# Google Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines - Appendix & Rater Reference

> Source: Google Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines v2025 (September 11, 2025)
> Purpose: Reference material for raters and advanced SEO practitioners

---

## Appendix 1: Using the Evaluation Platform

### 25.0 Overview

The Evaluation Platform is accessed at: http://www.raterhub.com/evaluation/rater

**Task Types:**
- Page Quality (PQ) rating tasks
- Needs Met (NM) rating tasks
- Various specialized rating tasks

**Important:** Always follow project-specific instructions when provided on task pages.

---

### 26.0 Acquiring Tasks

**Task Acquisition Steps:**
1. Login to account used for rating program
2. Click "Acquire if available" button
3. Check for task requirement labels (e.g., "Headphones or speakers required")
4. When multiple buttons displayed, choose appropriate task type

---

### 27.0 Rating Tasks Using the Rating Interface

**Steps to complete a task:**
1. **Read instructions** - Pay attention to project-specific instructions/examples
2. **Fill out task** - Assign ratings, provide comments, answer questions
3. **Check work** - Verify ratings entered correctly, all required questions answered
4. **Submit** - Click "Submit" to continue or "Submit and Stop Rating" to return home

---

### 28.0 Reporting Errors in Tasks

**When to report:**
- Cannot understand what the task is asking
- Technical errors prevent task completion
- Unable to rate due to ambiguity

---

### 29.0 Browser Requirements

For accurate rating, ensure browser:
- Updated to latest version
- JavaScript enabled
- Cookies enabled
- Pop-up blocker configured to allow rating platform

---

### 30.0 Understanding Duplicate Results

#### 30.1 Auto-Detected Duplicates
System automatically identifies some duplicate results.

#### 30.2 Rater-Identified Duplicates

**Mark as dupes when:**
- Same content on main landing page
- Users would NOT want both results from same search engine

**Query-dependent considerations:**

| Query Type | Dupe Guidance |
|------------|---------------|
| **Specific queries** (lyrics, specific article) | Different sources may NOT be dupes - helps users verify info |
| **Broad queries** | Minor content differences (ads, images) = still dupes |

#### 30.3 Reporting Duplicate Results

**Process:**
1. Click "Select Dupe" link at top of result
2. Current result highlighted in red
3. Check duplicate results (highlighted in yellow)
4. Select "Dupe of..." button
5. Click "finish selecting dupes" to return to normal rating

**Examples:**

| Status | Query | URLs | Reason |
|--------|-------|------|--------|
| **DUPES** | [choosing and installing a motorcycle battery] | caimag.com/... & articlesbase.com/... | Same article, only ads differ, broad query |
| **DUPES** | [jason castro] | myspace.com/jasoncastromusic & same URL with token | Same landing page, different URL params |
| **NOT DUPES** | [material girl lyrics] | lyricsfreak.com/... & lyrics007.com/... | Users want multiple sources to verify lyrics |

---

### 31.0 Simplified Needs Met Tasks

Some tasks show "No Rating Required" for certain blocks:
- Greyed-out results = "contextual results"
- Shown to help understand query
- Click on them if helpful for determining ratings

---

## Appendix 2: Guideline Change Log

### September 2025
- Updated YMYL definitions
- Added additional examples for clarity
- Minor changes throughout (fixed typos, etc.)

### January 2025
- Updated Page Quality Lowest and Low sections to better align with Google Search Web Spam Policies
- Added illustrative examples
- Expanded guidance on assessing minor interpretations and intents for Needs Met ratings
- Added illustrative examples for minor interpretations
- Minor changes: updated rating ranges, removed outdated examples, fixed typos, updated browser requirements

### February 2024
- Updated characteristics of untrustworthy pages
- Added illustrative examples

### November 2023
- Simplified Needs Met scale definitions
- Added guidance for specific types of Needs Met ratings
- Refreshed rating guidance and examples accordingly
- Modernized examples: added examples for popular platforms and video formats
- Removed outdated and redundant examples
- Expanded rating guidance for forum pages
- Updated language, examples, and explanations for consistency

---

## Additional Rating Scenarios

### Dictionary & Encyclopedia Results

**High Needs Met appropriate when:**
- User intent is "what is it" or "what does it mean"
- Word is uncommon or specialized (e.g., [obsequious])

**Lower Needs Met appropriate when:**
- Most users know the word (e.g., [rainbow], [cafeteria])
- More likely intents exist (images, local results)
- Common word with obvious meaning

| Query | Needs Met | Reason |
|-------|-----------|--------|
| [obsequious] | High | Vocabulary word, users likely seeking definition |
| [rainbow] | Slightly Meets | Most users know what it is, want images or brands |
| [cafeteria] (local) | Slightly Meets | Users want nearby places to eat, not definition |
| [history of ATM machines] | Highly Meets | Encyclopedia section on history matches intent |
| [atm near me] | Fails to Meet | Encyclopedia fails to provide location info |

---

### Foreign Language Results

**Consider:**
- Locale's official/commonly spoken languages
- English often helpful in multilingual locales

**Example:**
- Singapore has 4 official languages (English, Malay, Chinese, Tamil)
- English is dominant, so English results often helpful
- Query: [barack obama] in English (SG) → English Wikipedia = very helpful

---

### Porn Flag Usage

**When to flag:**
- Result contains pornographic content
- Flag regardless of whether query seems porn-related

**When NOT to flag:**
- Artistic nudity in appropriate context
- Medical/educational anatomy content
- Swimsuit/lingerie without sexual content

---

### Upsetting-Offensive Flag Usage

**Categories:**
| Category | Examples |
|----------|----------|
| **Hate speech** | Content targeting groups based on race, religion, gender, etc. |
| **Violence** | Graphic violence, gore, promotion of harm |
| **Misinformation** | Demonstrably false claims on important topics |
| **Disturbing** | Content most users would find deeply upsetting |

---

## Quality Examples Summary

### Highest Quality Page Characteristics

| Type | Example | Why Highest |
|------|---------|-------------|
| **News** | Major newspaper investigative piece | Expert journalism, primary sources, editorial oversight |
| **Medical** | Mayo Clinic health article | Medical expert authors, peer review, clear E-E-A-T |
| **Product Review** | Detailed review with original photos/videos | First-hand experience, testing, comparisons |
| **How-to** | Expert tutorial with step-by-step | Professional expertise + clear experience |
| **Reference** | Wikipedia featured article | Extensive citations, community review, comprehensive |

### Lowest Quality Page Characteristics

| Type | Example | Why Lowest |
|------|---------|------------|
| **YMYL Medical** | Anonymous health advice contradicting consensus | No expertise, potentially harmful |
| **Scam** | Fake customer service number page | Deceptive, potential for financial harm |
| **Hacked** | Legitimate site with injected spam | Compromised, untrustworthy |
| **Hate** | Content promoting violence against groups | Harmful, violates policies |
| **Copied** | Scraped content with no added value | No originality, no expertise |

---

*This document supplements the main Google E-E-A-T & Search Quality Guidelines.*
*For content creation guidance, refer to: google-eeat-quality-guidelines.md*
