C
Content SOPKnowledge Base
Search
← All topics

Google Quality Guidelines Evaluator: Content Self-Assessment

runnable

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.

content-qualitygoogle-guidelineseeatself-assessmentseo
Agent trigger phrases: google quality guidelines · content quality evaluation · rate my content quality · quality evaluator · google qrg · content quality score · evaluate content quality

Google Quality Guidelines Evaluator: Content Self-Assessment

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.

Dimension 1: Page Purpose

Every page must have a clear and beneficial purpose.

Assess:

  • What is this page trying to do for the visitor?
  • Is the purpose legitimate and beneficial?
  • Does the content deliver on its stated purpose?

Harmful purpose indicators (automatic Lowest rating):

  • Deceive users (fake news, impersonation)
  • Harm users (malware, dangerous instructions)
  • Spam (generated for search engines, not people)

Beneficial purpose examples:

  • Inform with accurate information
  • Share a personal perspective or experience
  • Entertain with clearly marked fiction or humor
  • Sell a legitimate product or service

Dimension 2: YMYL Risk Assessment

YMYL = Your Money or Your Life. Topics where wrong information causes real harm.

High YMYL topics (require highest E-E-A-T):

  • Medical, health, safety
  • Financial advice and decisions
  • Legal advice
  • News and current events on civic matters
  • Content about specific groups of people

If the content is YMYL:

  • Author credentials must be visible and verifiable
  • Sources must be authoritative and linked
  • Medical/financial/legal claims require expert review
  • Last-reviewed date must be current

Non-YMYL content: Can achieve high quality ratings with strong E-E-A-T but the bar is lower.

Dimension 3: E-E-A-T Self-Scoring

Score each element 1-5:

| E-E-A-T Element | Score | How to Score | |----------------|-------|-------------| | Experience | [1-5] | Does the author show direct personal experience? (1=none, 5=clear and specific) | | Expertise | [1-5] | Does the content show deep topic knowledge? (1=generic, 5=expert-level insight) | | Authoritativeness | [1-5] | Is the site/author recognized in the space? (1=unknown, 5=cited by others) | | Trust | [1-5] | Is information accurate, transparent, and verifiable? (1=unverifiable, 5=fully sourced) |

Total E-E-A-T score: Sum of 4 elements (max 20).

  • 15-20: Highest E-E-A-T
  • 10-14: High E-E-A-T
  • 6-9: Medium E-E-A-T (needs improvement)
  • Below 6: Low — significant E-E-A-T problems

Dimension 4: Main Content Quality

Evaluate the body of the content:

| Quality Factor | Questions to Ask | |---------------|-----------------| | Effort | Does this clearly represent significant time and skill investment? | | Originality | Is there unique information, analysis, research, or perspective? | | Accuracy | Are all facts verifiable? Are any claims outdated? | | Comprehensiveness | Does it fully address the topic the title promises? | | Production quality | Is it well-formatted, free of errors, readable? |

Red flags for Low main content quality:

  • Auto-generated text without review
  • Scraped or lightly modified content from other sources
  • Clickbait title that doesn't match content
  • Wall of text with no structure
  • Excessive ads relative to content

Dimension 5: Reputation Assessment

Google quality raters check reputation signals independent of the content:

Positive reputation signals:

  • Awards, recognition, or mentions in reputable publications
  • Positive reviews from credible sources
  • Author bylines on recognized publications
  • Professional credentials verifiable off-site

Negative reputation signals:

  • Complaints on Better Business Bureau or consumer protection sites
  • Reports of deceptive practices
  • Negative coverage in news
  • Large volume of negative reviews

For new or small sites: Lack of reputation is not the same as negative reputation. Focus on building visible trust signals.

Quality Tier Assignment

Based on scores across all 5 dimensions:

| Tier | Criteria | |------|---------| | Highest | Clear beneficial purpose + strong E-E-A-T (15+) + excellent main content + positive reputation | | High | Clear beneficial purpose + good E-E-A-T (10-14) + good main content | | Medium | Mixed — beneficial purpose but some E-E-A-T gaps or thin content | | Low | Missing E-E-A-T, thin content, or mismatch between title and content | | Lowest | Harmful purpose, deceptive content, or extremely thin/auto-generated |

Improvement Action Plan by Tier

Medium → High:

  1. Add author credentials (byline + credential statement)
  2. Add 3+ external citations to authoritative sources
  3. Add one case study or first-person experience passage
  4. Update all statistics to current year

Low → Medium:

  1. Fix intent mismatch (rewrite to match search intent)
  2. Expand thin sections to meet competitor depth
  3. Add FAQ with real PAA questions
  4. Remove or improve low-quality supplementary content (excessive ads, pop-ups)

Lowest → Low:

  1. Full content overhaul required — this is not a patch scenario
  2. Remove auto-generated content entirely
  3. Add human expertise and review to every claim

#content-sop #content-quality #google-guidelines #eeat

View raw JSON →Back to index