages to truly satisfy the needs of users.
In particular, the latest versions of the Quality Rater Guidelines have broadened the definition of spam, including advanced practices that attempt to manipulate the ranking without providing real value to users, following the new policies introduced by the March 2025 Spam Update, which refer to:
- Production of large-scale content with no added value (Scaled Content Abuse), whereby some sites generate thousands of text pages to compete for large volumes of keywords.
- Use of expired domains to gain authority by deceiving the algorithms: a practice known as expired domain abuse, which reuses sites with a positive history to create new pages with no real quality.
- Site Reputation abuse, or the use of reliable domains to host low-quality content far from the “core” of the host site.
Regarding the use of generative AI in the content creation process, a specific clarification in quality evaluations was necessary: in line with Google’s official position on artificial intelligence in Search, the document states that automatically generated content is not inherently penalized, but must meet the same quality criteria required for content written by human authors.
The updated guidelines instruct quality raters to evaluate whether a page:
- Shows clear signs of human review prior to publication, ensuring that the content does not contain AI-typical errors such as false references or inconsistent statements.
- Offers real informational value, without unnecessary repetition or sections lacking in concrete depth.
- It avoids mass-generated content without contextualization, a common scenario on sites that use AI to quickly create large volumes of pages with superficial information.
These criteria serve to distinguish effective use of AI – which can be a valid tool if used with moderation and verification – from forms of automated production that reduce the overall quality of online information.
Another important aspect of the recent revisions concerns the way in which the fulfillment of the search intent is interpreted, with more detailed instructions to quality raters to help them distinguish between results that are truly useful and pages that, although technically relevant, do not fully satisfy the user’s needs. A practical example concerns the term “mercury”: a user could be looking for information on the chemical element, on the plant Mercurialis or on the planet in the solar system. If a page ranks prominently for one of these interpretations but doesn’t satisfy other significant variations of the search, the quality rater can evaluate it with a lower score.
For this reason, a more rigorous check on the ambiguities of the results is required, to avoid sub-optimal pages from still being classified with high scores simply because they contain keywords in line with the query. But also, greater attention to the type of device used by the user, to assess whether a page structured correctly on a desktop offers the same experience on a mobile and vice versa, and the identification of obsolete content or content with outdated information, which could be penalized in the evaluations, especially for YMYL topics.
What are the criteria for evaluating pages
The evaluation of the quality of a web page takes into account various factors that determine the reliability, usefulness and relevance of the content. The analysis carried out by the quality raters is not limited to the visible text, but examines the entire structure of the page, the context in which it is inserted and the reputation of the site that hosts it.
The scoring process follows a structured criterion that takes into account the original intent of the content, the author’s experience, the level of depth offered and how the page satisfies a specific need for information. Elements such as the author’s transparency, the completeness of the information and the presence of relevant signals for the user significantly influence the overall judgment.
The quality of the page is analyzed using two distinct parameters. The first, the Page Quality Rating (PQ), determines the overall value of the content in terms of reliability, competence and usefulness. The second, the Needs Met Rating (NM), verifies to what extent the page really responds to the user’s search, offering a clear and immediate solution. Both criteria are applied with different logics, contributing to the definition of the qualitative standards used to refine the search results.
The interpretation of these metrics allows us to understand what makes content effective and how it is perceived compared to others, providing SEO professionals with a clear picture of how to optimize their online presence.
What is Google’s Page Quality Rating
The Page Quality Rating is assigned through an overall analysis of the page, which includes both the content structure and the reputation of the site and author. The objective is to establish how reliable a specific piece of content is and how it responds to its specific purpose.
Quality raters evaluate the purpose of the page, the level of expertise demonstrated, the reputation of the site and a series of other signals that indicate whether a piece of content can be considered useful and reliable. If a site presents misleading information, is anonymous or does not offer clear signs of authority, it will be rated lower than pages that guarantee transparency and recognized sources.
Identifying the purpose of the page
Every web page is created for a specific purpose, and its quality is judged in relation to this objective: for this reason, the parameters applied to institutional sites differ from those for e-commerce, blogs or information platforms.
An online shop must provide detailed product descriptions, reviews, high-quality images and transparency about the purchase conditions. An editorial page needs references to reliable sources, attributes that make it clear who wrote the content and signs of the author’s reliability. A government or medical site is evaluated with particular attention, because the information provided must be not only correct, but also verifiable.
If a page has no clear purpose or seems to have been created only to attract traffic without offering any real value, it will receive a lower Page Quality Rating. The same applies to content that claims to explore a topic in depth, but then provides generic information without clear or verifiable data.
The role of EEAT
The importance of the signals Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness has grown over time, influencing the way Google determines the quality of content. The author’s direct experience of something has become a key element, together with the expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness of the sources.
A technical guide is more valuable if written by a recognized expert in the field. Financial advice provided by a certified professional offers more guarantees than an anonymous opinion. A product review written by someone who has actually tried it has more credibility than a summary based on third-party descriptions.
The reliability of content also depends on the clarity with which information about the author is provided. Articles without references to the author or companies without a clear “About Us” section receive a lower rating than sites that provide transparency about their sources.
Evaluation of the reputation of the domain and the author
Quality raters also analyze what is said about a site outside its own domain. Reviews, citations in authoritative sources, mentions in newspapers and feedback from users all contribute to the perceived credibility of a brand or author.
Pages that mention recognized experts and have verifiable references receive a better rating than sites that do not provide clear data about their background. External links also play a key role: sources that are cited in other quality content are implicitly recognized as authoritative.
If a site has a history of negative reports, deceptive practices or unreliable information, it will be given a lower score. Low-quality content often comes from sources that do not have a solid presence in their sector and that do not provide clear signals of a reliable reputation.
What does Needs Met Rating mean: search intent satisfaction
The mere quality of the content is not enough if the page does not respond clearly and quickly to the user’s request. The Needs Met Rating examines how useful a result is in relation to the query that generated the visit. The evaluation is not based solely on the relevance of the page, but on how much it is able to provide the user with comprehensive and immediate information. If a piece of content is not relevant or does not convey concrete value, it receives lower scores.
The Needs Met Rating follows a scale ranging from Fails to Meet to Fully Meets. A result obtains the maximum score when it completely satisfies the user’s needs without the need for further research.
A clear example is pages that answer direct questions. If a user searches for “Rome weather today”, the best result is the one that immediately shows the updated forecast. A generic article about the climate in Rome, without details about the current day, will be rated lower.
Pages that provide incomplete information, that force the user to look elsewhere for further details, or that do not fully clarify the search topic receive intermediate scores. Those that deviate totally from the context of the query receive a negative rating.
Differences between desktop and mobile evaluation
The browsing experience varies depending on the device used and Google takes this distinction into account. A site optimized for desktop may be unsuitable on mobile if the texts are difficult to read, if the contents do not adapt to the screen or if the interactions are not intuitive.
Pages that force the user to interact with invasive pop-up windows, that have buttons that are difficult to press on smaller screens or that take too long to load on mobile connections get a lower score in the quality rater analysis.
Practical examples of pages that get the best and worst scores
The official guides provide several examples of pages with opposite evaluations. An institutional site that explains an administrative procedure with detailed instructions, direct links to the required documents and updated information will have a high score.
On the contrary, a blog that deals with the same topic but offers generic details without verifiable references will get a lower rating. Pages that deviate completely from the search intent, such as clickbait articles or content created to get interactions without offering concrete information, are ranked among the worst results.
EEAT and YMYL: two key concepts for quality raters
Google applies a rigorous approach to evaluating content quality, relying on specific criteria to establish the reliability of a page. Two concepts that often come up in our in-depth analyses are E-E-A-T and YMYL.
The first acronym defines the standards for verifying the authoritativeness of content, while the second identifies categories of particularly sensitive topics, for which a greater guarantee of accuracy and reliability is required. Applying these principles allows us to distinguish valuable information pages from potentially misleading ones, reducing the risk that users will find incorrect information on sensitive topics such as health, finance or security.
The E-E-A-T concept is used to determine whether a page can be considered a valid reference for users and is applied particularly rigorously in sectors dealing with topics that have a significant impact on people’s choices. The reliability of a page depends not only on the accuracy of the content, but also on the authority of the source that publishes it.
The two Es: the difference between experience and expertise
The current framework was established in 2022, with the extension of E-A-T through the introduction of the parameter of the content author’s direct experience.
The Experience criterion has been added to differentiate content based on theoretical knowledge from that written by someone who has actually experienced a certain situation. This aspect is of primary importance for topics that presuppose concrete personal experience, such as product reviews, accounts of professional experiences or testimonials in the healthcare sector.
For example, in the case of a review of a medical procedure, content written by a patient who has undergone the operation provides a different level of information compared to a generic article about the characteristics of the operation. Both points of view can be valid, but direct experience is considered an added value when evaluating the completeness and usefulness of a page.
Experience and expertise are not synonymous, but represent two distinct parameters that are analyzed to determine the value of content.
- Experience (direct experience) concerns personal interaction with a topic: a review written by someone who has tested a product, a report based on a first-hand experience or a practical guide based on field experience.
- Expertise (professional competence) refers to knowledge acquired through study, training and work experience: a doctor writing an article on diabetes management, a lawyer specializing in a particular legal issue, or an engineer specializing in a technical field.
When quality raters examine a page, they evaluate which of these two elements is more relevant to the topic being discussed. For some topics, such as those related to medicine or finance, the expertise demonstrated with academic certifications carries more weight; for other categories, the direct experience of someone who has lived through a certain situation can be more useful for the user.
Your Money, Your Life: when the evaluation criteria are stricter
Some topics have such a significant impact on people’s lives that they require a particularly rigorous evaluation: Google defines these topics with the acronym YMYL and specifies that a page is classified in this category when the content can influence the health, safety, financial stability or well-being of society.
The concept of YMYL doesn’t only apply to pages that provide explicit advice on these topics, but also to content that could cause damage if it presents inaccurate or unreliable information. This distinction is fundamental because it determines the severity of the quality control that Google applies to pages related to these topics, making it essential to respect high standards of accuracy and transparency.
The Search Quality Rater Guidelines adopt a structured approach to identify YMYL pages, establishing that the concept not only concerns the direct reader of the content, but also the impact that certain information can have on other individuals or on wider social groups.
Google distinguishes between two main risk categories:
- Topics that are inherently dangerous, with a clear link to personal or collective harm, such as self-harm, crime or violent extremism. Here, the risk does not depend on the authoritativeness of the source: the content itself implies a danger.
- Topics become dangerous if they contain incorrect information, as an error or omission could have negative consequences for the user. This concerns content such as heart attack symptoms, financial investments, road safety regulations or procedures to follow in the event of a natural disaster.
Based on this approach, the guidelines identify four categories of YMYL risk:
- Health and safety – includes topics that can affect a person’s physical, mental and emotional condition, such as information on diseases, treatments, nutrition and medications.
- Financial security – concerns content related to investments, loans, mortgages, taxes and money management, given their impact on people’s economic well-being.
- Impact on society – includes everything that can affect institutional trust, public perception of information or the functioning of social groups (e.g. electoral information, legal regulations, news about events of public interest).
- Other YMYL topics – specific categories that, although not falling within the above sectors, could still generate damage or affect people’s quality of life.
Google emphasizes that not all topics are YMYL and that the evaluation is not always binary. Some pages deal with topics that fall in an intermediate area, and in these cases the required accuracy threshold may vary based on the type of content and the potential impact it could have on the user.
Why does Google require higher levels of reliability for these topics?
Quality raters are instructed to subject pages dealing with YMYL topics to particular scrutiny. The aim is not only to ensure that the information is correct, but also to make sure that the sources are highly authoritative and reliable.
The importance of this evaluation is linked to the potential negative impact that inaccurate or misleading content could have on people and society. An error in an entertainment article may have negligible consequences, but an inaccurate source in a guide on how to recognize the symptoms of a stroke or how to manage an investment plan can be harmful.
The update of the guidelines has also led to greater attention being paid to pages that do not spread false information, but which do not provide enough elements to confirm the reliability of their statements. If a site presents financial advice without clearly indicating who the authors are and whether they have experience in the sector, it could be classified as unreliable by the algorithms, regardless of the accuracy of the information provided.
For this reason, pages dealing with YMYL issues must provide clear references, cite qualified experts and ensure that each piece of information can be traced back to a verifiable source relevant to the topic at hand.
How to manage YMYL content to meet the criteria of the guidelines
Ensuring alignment with the guidelines for a YMYL site requires specific measures to increase the perception of authoritativeness and reduce any margin of doubt about the reliability of the content.
The first aspect concerns the identification of the authors. Quality raters give significant weight to information about the professionalism and experience of the writer. In the health, legal or financial sectors, it is essential that content is produced by recognized experts or, at least, supervised by professionals in the field.
The transparency of the source is also crucial: a page without clear references to the author’s identity is judged more severely. Sites that offer a detailed author bio, with a professional history and tangible references, have an advantage over those that publish anonymous content or content without verifiable data.
Another optimization element concerns the validation of information. YMYL content must be supported by recognized and updated sources. An article that provides advice on investment strategies should be based on official documents, data published by accredited financial institutions and references to experts in the field. The same principle applies to medical information, which must refer to clinical studies, health authority guidelines and academic publications.
Finally, constantly updating content plays a key role. Google requires that pages dealing with legislation, safety protocols or health information be updated periodically to reflect any regulatory changes or new scientific evidence. Sites that neglect this practice risk seeing their credibility reduced, as outdated information can have negative consequences for the user.
Considering the importance of YMYL topics, ensuring transparency, accuracy and authority in the information published is not only a requirement for obtaining a positive evaluation, but also a central element for gaining the trust of users and consolidating the reputation of the site.
The implications for SEO: how to adapt to the Search Quality Rater Guidelines
Everything is SEO: even if the quality raters’ analysis doesn’t directly influence the position of a site in the SERP (and yes, we’ve repeated it countless times!), knowing what they look for and how they evaluate is really useful for understanding which factors are taken into consideration by Google’s algorithms. Also because our in-depth studies have revealed that the authority of the brand is an element that weighs heavily on positioning, especially in some sectors.
Optimizing a site following the principles indicated in the guidelines means working on concrete aspects such as the transparency of information, the quality of the sources, the experience of the author and the authority of the domain. It’s also a question of common sense: ignoring these criteria guidelines doesn’t have a direct impact on ranking, but it can result in less trust from users and, in the long term, in less relevance for algorithms.
Create useful, high-quality content
Google’s request is to go beyond the presentation of correct information: valuable content must be clear, in-depth and respond directly to the user’s needs, without ambiguity or gaps.
Content rated positively by quality raters has some common characteristics. Each page must have a well-defined purpose and achieve it without digressions, providing exhaustive and relevant information with respect to the topic at hand.
To ensure clarity and effectiveness, the content structure must facilitate reading, with a coherent organization of topics and a formatting of the text that makes it easy to identify the most important information. Added value is a key aspect: a well-made guide doesn’t just report generic data, but enriches the text with contextualized details, practical examples and verifiable references.
A decisive aspect in this sense is the verifiability of the information presented. Citing reliable sources and clearly identifying the author allows the reliability of a page to be established. In particular, articles dealing with complex or sensitive topics should include precise references to official documents, academic research, industry publications or institutional sources. Where it is necessary to demonstrate authority, indicating who is responsible for the content and their experience in the field helps to reinforce the credibility of the page.
Editorial quality is also measured by the completeness of the topics covered. A detailed guide on a technical topic, for example, should include in-depth explanations, concrete examples and verifiable references. At the same time, an informative article should be able to simplify complex concepts without compromising accuracy.
This is even more true for websites and content in the Your Money, Your Life category, which must be developed with particular attention to quality, as any error or inaccuracy could have a negative impact on the user. To ensure compliance with the standards applied by quality raters, it is necessary, among other things, to make sure that authors have direct or certified experience in the subject; to cite recognized and updated sources; to keep content aligned with scientific evidence or with current regulations in their sector.
The key element for YMYL content is trust. A page that deals with medical, financial or legal topics but does not offer any elements to verify its reliability will be evaluated more strictly by quality raters and, in the long run, will have less chance of ranking among the most visible resources in search results.
How to improve the site’s reputation in Google’s eyes
The authority of a site is not only built on well-written content, because Google also considers the external perception of the domain, evaluating signals coming from other sites, reviews and user feedback.
In short, link earning strategies and reliable off-page signals from authoritative sources, which are indicators of quality, are needed. A site mentioned by industry publications, universities or recognized organizations demonstrates that it has real informational value. The quality of inbound links has a significant impact on the construction of authority: spontaneous mentions by credible sources have a positive impact on the reputation of the site, while links obtained from low-quality or irrelevant resources offer no concrete advantage.
User opinions also contribute to the perception of a site’s trustworthiness, and quality raters are instructed to examine independent reviews to assess the reputation of an online business. Monitoring opinions expressed on external platforms, responding professionally to feedback, and correcting any critical issues reported by users are fundamental activities for building a solid and credible image.
A high number of negative reviews, especially on independent sites or industry forums, is a wake-up call for Google, while active involvement in reputation management helps to strengthen public trust.
Common mistakes that can lead to a low rating
Basically, failure to comply with quality standards can reduce trust in the site and, in the long term, compromise its visibility. Some errors are particularly penalizing in the evaluations of quality raters because they indicate problems that directly impact the user experience.
This is the case with spam: techniques aimed at maximizing visibility without offering real informative value are among the criteria that lead to a negative judgment on the quality of a page. This includes automated systems that produce low-quality content, excessive banner ads and aggressive interstitial ads that disrupt navigation, and invasive monetization techniques. If a page is structured mainly for commercial purposes and does not concretely respond to the user’s intent, the Page Quality Rating may be lower.
The absence of clear references to the authors of the content or the difficulty in verifying who is responsible for the published information are factors that reduce the perception of reliability. The Quality Rater Guidelines specify that a page should provide clear details about who created it, the author’s expertise and the sources used. A site that does not clearly show who is providing the information appears less credible in the eyes of users and, consequently, may receive a lower rating from quality raters. Ensuring that each piece of content is signed, that the authors are recognizable and that the sources are accessible is essential to guarantee maximum reliability.
Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines: FAQs and concerns to analyze
It is inevitable that a dense and complex document such as the Search Quality Rater Guidelines will often raise doubts or perplexities, both on how (and how much) the guidelines can influence SEO, and on what their real impact is on Google’s ranking mechanisms.
For this reason, we’ll answer some of the most frequently asked questions to clarify the main aspects of the document and how to use it to optimize content.
- What are the Search Quality Rater Guidelines?
The Search Quality Rater Guidelines are an official Google document that provides instructions to quality raters, collaborators in charge of evaluating the quality of web pages according to standardized criteria. The purpose of these guidelines is to improve the search engine algorithms through a qualitative analysis of the contents, without directly influencing the ranking of a site. The latest version of the Guidelines is 181 pages long, including appendices and practical examples to help raters assign scores. The document is periodically updated to reflect Google’s new priorities in terms of the quality and reliability of online information. The Search Quality Rater Guidelines are written and updated directly by the Google Search team, who use feedback from quality raters to refine their evaluation metrics. The most recent version can be consulted publicly in the Google Help Center or by accessing the PDF released by the search engine directly.
- Do quality raters influence the ranking of my site?
No, the quality raters’ evaluations do not directly change the position of a site in the search results. Their job is to analyze page samples and evaluate how useful and reliable they are based on Google’s guidelines. This data is then used to refine the algorithms, but it does not result in immediate penalties or improvements for the sites examined.
- Does Google directly penalize sites with a low Page Quality Rating?
No, a low score assigned by the quality raters does not result in an automatic penalty or a lowering of the ranking. However, if a site has characteristics considered to be of low quality (poor content, misleading information, lack of reliability), it could be disadvantaged by the algorithm changes that result from the evaluation analysis.
- How can I know if my site is considered YMYL?
To determine if a site falls into the Your Money, Your Life category, it is necessary to evaluate the type of content published. The guidelines define as YMYL pages that deal with topics related to health, finance, security, legal issues or any other topic that could directly influence people’s well-being. If the site offers advice on investments, medicine, regulations or topics that can have significant consequences on users, it is likely that it falls under this classification and must meet stricter quality standards.
- What is the difference between EEAT and algorithmic ranking factors?
The concept of Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness helps quality raters determine the quality of a page, but it is not a direct ranking factor. Google does not assign EEAT scores automatically, but uses indirect signals (such as the reputation of the site and author, the transparency of the sources and the quality of the content) to evaluate the reliability of a page through its algorithms.
- How can I tell if my page is “High Quality” according to the Guidelines?
High-quality content respects several criteria established in the Search Quality Rater Guidelines. It must have a clear and well-defined purpose, provide in-depth information, demonstrate transparency about the author and sources, present signs of authoritativeness and not contain errors or misleading information. Furthermore, an even higher level of accuracy and reliability is required for YMYL topics.
- Does Google accept AI-generated content?
Yes, Google does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence to write texts, but specifies that each page must be useful and of high quality regardless of the method used to create it. The absence of human supervision can be a problem if the AI-generated content has errors, misleading information or a repetitive structure that does not bring added value to the user.
- How often are the Search Quality Rater Guidelines updated?
The guidelines are updated periodically based on changes in Google’s algorithms and evolutions in user search behavior. In recent years, the main updates have been published annually or every six months, with important changes in 2018 (introduction of EAT), in 2022 (transition to EEAT) and in 2025 (greater attention to the quality of information and the fight against spam).
- Are the quality raters’ evaluations the same for all countries?
No, Google takes into account cultural and contextual differences between countries. Quality raters operate in their own geographical areas and evaluate content based on local standards, considering aspects such as language, regulations and user preferences. However, the general principles established in the Quality Rater Guidelines remain consistent globally.
