{"slug":"google-quality-guidelines-evaluator","title":"Google Quality Guidelines Evaluator: Content Self-Assessment","tags":["content-quality","google-guidelines","eeat","self-assessment","seo"],"agent_summary":"Content self-assessment framework based on Google's Quality Evaluator Guidelines. Scores content across 5 dimensions (purpose, YMYL risk, E-E-A-T, main content quality, reputation). Returns a quality tier (Highest/High/Medium/Low/Lowest) with specific improvement actions.","trigger_phrases":["google quality guidelines","content quality evaluation","rate my content quality","quality evaluator","google qrg","content quality score","evaluate content quality"],"runnable":true,"markdown":"\n# Google Quality Guidelines Evaluator: Content Self-Assessment\n\nGoogle's Quality Evaluator Guidelines (QRG) are the framework human quality raters use to score pages. Understanding how raters evaluate content is the fastest path to building content that ranks sustainably.\n\n---\n\n## Dimension 1: Page Purpose\n\nEvery page must have a clear and beneficial purpose.\n\n**Assess:**\n- What is this page trying to do for the visitor?\n- Is the purpose legitimate and beneficial?\n- Does the content deliver on its stated purpose?\n\n**Harmful purpose indicators (automatic Lowest rating):**\n- Deceive users (fake news, impersonation)\n- Harm users (malware, dangerous instructions)\n- Spam (generated for search engines, not people)\n\n**Beneficial purpose examples:**\n- Inform with accurate information\n- Share a personal perspective or experience\n- Entertain with clearly marked fiction or humor\n- Sell a legitimate product or service\n\n---\n\n## Dimension 2: YMYL Risk Assessment\n\nYMYL = Your Money or Your Life. Topics where wrong information causes real harm.\n\n**High YMYL topics (require highest E-E-A-T):**\n- Medical, health, safety\n- Financial advice and decisions\n- Legal advice\n- News and current events on civic matters\n- Content about specific groups of people\n\n**If the content is YMYL:**\n- Author credentials must be visible and verifiable\n- Sources must be authoritative and linked\n- Medical/financial/legal claims require expert review\n- Last-reviewed date must be current\n\n**Non-YMYL content:** Can achieve high quality ratings with strong E-E-A-T but the bar is lower.\n\n---\n\n## Dimension 3: E-E-A-T Self-Scoring\n\nScore each element 1-5:\n\n| E-E-A-T Element | Score | How to Score |\n|----------------|-------|-------------|\n| **Experience** | [1-5] | Does the author show direct personal experience? (1=none, 5=clear and specific) |\n| **Expertise** | [1-5] | Does the content show deep topic knowledge? (1=generic, 5=expert-level insight) |\n| **Authoritativeness** | [1-5] | Is the site/author recognized in the space? (1=unknown, 5=cited by others) |\n| **Trust** | [1-5] | Is information accurate, transparent, and verifiable? (1=unverifiable, 5=fully sourced) |\n\n**Total E-E-A-T score:** Sum of 4 elements (max 20).\n\n- 15-20: Highest E-E-A-T\n- 10-14: High E-E-A-T\n- 6-9: Medium E-E-A-T (needs improvement)\n- Below 6: Low — significant E-E-A-T problems\n\n---\n\n## Dimension 4: Main Content Quality\n\nEvaluate the body of the content:\n\n| Quality Factor | Questions to Ask |\n|---------------|-----------------|\n| Effort | Does this clearly represent significant time and skill investment? |\n| Originality | Is there unique information, analysis, research, or perspective? |\n| Accuracy | Are all facts verifiable? Are any claims outdated? |\n| Comprehensiveness | Does it fully address the topic the title promises? |\n| Production quality | Is it well-formatted, free of errors, readable? |\n\n**Red flags for Low main content quality:**\n- Auto-generated text without review\n- Scraped or lightly modified content from other sources\n- Clickbait title that doesn't match content\n- Wall of text with no structure\n- Excessive ads relative to content\n\n---\n\n## Dimension 5: Reputation Assessment\n\nGoogle quality raters check reputation signals independent of the content:\n\n**Positive reputation signals:**\n- Awards, recognition, or mentions in reputable publications\n- Positive reviews from credible sources\n- Author bylines on recognized publications\n- Professional credentials verifiable off-site\n\n**Negative reputation signals:**\n- Complaints on Better Business Bureau or consumer protection sites\n- Reports of deceptive practices\n- Negative coverage in news\n- Large volume of negative reviews\n\n**For new or small sites:** Lack of reputation is not the same as negative reputation. Focus on building visible trust signals.\n\n---\n\n## Quality Tier Assignment\n\nBased on scores across all 5 dimensions:\n\n| Tier | Criteria |\n|------|---------|\n| **Highest** | Clear beneficial purpose + strong E-E-A-T (15+) + excellent main content + positive reputation |\n| **High** | Clear beneficial purpose + good E-E-A-T (10-14) + good main content |\n| **Medium** | Mixed — beneficial purpose but some E-E-A-T gaps or thin content |\n| **Low** | Missing E-E-A-T, thin content, or mismatch between title and content |\n| **Lowest** | Harmful purpose, deceptive content, or extremely thin/auto-generated |\n\n---\n\n## Improvement Action Plan by Tier\n\n**Medium → High:**\n1. Add author credentials (byline + credential statement)\n2. Add 3+ external citations to authoritative sources\n3. Add one case study or first-person experience passage\n4. Update all statistics to current year\n\n**Low → Medium:**\n1. Fix intent mismatch (rewrite to match search intent)\n2. Expand thin sections to meet competitor depth\n3. Add FAQ with real PAA questions\n4. Remove or improve low-quality supplementary content (excessive ads, pop-ups)\n\n**Lowest → Low:**\n1. Full content overhaul required — this is not a patch scenario\n2. Remove auto-generated content entirely\n3. Add human expertise and review to every claim\n\n#content-sop #content-quality #google-guidelines #eeat\n","html":"<h1>Google Quality Guidelines Evaluator: Content Self-Assessment</h1>\n<p>Google's Quality Evaluator Guidelines (QRG) are the framework human quality raters use to score pages. Understanding how raters evaluate content is the fastest path to building content that ranks sustainably.</p>\n<hr>\n<h2>Dimension 1: Page Purpose</h2>\n<p>Every page must have a clear and beneficial purpose.</p>\n<p><strong>Assess:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>What is this page trying to do for the visitor?</li>\n<li>Is the purpose legitimate and beneficial?</li>\n<li>Does the content deliver on its stated purpose?</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>Harmful purpose indicators (automatic Lowest rating):</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Deceive users (fake news, impersonation)</li>\n<li>Harm users (malware, dangerous instructions)</li>\n<li>Spam (generated for search engines, not people)</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>Beneficial purpose examples:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Inform with accurate information</li>\n<li>Share a personal perspective or experience</li>\n<li>Entertain with clearly marked fiction or humor</li>\n<li>Sell a legitimate product or service</li>\n</ul>\n<hr>\n<h2>Dimension 2: YMYL Risk Assessment</h2>\n<p>YMYL = Your Money or Your Life. Topics where wrong information causes real harm.</p>\n<p><strong>High YMYL topics (require highest E-E-A-T):</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Medical, health, safety</li>\n<li>Financial advice and decisions</li>\n<li>Legal advice</li>\n<li>News and current events on civic matters</li>\n<li>Content about specific groups of people</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>If the content is YMYL:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Author credentials must be visible and verifiable</li>\n<li>Sources must be authoritative and linked</li>\n<li>Medical/financial/legal claims require expert review</li>\n<li>Last-reviewed date must be current</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>Non-YMYL content:</strong> Can achieve high quality ratings with strong E-E-A-T but the bar is lower.</p>\n<hr>\n<h2>Dimension 3: E-E-A-T Self-Scoring</h2>\n<p>Score each element 1-5:</p>\n<p>| E-E-A-T Element | Score | How to Score |\n|----------------|-------|-------------|\n| <strong>Experience</strong> | [1-5] | Does the author show direct personal experience? (1=none, 5=clear and specific) |\n| <strong>Expertise</strong> | [1-5] | Does the content show deep topic knowledge? (1=generic, 5=expert-level insight) |\n| <strong>Authoritativeness</strong> | [1-5] | Is the site/author recognized in the space? (1=unknown, 5=cited by others) |\n| <strong>Trust</strong> | [1-5] | Is information accurate, transparent, and verifiable? (1=unverifiable, 5=fully sourced) |</p>\n<p><strong>Total E-E-A-T score:</strong> Sum of 4 elements (max 20).</p>\n<ul>\n<li>15-20: Highest E-E-A-T</li>\n<li>10-14: High E-E-A-T</li>\n<li>6-9: Medium E-E-A-T (needs improvement)</li>\n<li>Below 6: Low — significant E-E-A-T problems</li>\n</ul>\n<hr>\n<h2>Dimension 4: Main Content Quality</h2>\n<p>Evaluate the body of the content:</p>\n<p>| Quality Factor | Questions to Ask |\n|---------------|-----------------|\n| Effort | Does this clearly represent significant time and skill investment? |\n| Originality | Is there unique information, analysis, research, or perspective? |\n| Accuracy | Are all facts verifiable? Are any claims outdated? |\n| Comprehensiveness | Does it fully address the topic the title promises? |\n| Production quality | Is it well-formatted, free of errors, readable? |</p>\n<p><strong>Red flags for Low main content quality:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Auto-generated text without review</li>\n<li>Scraped or lightly modified content from other sources</li>\n<li>Clickbait title that doesn't match content</li>\n<li>Wall of text with no structure</li>\n<li>Excessive ads relative to content</li>\n</ul>\n<hr>\n<h2>Dimension 5: Reputation Assessment</h2>\n<p>Google quality raters check reputation signals independent of the content:</p>\n<p><strong>Positive reputation signals:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Awards, recognition, or mentions in reputable publications</li>\n<li>Positive reviews from credible sources</li>\n<li>Author bylines on recognized publications</li>\n<li>Professional credentials verifiable off-site</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>Negative reputation signals:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Complaints on Better Business Bureau or consumer protection sites</li>\n<li>Reports of deceptive practices</li>\n<li>Negative coverage in news</li>\n<li>Large volume of negative reviews</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>For new or small sites:</strong> Lack of reputation is not the same as negative reputation. Focus on building visible trust signals.</p>\n<hr>\n<h2>Quality Tier Assignment</h2>\n<p>Based on scores across all 5 dimensions:</p>\n<p>| Tier | Criteria |\n|------|---------|\n| <strong>Highest</strong> | Clear beneficial purpose + strong E-E-A-T (15+) + excellent main content + positive reputation |\n| <strong>High</strong> | Clear beneficial purpose + good E-E-A-T (10-14) + good main content |\n| <strong>Medium</strong> | Mixed — beneficial purpose but some E-E-A-T gaps or thin content |\n| <strong>Low</strong> | Missing E-E-A-T, thin content, or mismatch between title and content |\n| <strong>Lowest</strong> | Harmful purpose, deceptive content, or extremely thin/auto-generated |</p>\n<hr>\n<h2>Improvement Action Plan by Tier</h2>\n<p><strong>Medium → High:</strong></p>\n<ol>\n<li>Add author credentials (byline + credential statement)</li>\n<li>Add 3+ external citations to authoritative sources</li>\n<li>Add one case study or first-person experience passage</li>\n<li>Update all statistics to current year</li>\n</ol>\n<p><strong>Low → Medium:</strong></p>\n<ol>\n<li>Fix intent mismatch (rewrite to match search intent)</li>\n<li>Expand thin sections to meet competitor depth</li>\n<li>Add FAQ with real PAA questions</li>\n<li>Remove or improve low-quality supplementary content (excessive ads, pop-ups)</li>\n</ol>\n<p><strong>Lowest → Low:</strong></p>\n<ol>\n<li>Full content overhaul required — this is not a patch scenario</li>\n<li>Remove auto-generated content entirely</li>\n<li>Add human expertise and review to every claim</li>\n</ol>\n<p>#content-sop #content-quality #google-guidelines #eeat</p>\n"}