Google Quality Rating - Part 5 - Low and Medium Quality Content

So in the previous 4 episodes we covered the foundations of the Quality Rating Process how to determine a page's core purpose , how to discover more about the website and the content creators of the page , the topic of the content and what the key considerations needed to be taken into account when rating a page .

The last episode we covered what Google considers to be the lowest quality of content things it really doesn't like . Today I'm going to cover the next two levels of quality low and medium . Ok , so with low quality pages , we're starting to get better the purpose of the page . Google says

low quality pages have a beneficial or non-homful purpose . So you've got over that first barrier that the lowest content falls into . However , a low quality page won't meet its purpose well because they lack an important dimension or have a problematic aspect . So let's go through some of the things that Google wants the raters to look at .

First thing is is the page lacking EEAT ? So does the content creator lack adequate experience , like someone reviewing a restaurant when they've never actually been to that restaurant to eat there . Does the creator lack adequate expertise , like an article Skydiving written by someone with no expertise in the subject .

Does the content creator not authoritative or trustworthy source for the topic ? So the example they give is a tax form download provided on a cooking website . And does the page ? Is it not trustworthy ? So is it a shopping page with that enough customer service information , for example ?

So here we see the importance of EEAT coming in where the wrong person writing about this . You don't have the authority , you don't have the expertise or you don't have the trustworthiness , so you're not completely untrustworthy , but you don't have the right amount you need for a purpose .

So I think the example of a shopping website where it's very much white but it doesn't have enough customer service information on there to feel completely happy that it's not greater than low reputation . The next thing to consider is the quality of the main content . So first of all , title of the page . Now again , is it slightly misleading ?

Is it shocking or exaggerated ? Does it not really a great description of what's on the page ? That can cause a page to be rated as low the quality of the actual main content itself . You know the example they give is . Is it the kind of thing that a student who's trying to make a shortcut do so ? Would they , you know ? Is it not very well organized ?

Have they just paraphrased other sources ? Are they putting large pictures or other distracting content rather than helpful information on the topic , using images from other sources like magazines , stock image websites , so they don't have to create pictures or diagrams of their own support of the material , using common facts which don't really need any research ?

Like Argentina is a country people live in Argentina , argentina has borders and then using for the content . For example , pandas eat bamboo . Pandas eat a lot of bamboo . Bamboo is the best food for a panda bear . So If that's the kind of content you're creating or the shortcuts you're taking , then you're gonna potentially be considered low quality content here .

There's no real effort put into creating this content . It's filler content . It's really just , you know , not original . There's not a lot of effort been put in . There's no talent or skill demonstrated in producing this content . So while it's not awful and misleading or any of those things , it's just not really valuable at all .

They specifically talk about low quality content that's been put there to provide filler content around supporting monetization rather than it being there to actually be helpful for real users , and also that filler content might be added to force people to scroll down to reach the actual main content on the page .

Now they do provide , at the end of this , a caveat on where low quality content is fine and shouldn't be considered for a low rating . And that's where people share on social media or other websites that are content sharing . Imagine things like YouTube here , for example , should be viewed leniently .

So this is where people post activities they share with friends , say they're just documenting the first time they're ever trying something , and this shouldn't be considered low based on talent or skill , because the primary purpose is to share content in these ones , not to sort of demonstrate expertise . So the lack of talent or skill doesn't distract in this case .

And yeah , another finally important thing , that this low quality main content is not harmful , it's just unsatisfying . So the purpose of the page doesn't achieve its purpose well , but it's not actually being harmful . That's the definition of low .

The next part of the page that the writers are asked to think about is whether there's any distracting ads or supplementary content . So again they . So they expect ads and supplementary content to be visible , but they don't want it to be intrusive . So things like interstitial pages which make it difficult to get to the main content .

If the ads themselves are starting to get in the way or distract from the main content , then they should be given a low rating . Now an interesting one here is they say that single pop-up ads or an interstitial page with clear and easy to use close buttons are not terribly distracting .

So these things in themselves aren't necessarily bad as long as there's a clear , easy way for people to get rid of them if they're not interested in them . So again , really , what they're saying is ads are okay .

If the ads or the subfrontal content and their other features , if they really distract people from the use of the main content or access of the main content , then that's a low quality signal . The next criteria for a low rating would be if the website or the content creator has a mildly negative reputation .

So , as we talked about in the previous podcasts how the writers are expected to go and research the reputation of the website and the content creator , this is where they have to look at them and say what's their actual reputation like .

So if it's someone well known or professional who's made the content where you would expect them to have reputation information available online to see about them , then it's okay . If it's , you know , mildly negative , as long as they've not done anything malicious or they've not been anything fraudulent financially .

So then if it's mildly negative , then that's a sign of a low quality . But if you're an ordinary person and a content creator that's not well known , then a lack of reputation information is not necessarily negative , so that's not necessarily a sign of low quality .

But if you're someone very well , who should be very well known , and there's a lack of information about you , then that is potentially a sign of low quality . When it comes to businesses , they're told to be especially careful because not every business is going to have a lot of information about them .

So , again , a lack of quality information is not necessarily bad and any business that does have a few negative customer reviews because every business will get some negative customer reviews is okay . That's not necessarily low , it's just if there's , you know , a few too many and a few too many things repeating over and again , then that can be seen as low .

The final criteria that could determine that a site should be given or a page should be given a low rating is if there's an unsatisfying amount of information about the website or content creator on the website . You know Google expects to find some form of information about the website on the website and the creators of the content on the website .

So they expect to know what individual company , business or foundation created the main content , unless there's a really really good reason for anonymity . Again , this is going to vary by the type of website that you are as to how much information that they expect you to be there .

Anything that's your money , your life , such as stores and websites that process financial transactions , they're going to need a higher level of trust . There's going to have to be a lot more information on there to satisfy this need . But again , if it's just like a personal website or a forum

discussion on a non-way and well topic , then far less information might will be sufficient . So in this case it must be an email address or a social media link might be sufficient . You know it's normal for people , especially when they're writing in just a personal capacity , to be hesitant about the amount of information they share online .

So again , it all depends on the type of website , as to how much they're going to expect you to be here . So , but if you don't provide enough , then you know it's that they aren't really satisfied about who you are , where you're coming from or the level of information required for the topic and the website .

Then again , this is something where you could get a low rating . So that's low quality content and how it's defined . You've basically just got it over the line from lowest .

You're not doing anything harmful or malicious , but you're not really wowing anyone , you're not really providing a huge amount of value and you might just not quite have your reputation online sorted out , or you're not quite providing enough information about yourself . You're a bit too anonymous . So , yeah , that covers low .

As it was with the previous episode where I talked about how you can get loads of examples of lowest quality websites , on the actual document itself , it's the same here again .

Here there's loads of examples of low quality pages listed in the document , and I'll put a link to it in the show notes and I really suggest you go and look at it and look at all these different , these different examples , because it's really eye-opening , okay , so time to move on to medium quality pages .

Now we'll get into the point where the job is being done . Might not be doing brilliantly , but it's being done . So they describe medium pages as they have a beneficial purpose and they achieve their purpose . They say there's nothing wrong with medium quality pages and that you know raters should expect to account to many medium quality pages .

Really , I think this is what you know . Most pages on the internet Google is gonna say are medium . If it was summed up in one sentence it would be nothing wrong but nothing special . So , yeah , so going through all the kind of key things , it's really quick . Medium pages have a beneficial , non-harmful purpose .

Medium quality pages are not expected to cause harm . A page on any topic or any type of website might qualify for medium , but you've got to give the extra level of YNYL topics . They need a little bit high level of trust , such as online stores . Medium quality pages have titles that summarize the page .

The ads and the supplementary content do not block or significantly interfere with the main content on medium quality pages . Again they point out yeah , websites need monetization to share content with users , so the presence of ads itself is not a problem .

A medium quality page has an adequate information about the website and content creator for the purpose of the page . For websites that process financial transactions , again , you've got to examine the customer service information , but it's all just adequate .

And yeah , the quality is just basically yeah , adequate effort , adequate originality , talent or skill so that the page can achieve its purpose . The reputation is not especially positive nor especially negative , it's just normal . And when it comes to the trustworthiness of the page and it's EEAT there's just an adequate level .

So really , in Google's own words , here it's just adequate and it just does the job . But it's nothing special . And again , like all the other types , they have lots of examples of what a medium quality page looks like and why it's a medium quality page in the actual document . It's worth checking out . Check the link in the show notes for that .

So , while medium , as Google say , might be adequate , but it's not anything special , what we really need to be now aiming for is to get into the next two levels of the high quality and the highest quality , and we'll look at what's required to get into those in the next episode , the next episode , the next episode . Thanks for listening .

I really appreciate it . Please subscribe and share . It really helps . Seo is not that hard . It's brought to you by KeywordsPeopleUsecom , the solution to finding the questions people ask online . See why thousands of people use this every day . Try it today at wwwKeywordsPeopleUsecom If you want to get in touch , have any questions , I'd love to hear from you .

I'm at Channel 5 on Twitter , so you can email me at podcastkeywordspeopleusecom . Bye for now and see you in the next episode of SEO . It's not that hard .