Google’s Updated Raters Guidelines Refines Concept Of Low Quality

Google’s search quality guidelines were updated a few months ago, and several changes are closely monitoring the talks that Google has divided into 2025 Search Central Live Events. Among the most pronounced updates are those on sections that define the pages of the lowest quality, which makes it clearer in the types of websites that Google wants to exclude from the search results.

Section 4.0 pages with the lowest quality

Google has added a new definition of lowest grades in the lowest quality section. Although Google has always been concerned about removing the low -quality web site from search results, this change on their assessment guidelines probably reflects the emphasis on eliminating a certain type of low quality website.

The new guideline focused on identifying the motif of the publisher to publish content.

The previous definition said:

“The lowest grade is required if the page has a harmful purpose or is designed to fool people about its true purpose or who is responsible for content on the page.”

The new version retains that sentence, but adds a new sentence that promotes quality Rater to consider the basic motifs of the publisher responsible for the website. The focus of this guidelines is to encourage quality evaluators to consider how the site uses the website visitor and judge whether the purpose of the site is completely for the benefit of the publisher.

An addition to this section reads:

“The lowest rating is needed if the site was created to use the website owner (eg to make money) with very little or no attempt to use the website visitors or otherwise serve a useful purpose.”

There is nothing wrong with being motivated to make money from the website. What Google looks at is if the content only serves that purpose or there is a benefit for the user.

Focus on your hard work

The next change is focused on recognizing how much effort has been invested in creating a site. This does not mean that publishers now have to document how much time and effort has been invested in creating content. This section is simply sought by proof that the content is no different from content on other web locations and does not offer clear advantages over the content that is found elsewhere on the Internet.

This part of the main content (MC) is basically ameated:

“● MC is copied, automatically generated or otherwise created without proper effort.”

The new version has more shades about the main content (MC):

“● MC is created without any effort, there is little or no originality and MC adds no value compared to similar website pages”

Three things to unpack there:

1. Content created without any effort
2. Contains little and no originality
3. The main content does not add additional value

Publishers who focus on monitoring competition should be careful not to simply do not create the same thing as their competitors. Saying that this is not the same thing because it is the same topic Just better It does not change the fact that this is the same thing. Even if the content is “ten times better”, the fact remains that it is still the same thing as a competitive content, only ten times more.

This is an analysis of the in content of the content

Some people will lose reason for what I will say about this, but keep an open mind.

There is a popular SEO process called permeable gaps. It is a review of competition to identify topics that competitors write about who misses the client’s site and then copying these topics to fill in the gap in the content.

This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to neoriginality and content that cannot be different from anything else on the internet. This is my number one reason that I would never use a software program that scratches with the highest ranked web locations and proposes topics based on what the competitors announce. This results in almost incomprehensible content and pure neority.

Who wants to skip from one page to the other page and read the same accurate recipes, even if they have more pictures and charts and videos. Copying the contents of the contestant “But doing that better“Not original.

Removing Google’s Paas (people also asked) just as everyone else does not result in original content. This results in content that is exactly the same as everyone else who scrapes paas.

While the practice of analysis of the lack of content in writing about the same thing Just betterIt’s still neoriginal. To say that it is better, it does not change the fact that it is the same thing.

The lack of originality is a huge problem with the internet content and that is something that Google’s Danny Sullivan talked extensively at the recent Google Central Live in New York.

Instead of looking for defects in information, it is better to review your competitor’s weaknesses. Then look at their forces. Then compare this to your own weaknesses and forces.

The weakness of the competitors can become your strength. This is especially valuable information when you compete against a larger and more powerful competitor.

Taket

1. Google’s accent on the judgment of the quality based on motives

• The quality evaluators are now encouraged to judge not only content but also on the intention.
• The pages created solely for the entry, without benefits for users, should be the lowest.
• This can signal to Google’s intention to perfect their ability to set aside low quality content based on a user experience.

2. The effort and originality now are the central signals of the quality

• Low or non -loan content is explicitly called justification for the lowest grade.
• This can signal that Google algorithms can increasingly focus on the content on the surface with a higher level of originality.
• Contents that do not add characteristic value over competitors may fight in search results

3. Google’s assessor guidelines reflect public messages

• Changes in mirror guidelines in conversations in recent central search events.
• This suggests that Google’s algorithms can become more accurate on things like originality, added value and effort invested in creating content.
• This means that publishers should (in my opinion) consider ways to make their websites more original than other web sites to compete with differentiation.

Google has updated its guidelines for the quality of the raater to draw a sharper line between content that helps users and content that only helps publishers. Pages created with little effort, without originality or no user benefits are now listed as examples of lowest quality, even if they look more complete than competitive pages.

Google’s Danny Sullivan used an example of a trip where all the side tape that introduces the author of a smiling place and other features of traveling places as an example of an area where web locations are no different from each other.

The reason why the publishers do this is that they see what Google ranks and assume that Google wants it. According to my experience, this is not the case. In my opinion, it might be useful to think about what you can do to make the site more original.

Download the latest version Google’s Guidelines for Search Quality Assessment here (PDF).

Sepaled image Shutterstock/Kues