Google says main content is critical and describes how search quality raters evaluate it

Google has quietly updated the creating helpful, reliable, people-first content help document last night adding that the main content on the page is “one of the most critical factors for assessing page quality,” Google wrote. Plus, Google explained how its search quality raters evaluate and analyze that content.

What is new. Google added the following content to this help document:

(1) Google added this line:

• “Beyond E-E-A-T, the Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines emphasize that one of the most critical factors for assessing page quality is the quality of the main content, specifically how effectively it allows the page to achieve its purpose and provide a satisfying user experience.”

(2) Google then a whole section on what is “main content.” Google wrote:

• “Google Search defines “main content” as any part of the webpage that directly helps the page achieve its purpose. Depending on the primary intent of the page, the main content directly fulfills the page’s purpose and could include:”

Here is the list of what Google wrote is included:

• Primary text and media: The main text, articles, images, audio, or video files on the page.
• Interactive features: Built-in functionality such as calculators, online tools, games, or search functionality.
• User-generated contributions: Forum discussions, customer reviews, comments, or user-uploaded media when they directly fulfill the page’s purpose (for example, when the page is about discussing a particular user question).
• Tabbed or expanded sections: Information housed behind interactive tabs (such as product specifications, safety notes, or user reviews).
• Page titles and headings: The visible title and headings throughout a page that summarize its topic and helps users make informed decisions about visiting.

(3) Google then added a section on how “Search Quality raters are trained to evaluate these fundamental attributes of the main content.” Google wrote:

• Effort: The extent to which human work went into creating the content or the systems powering it. For example, writing original analysis, translating a poem manually, or building a custom interactive map for a game represents high effort. Conversely, automatically generating pages from feeds or using generative AI to produce large amounts of text without manual oversight or curation represents little to no effort. Attribution or giving credit to other sources doesn’t replace the need for original effort.
• Originality: The extent to which the content offers unique, original information or perspectives that aren’t already available on other websites.
• Talent or skill: Whether the content shows the talent, skill, or expertise necessary to provide a satisfying experience for visitors (such as clear writing, well-produced video, or functional page tools). Keep in mind that not all content requires specialized expertise. For example, a person sharing their experience about finding a new way to clear their driveway of snow generally doesn’t necessarily require specialized expertise.
• Accuracy: For informational pages, the content should be factually accurate. For topics that could significantly impact people’s lives or well-being (YMYL topics), the content must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus.

Why we care. Google has not updated this document in a long time and Google now decided to push out these content changes. Google, for some reason, did not announce these changes in the documentation, but Google did announce changes to the AI-generated content guidelines document.

Sometimes, when Google updates its help documentation, it includes search algorithm updates or policy updates. We know a spam update is currently rolling out, but we cannot confirm that these changes to the documentation are related to this spam update.