TL;DR
Google’s Quality Raters Guidelines (QRG) is a 170+ page document that tells human evaluators how to assess website quality. While raters don’t directly affect rankings, their assessments train Google’s algorithms. Understanding and applying QRG principles means: evaluating your site through the lens of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-E-A-T), identifying and fixing “lowest quality” page characteristics, understanding Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) implications, and building the signals that raters look for. It’s a blueprint for what Google’s algorithms are trying to detect.
Do This Today (3 Quick Checks)
- Find your “who” page: Can a visitor (or rater) easily find who is responsible for your content? About page, author bios, contact information?
- Check your worst pages: What’s the lowest-quality page on your site? Thin content, outdated info, no author? Raters are told to find and evaluate these.
- Assess YMYL applicability: Could your content affect someone’s health, finances, safety, or important life decisions? If yes, you’re held to higher standards.
Quality Raters Guidelines Core Framework
Page Quality (PQ) Rating Scale:
| Rating | Description | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| <strong>Highest</strong> | Pages that achieve their purpose exceptionally well | Outstanding E-E-A-T, exceptional content, stellar reputation |
| <strong>High</strong> | Pages that serve their purpose well | High E-E-A-T, satisfying content, good reputation |
| <strong>Medium</strong> | Nothing wrong, nothing special | Adequate E-E-A-T, acceptable content |
| <strong>Low</strong> | Something significantly wrong | Missing E-E-A-T, unsatisfying content, mildly negative reputation |
| <strong>Lowest</strong> | Harmful, deceptive, or completely fails purpose | No E-E-A-T, dangerous/deceptive, very negative reputation |
Self-Audit Scorecard
Rate each factor 1-5 (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)
E-E-A-T Signals:
| Factor | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| <strong>Experience:</strong> Content shows first-hand experience | ||
| <strong>Expertise:</strong> Creator has relevant qualifications | ||
| <strong>Authoritativeness:</strong> Site/creator recognized in field | ||
| <strong>Trustworthiness:</strong> Accurate, transparent, safe | ||
| <strong>E-E-A-T Subtotal</strong> | /20 |
Content Quality:
| Factor | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| <strong>Purpose clarity:</strong> Page purpose is clear | ||
| <strong>Purpose achievement:</strong> Page achieves its purpose | ||
| <strong>Comprehensiveness:</strong> Covers topic thoroughly | ||
| <strong>Accuracy:</strong> Information is factually correct | ||
| <strong>Originality:</strong> Provides unique value | ||
| <strong>Effort:</strong> Obvious effort invested in creation | ||
| <strong>Content Subtotal</strong> | /30 |
Website Quality:
| Factor | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| <strong>Contact info:</strong> Easy to find who's responsible | ||
| <strong>About page:</strong> Clear who operates site | ||
| <strong>Policies:</strong> Privacy, editorial policies present | ||
| <strong>Reputation:</strong> External sources positive | ||
| <strong>Website Subtotal</strong> | /20 |
YMYL Specific (if applicable):
| Factor | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| <strong>Expert involvement:</strong> Medical/legal/financial expertise | ||
| <strong>Source citation:</strong> Claims properly sourced | ||
| <strong>Disclaimers:</strong> Appropriate limitations stated | ||
| <strong>Update freshness:</strong> Information current | ||
| <strong>YMYL Subtotal</strong> | /20 |
Total Score Interpretation:
| Score Range | QRG Equivalent | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 81-90 (or 65-70 non-YMYL) | High-Highest | Maintain, minor improvements |
| 61-80 (or 49-64 non-YMYL) | Medium-High | Targeted improvements |
| 41-60 (or 33-48 non-YMYL) | Low-Medium | Significant work needed |
| <40 (or <32 non-YMYL) | Low-Lowest | Major overhaul required |
Content Quality Checklist by Page Type
YMYL Health Content:
| Requirement | Present? | Action Needed |
|---|---|---|
| Medical reviewer/author with credentials | ☐ | |
| Credentials verifiable (linked) | ☐ | |
| Sources cited (medical journals, health orgs) | ☐ | |
| Date published visible | ☐ | |
| Date last reviewed/updated visible | ☐ | |
| Appropriate disclaimers | ☐ | |
| Aligns with medical consensus | ☐ | |
| No potentially harmful advice | ☐ |
YMYL Financial Content:
| Requirement | Present? | Action Needed |
|---|---|---|
| Financial professional author/reviewer | ☐ | |
| Credentials and certifications listed | ☐ | |
| Regulatory disclosures present | ☐ | |
| Specific advice includes caveats | ☐ | |
| No guarantees of returns | ☐ | |
| Sources for data/statistics | ☐ |
Product/Service Pages:
| Requirement | Present? | Action Needed |
|---|---|---|
| Clear business identity | ☐ | |
| Contact information accessible | ☐ | |
| Refund/return policies | ☐ | |
| Customer reviews/testimonials | ☐ | |
| Product information accurate | ☐ | |
| Pricing transparent | ☐ |
The Conversation
Naomi, Content Strategy Lead at a health and wellness company, site was hit by a core update 8 months ago and hasn’t recovered, has heard about Quality Raters Guidelines but never read them thoroughly, looking for practical guidance on what to fix, advanced content background: We were hit by a core update 8 months ago. Traffic down 45%. I keep hearing about the Quality Raters Guidelines and E-E-A-T but when I try to read the guidelines, it’s overwhelming. How do I practically apply this to our health and wellness site?
SDC SEO Brain: Health and wellness is explicitly YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) in the guidelines. This means your site is evaluated with the highest scrutiny. Let’s break down what raters are instructed to look for and how to systematically audit your site against those criteria.
Naomi: What exactly is YMYL and why does it matter?
SDC SEO Brain: YMYL pages are those that could significantly impact a person’s future happiness, health, financial stability, or safety. Google applies higher quality standards because mistakes cause real harm.
YMYL categories:
- Health and safety (your category)
- Financial information
- News and current events
- Civics, government, law
- Shopping (transactions)
- Groups of people (sensitive topics)
- Other (major life decisions)
For your health content, raters are asking: “If someone follows this advice, could it hurt them? Is this information from qualified sources?”
Naomi: How do raters actually evaluate our pages?
SDC SEO Brain: The QRG instructs raters to evaluate:
1. Purpose of the page
- What is this page trying to accomplish?
- Does it achieve that purpose?
2. E-E-A-T signals
- Experience: Has the creator actually experienced what they’re writing about?
- Expertise: Does the creator have relevant knowledge or skill?
- Authoritativeness: Is the creator or site recognized as a go-to source?
- Trustworthiness: Is the content and site trustworthy?
3. Main Content quality
- Effort put into creation
- Originality
- Accuracy
- Comprehensiveness for purpose
4. Website and creator reputation
- What do external sources say?
- Reviews, references, expert opinions
Let’s systematically audit your site. First question: who writes your health content?
Naomi: Mix of freelancers and our in-house team. Freelancers are mostly content writers, not health professionals. In-house team includes some people with health backgrounds.
SDC SEO Brain: That’s a significant E-E-A-T problem for YMYL content. The QRG specifically states:
“For YMYL topics, the everyday experience of the content creator is often less important than formal expertise.”
For health content, raters look for:
- Medical credentials (doctors, nurses, registered dietitians)
- Relevant academic credentials
- Professional experience in the field
- Institutional backing
Content from generic freelancers with no health credentials gets rated lower for health topics, regardless of how well it’s written.
Naomi: So we need to hire doctors to write everything?
SDC SEO Brain: Options for improving creator E-E-A-T:
Option 1: Medical review
- Content can be written by non-experts
- Reviewed and approved by credentialed expert
- Clearly state: “Reviewed by Dr. X, MD”
- Link to reviewer’s credentials
Option 2: Expert authorship
- Hire experts to write key content
- Feature their credentials prominently
- More expensive but strongest signal
Option 3: Expert interviews
- Interview experts and quote them
- “According to Dr. X…”
- Cite credentials
Option 4: Institutional affiliation
- Partner with medical institutions
- Associate content with trusted organizations
- Advisory board involvement
Naomi: What should author pages look like?
SDC SEO Brain: The QRG specifically says raters should “look for information about who is responsible for the website and who created the content.” Your author pages should include:
For health content authors:
- Full name (not pseudonyms for YMYL)
- Photo (real, professional)
- Credentials (degrees, certifications, licenses)
- Experience (years in field, areas of expertise)
- Current position/affiliation
- Links to credentials (LinkedIn, medical board, etc.)
- Other content they’ve created
- Contact information (optional but trust-building)
Bad author bio:
“Jane is a health and wellness writer passionate about helping people live better lives.”
Good author bio:
“Dr. Jane Smith, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine physician with 15 years of clinical experience. She completed her residency at Massachusetts General Hospital and currently practices at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Smith specializes in preventive medicine and has published research in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.”
Naomi: What about the content itself? What are raters looking for?
SDC SEO Brain: For YMYL health content, raters evaluate:
Accuracy:
- Is information factually correct?
- Does it align with medical consensus?
- Are sources cited?
- Could following this advice cause harm?
Comprehensiveness:
- Does content cover what users need?
- Are important caveats mentioned?
- Does it address common questions/concerns?
Transparency:
- Sources cited and linked
- Date published and last updated
- Clear about limitations
- Disclaimers where appropriate
Practical audit: Take your top 10 health articles and check:
- Is there a medical review or expert author?
- Are claims cited with sources?
- Is there a publish/update date?
- Does it cover the topic comprehensively?
- Are there appropriate disclaimers?
Naomi: We have a lot of old content. Some of it is probably outdated.
SDC SEO Brain: The QRG specifically addresses outdated content as a quality issue:
“Consider whether the MC [Main Content] has been updated as appropriate for the topic. For some topics, such as YMYL topics related to health or safety, the newest information may be essential.”
Outdated health content is particularly problematic. Medical guidelines change. What was accurate 5 years ago may be wrong now.
Content freshness audit:
- List all health content
- Check last updated date
- Research if topic has changed since publication
- Prioritize update by: traffic, revenue, criticality of accuracy
- Either update, add “no longer current” notice, or remove
Naomi: What about site-wide trust signals?
SDC SEO Brain: Raters evaluate the entire website’s trustworthiness:
Contact information:
- Physical address (especially for YMYL)
- Customer service contact
- Multiple contact methods
About page:
- Who owns/operates the site
- Mission and purpose
- Background and history
Policies:
- Privacy policy
- Editorial standards
- Corrections policy
- Advertising disclosure
Reputation:
- What do external sources say?
- Reviews on third-party sites
- Press coverage
- BBB rating
- Expert citations
Raters are instructed to search for “[brand] reviews” and “[brand] reputation” to find external opinions.
Naomi: How do I know if we’re making progress?
SDC SEO Brain: Unfortunately, there’s no “quality score” you can check. But you can:
Self-audit against QRG:
- Rate your own pages using QRG criteria
- Be brutally honest
- Document scores, track improvements
External perspective:
- Hire someone unfamiliar with your site to evaluate using QRG
- Ask: “Would you trust this health advice?”
- Gather feedback on author credibility
Competitor benchmarking:
- Evaluate competitor sites using same criteria
- Where are they stronger?
- What signals do ranking sites have that you don’t?
Proxy metrics:
- User engagement (do people stay and engage?)
- Bounce rate on YMYL content
- Conversion rate (trust → action)
- Brand search volume (growing recognition)
FAQ
Q: Do Quality Raters directly affect rankings?
A: No, rater evaluations don’t directly change rankings. Their assessments train and validate Google’s algorithms. But the QRG reveals what Google’s algorithms are trying to detect.
Q: How do I get the Quality Raters Guidelines?
A: Google publicly publishes them. Search “Google Quality Raters Guidelines” or go to: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
Q: Is E-E-A-T a ranking factor?
A: Not directly as an algorithm score. But the signals that demonstrate E-E-A-T (authorship, citations, expertise) are what algorithms learn to recognize from rater feedback.
Q: How strictly should non-YMYL sites follow QRG?
A: QRG applies to all sites but with different thresholds. YMYL requires highest standards. Non-YMYL has more flexibility but still benefits from E-E-A-T signals.
Q: Can a site recover from low quality scores?
A: Yes. If you genuinely improve the signals raters look for, algorithms will eventually reflect that. But recovery takes time, often 3-6+ months.
Summary
Quality Raters Guidelines reveal what Google’s algorithms are learning to detect. Understanding QRG = understanding Google’s quality standards.
YMYL content requires highest standards:
- Health, finance, safety, major life decisions
- Real expertise required, not just good writing
- Accuracy is critical; mistakes cause harm
E-E-A-T evaluation:
- Experience: Actual first-hand experience
- Expertise: Credentials, formal knowledge
- Authoritativeness: Recognition as go-to source
- Trustworthiness: Honest, transparent, reliable
Author signals matter:
- Real names with credentials
- Verifiable backgrounds
- Medical review for health content
- Prominent author pages with full information
Content quality factors:
- Accuracy (correct, current)
- Comprehensiveness (covers topic fully)
- Sources (cited and credible)
- Freshness (updated for changing topics)
Site-wide trust signals:
- Contact information
- About page with real information
- Clear policies
- Positive external reputation
Audit your site as a rater would:
- Evaluate against QRG criteria
- Be honest about weaknesses
- Compare to ranking competitors
- Improve systematically
Sources
- Google Quality Raters Guidelines (official): https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
- Google Search Central: E-E-A-T – https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
- Google: Core updates guidance – https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/08/core-updates