Just when you thought that you are done with academia and ready to be a master in the SEO and digital marketing arena, Google’s Quality Rater Guidelines of over 170 pages surprised us! But fret not, if you need an in detail analysis of this ‘Google ranking Bible ‘ then this quick read is for you.
The Google Rater provides crystal clear guidelines of what Google thinks of quality but SEO masters and website developers can refer to these google search quality guidelines to better the performance of their website and improve their ranking.
As always, let’s begin with the basics and answer the primary question.
What is Search Quality Rating?
Google is known for delivering quality and relevant results for over 2 decades now. Ever wondered how do these search results pass the quality test and reach the user? Google has hired over 10,000 experts from around the globe to rate the websites.
Their ratings won’t affect the rankings of the websites, instead these ratings will be used to measure how well search engine algorithms are performing for a broad range of searches.
Google made the Google Search Quality Guidelines public in 2015, which is wonderful for everyone with a website because it allows you to see what a Google rater is looking for and adapt your site to meet their needs.
Quality Raters have three main responsibilities:
Assessing the quality of web sites,
Making sure mobile results are helpful,
Checking whether queries in general show quality results.
The Purpose of Search Quality Rating
Search Quality Ratings influence the quality of search results. The ultimate aim of Search Quality Rating is to provide relevant and quality information for users. But this rating also helps website developers understand if their website is compatible with Google guidelines.
These search quality evaluator guidelines state what a Google rater takes into consideration while rating your website.
When we look at the areas that a Google rater is expected to look at, we’re effectively doing the following:
Evaluating what Google wants from the algorithm.
Getting a sneak peek at what Google algorithms will prioritize.
Who is a Google Quality Rater?
External Search Quality Raters is a group of persons who have been trained in accordance with the Quality Rater Guidelines stated by Google. A Google Rater assess how well a website responds to Google users’ search intent based on the content’s knowledge, authority, and trustworthiness.
A group of over 10,000 people from all over the world work as Google rater. Raters assist the search engine in determining how people are likely to experience their search results. Essentially, a Google rater assists Google in ensuring that the proposed improvements to its algorithms will produce more relevant and high-quality results.
Let’s take a look at what the guide explicitly states:
“As a Search Quality Rater, you will work on many different types of rating projects. The General Guidelines primarily cover Page Quality (PQ) rating and Needs Met (NM) rating; however, the concepts are also important for many other types of rating tasks.”
The following are some examples of evaluator tasks:
Compare two sets of search results and determine which is superior, why, and by how much.
Assess how natural or unnatural an automated voice sounds.
Determine which category a particular firm falls into and classify it accordingly.
Build queries that instruct a mobile phone to perform a specified task
Examine the usefulness of completions and related queries.
Rate how useful knowledge graph panels and other types of special results are.
Elements To Judge The Quality Of A Web Page
The two most important factors of a Webpage are Needs Met and Page Quality. Let’s dive deeper into these concepts and understand how these two factors help in judging the quality of a webpage.
Needs Met
Needs Met is a simple notion that basically implies “intent.”
“How helpful and/or satisfying is this result?” would be the question raters would be asking themselves when evaluating a page.
The search quality evaluator guidelines clearly states that –
The Needs Met rating is based on both the query and the result.
A rater may visit a single website or a search results page and rate each result during this testing. Both will send Google information on the changes in site layout, device, demographic, and location outcomes. There are a variety of other factors that go into scoring each result (there’s a reason they have over 10,000 raters worldwide).
Page Quality
Page Quality is determined by a variety of interconnected elements, just like a Google algorithm works.
And the weight assigned to each is determined by the type of site and query.
Factors That Influence Your Website’s Quality
YMYL
Google is cool and the evidence is Your Money or Your Life a.k.a YMYL. This is an interesting concept which categorizes websites into further categories as follows:
News and current events
Important issues such as international events, economics, politics, science, and technology are covered in this section. Keep in mind that not all news stories are YMYL (for example, sports, entertainment, and ordinary lifestyle themes are not typically YMYL).
Civics, government, and law
Information about voting, government agencies, public institutions, social services, and legal matters (e.g., divorce, child custody, adoption, will-writing, etc.) that are crucial to keeping citizens informed.
Finance
Financial advice or information on investments, taxes, retirement planning, loans, banking, or insurance, especially on websites that allow individuals to make purchases or move money online.
Shopping
Information about or services relating to product/service research or purchasing, notably web pages that allow consumers to make online transactions.
Health and Safety
Medical advice or information, drugs, hospitals, emergency readiness, the dangers of a certain activity, etc.
Groups of people
Pages dedicated to information or claims about groups of people, including but not limited to those grouped on the basis of age, caste, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, immigration status, nationality, race, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, veteran status, victims of major violent events and their kin, or any other characteristic linked to systemic discrimination or marginalization.
Other
Many additional topics connected to large decisions or key areas of people’s lives, such as health and nutrition, housing information, choosing a college, finding a career, and so on, may be considered YMYL.
Please use your discretion.
The Webpage Content
The sections of a website are grouped into three primary groups, according to the guidelines:
The Main Content
Any component of the page that directly assists the page in achieving its goal is considered main content. Webmasters have direct control over the page’s MC (except for user-generated content). MC can take the form of text, graphics, videos, page features (such as calculators and games), or user-generated content (such as videos, reviews, and articles) that people have added or submitted to the website.
The Supplementary Content
Supplementary Content enhances the user experience on the page but does not immediately contribute to the achievement of the page’s goal. Webmasters control SC, which is an essential aspect of the user experience. Navigation links, for example, are a frequent sort of SC that allow users to go to other portions of the website.
Note that content hidden behind tabs may be deemed part of the page’s SC in some situations.
Advertisements/Monetization
Advertisements/Monetization (Ads) are material and/or links that are displayed on a page in order to monetize (make money from it). The presence or absence of advertisements is not a factor in determining whether a website is of high or low quality.
Because it costs money to run a website and generate high-quality content, certain webpages would be unable to operate without advertising and monetization.
Advertisements and affiliate programmes are just two examples of how to monetize a website.
The Concept of E-A-T
Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T) are all key factors. Please examine the following: the MC’s creator’s expertise. the MC’s creator’s authority, the MC itself, and the website’s trustworthiness. the MC’s creator’s authority, the MC itself, and the website’s trustworthiness.
Keep in mind that there are high E-A-T pages and websites of various kinds, including gossip, fashion, humour, forum and Q&A pages, and so on. In fact, some sorts of knowledge are practically solely obtained on forums and conversations, where a community of specialists can offer useful viewpoints on a variety of topics.
In Conclusion
Phew! This is a shorter and relevant version of a 170+ pages Google Google is trying to help us by providing the exact requirements that will improve a website’s overall performance. Adhere to these important search quality evaluator guidelines for a better website performance.
FAQs
How does the search quality evaluator guidelines help website developers?
It allows you to see what a Google rater is looking for and adapt your site to meet
their needs. It also helps you modify your website as per Google’s requirements so as to improve the visibility of your website.
Can a Google rater influence the ranking of your website?
A Google rater does not decide the ranking of your websites. They ensure that the proposed algorithm improvements will result in more relevant and high-quality results.
Which factors determine the quality of a website?
The important factors that determine the quality of are:
Purpose of the page.
Amount of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. (E-A-T)
Human feedback from Search Quality Raters is essential because it provides the nuanced, real-world context that algorithms struggle to grasp. This qualitative data on user satisfaction helps Google validate that its technical changes produce genuinely better and more helpful results for people. While algorithms can measure clicks, raters assess the quality and trustworthiness of the content itself, a far more complex judgment. For instance, a platform like Razorpay could see improved user engagement by aligning its documentation with rater principles. This process involves:
Evaluating the subtlety of search intent for ambiguous queries.
Assessing the authoritativeness and expertise behind the information presented.
Providing feedback on whether a page is helpful, harmful, or misleading.
This continuous feedback loop ensures that algorithm updates truly serve user needs rather than just optimizing for technical signals. To see how this human insight shapes the future of search, exploring the guidelines in full is a logical next step.
The 'Needs Met' scale measures how well a search result fulfills a user's specific goal, which is a far more sophisticated metric than simple keyword relevance. It requires content to be not just on-topic, but also satisfying, authoritative, and immediately useful for the query's intent. Understanding this is crucial because it signals a strategic shift from writing for bots to solving problems for people. A page that fully meets a user's needs prevents them from returning to the search results, which is a powerful quality signal. A high Needs Met rating depends on several elements:
The result must be comprehensive and accurate for the query.
It must be easy to consume and accessible on the user's device.
It must align with the explicit and implicit intent behind the search.
Grasping this framework allows you to create content that Google is actively training its algorithms to find and reward. The full document provides detailed examples of how different results are rated on this critical scale.
Page Quality (PQ) and Needs Met (NM) are distinct but related evaluations. PQ assesses the overall quality and trustworthiness of the page itself, focusing on its purpose, reputation, and the expertise behind the content, while NM specifically measures how well that page satisfies the user's immediate search query. For a YMYL page offering financial advice, Page Quality is the foundational, non-negotiable element. A page can perfectly match a query's intent (high NM) but if it lacks expertise or has a poor reputation (low PQ), it will be deemed low quality and potentially harmful. Key differences are:
PQ is about the page's intrinsic characteristics: Is it trustworthy? Is the creator an expert?
NM is about the page's function in relation to a query: Does it solve the user's problem?
A page with low PQ cannot receive a high NM rating, especially for sensitive topics. The guidelines detail how to build this foundational trust, which is the first step toward satisfying user needs.
To achieve a high 'Needs Met' rating, PhonePe must ensure its 'How to Use UPI' guide is comprehensive, easy to understand, and fully resolves the user's query without requiring another search. This means going beyond a basic text explanation and providing a rich, multi-format user experience. The content should anticipate all related user questions and present information with maximum clarity and authority. A top-rated guide would include these enhancements:
A clear, step-by-step tutorial with annotated screenshots for each action.
An embedded video demonstrating the entire UPI setup and transaction process.
A dedicated FAQ section addressing common problems, such as transaction failures or linking bank accounts.
Clear information about security features and customer support contacts.
This approach demonstrates a deep understanding of user intent, transforming a simple guide into a definitive resource. The guidelines provide numerous examples of what separates a merely helpful page from one that fully meets user needs.
The guidelines instruct raters to heavily favor expertise, especially on YMYL topics like finance, making this a clear-cut evaluation. The post from the major financial institution would almost certainly receive a much higher Page Quality rating due to its institutional authority and the presumed expertise of its staff. The anonymous blog, lacking any demonstrable credentials, would likely be rated as low quality and untrustworthy for this specific query. The rater's evaluation would be based on these factors:
Source Reputation: A well-known, reputable financial institution has a strong reputation, while the anonymous blog has none.
Author Expertise: The bank's content is backed by the formal expertise of the organization, while the blogger has no verifiable qualifications.
Trust: Users are more likely to trust financial advice from a major brand. A lack of transparency on the personal blog creates a significant trust deficit.
This example highlights why establishing clear authorship and organizational authority is a non-negotiable factor for ranking on sensitive subjects. The full guidelines provide more detail on how different levels of expertise are assessed.
A new e-commerce site should prioritize building trust and demonstrating expertise from day one, using the guidelines as its strategic framework. Focusing on Page Quality elements is the most effective starting point for establishing long-term authority. The first three steps should be implementing structural and content features that directly address what raters look for in a high-quality, trustworthy website. Your implementation plan should include:
Create a comprehensive 'About Us' and 'Contact' section: Provide detailed information about your company's mission, history, and physical location. Include multiple contact methods to show you are a legitimate and accessible business.
Develop expert-level product information: Go beyond manufacturer descriptions. Write unique, detailed product guides and comparisons that demonstrate true expertise in your niche.
Feature authentic customer reviews and policies prominently: Make it easy for users to find and read genuine reviews. Clearly display your shipping, return, and privacy policies to build user confidence.
These foundational steps directly align with the PQ rating criteria and set the stage for sustainable growth.
To operationalize the guidelines, a content team should translate the core principles into a practical, repeatable checklist used during content briefing, creation, and review. This embeds quality assessment directly into the workflow rather than treating it as an afterthought. An efficient process creates a feedback loop focused on satisfying user intent and demonstrating trustworthiness at every stage. A successful integration would follow these steps:
Briefing Stage: Define the primary user intent for each topic. Identify the target audience and what a 'Fully Meets' result would look like for them, including required formats like tables or videos.
Creation Stage: Mandate that writers cite authoritative sources and include author bylines with bios showcasing relevant expertise. The content must directly answer the user's question comprehensively.
Review Stage: Use a pre-publish checklist based on PQ and NM criteria. Does the page have clear authorship? Is the content accurate and trustworthy? Does it fully satisfy the target query?
This structured approach turns abstract guidelines into concrete daily actions, improving content quality over time.
The guidelines function as a strategic blueprint for Google's long-term vision, showing that future algorithms will increasingly prioritize demonstrable expertise, authority, and trust. For YMYL topics like finance or health, this is not a preference but a requirement. The document clarifies that for these queries, content created by unqualified sources will be rated as low quality, regardless of other signals. This suggests a future where author bios, external citations, and clear evidence of expertise become non-negotiable ranking factors. For example, a financial services company like PhonePe must ensure its articles on data security are written by certified experts. This focus on authentic authority is only set to intensify. Understanding the specific criteria raters use to evaluate expertise is key to future-proofing your content strategy.
The guidelines' focus on mobile usability is a clear indicator that Google views the mobile experience as the default, not an alternative. This means principles of simplicity, speed, and content accessibility are becoming universal quality signals across all platforms. Developers should prioritize creating content that is not just responsive, but 'mobile-first' in its very structure and design. This signals a future where algorithms will increasingly penalize sites with intrusive ads on mobile or content that is difficult to navigate on a small screen. To stay ahead, developers should focus on:
Ensuring all content is easily readable and interactive on mobile devices without pinching or zooming.
Minimizing the use of intrusive interstitials or pop-ups that disrupt the user journey.
Optimizing for page load speed, as mobile users are particularly sensitive to delays. One major publisher saw a 12% drop in bounce rate after focusing on this.
The mobile experience is no longer just a ranking factor, it is becoming the core lens through which quality is judged.
The most common mistake leading to a low Page Quality rating is a lack of clear information about who is responsible for the content and the website. This creates a trust deficit that no amount of technical optimization can fix. The guidelines provide a clear checklist for establishing this trust. Poorly rated sites often have anonymous authors, no easily accessible 'About Us' or 'Contact' pages, and a poor reputation when researched externally. To fix these issues systematically, developers should:
Implement clear authorship: Every article, especially on YMYL topics, should have a named author with a detailed bio showcasing their expertise and credentials.
Enhance transparency: Create comprehensive 'About Us' and 'Contact' pages with physical addresses, phone numbers, and support information.
Manage online reputation: Actively monitor and respond to external reviews and mentions, as raters are instructed to research a site's reputation.
By treating trust as a technical requirement, you can align your site with the core principles that human raters use to evaluate quality.
The 'Needs Met' framework directly refutes the 'longer is better' myth by prioritizing user satisfaction and efficiency over word count. A 300-word answer that gives a user a quick, correct fact fully meets their needs, whereas a 3,000-word article that buries that same fact is a poor user experience. The right approach is to let the search intent dictate the format and depth of the content, not an arbitrary word count target. Companies that succeed, like Razorpay in its API documentation, provide concise, accurate information that solves a developer's problem immediately. To determine the ideal approach:
Analyze the top-ranking results to understand the expected format.
Consider the query's nature: Is it a simple question needing a quick answer or a complex topic requiring a deep dive?
Prioritize clarity and ease of use, ensuring the main answer is easy to find.
Focusing on efficiently solving the user's problem is far more valuable than creating long-form content for its own sake.
The purpose of Google's 10,000+ quality raters is to provide human intelligence for evaluating the performance of search algorithms, not to manually rank individual websites. Their feedback serves as a 'ground truth' dataset that Google's engineers use to train and refine their automated systems. The ratings do not directly cause a specific site to move up or down because that would be an unscalable system. Instead, the collective insights from their work influence future algorithm updates that affect all websites. This process ensures that:
Algorithm changes are tested against real-world user expectations.
The system gets better at identifying complex qualities like expertise and trustworthiness.
Google can measure its progress toward providing more helpful results at a massive scale.
While a rater's opinion on your site will not change its rank today, it helps shape the algorithm that will rank your site tomorrow. Understanding their criteria is like getting a preview of Google's next move.
Chandala Takalkar is a young content marketer and creative with experience in content, copy, corporate communications, and design. A digital native, she has the ability to craft content and copy that suits the medium and connects. Prior to Team upGrowth, she worked as an English trainer. Her experience includes all forms of copy and content writing, from Social Media communication to email marketing.
Growth Strategy and Planning
