Google updated its helpful content guidelines on October 2, 2026, adding two sections that did not previously exist: a formal definition of what counts as “main content” on a page, and a breakdown of four attributes that Search Quality raters (human evaluators Google trains to assess search result quality) use when judging that content. The same day, Google also updated its separate AI-generated content document, according to Search Engine Roundtable.
What did Google add to the helpful content document?
Search Engine Roundtable highlighted two main additions; a third change, on author profiles, is covered below. First, Google stated that main content quality is “one of the most critical factors” for assessing page quality and defined exactly what it includes. Second, the document described four specific attributes that Search Quality raters are trained to evaluate. Search Engine Roundtable reported both changes on October 2, 2026.
How does Google now define “main content”?
The updated document states that main content is “any part of the webpage that directly helps the page achieve its purpose.” It includes:
- 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.
- 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 help users make informed decisions about visiting.
The document also states that beyond E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness, Google’s quality framework for evaluating content and its creators), the Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines identify main content quality as one of the most critical factors for page quality assessment, specifically how effectively it allows the page to achieve its purpose and provide a satisfying user experience.
What four attributes do Search Quality raters evaluate?
The second new section describes four attributes raters check when reviewing main content quality. Search Engine Roundtable informally labels this the “EOT/SA” section:
- Effort: The extent to which human work went into creating the content or the systems powering it. The document explicitly states that writing original analysis, translating a poem manually, or building a custom interactive map represents high effort. By contrast, 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 does not replace the need for original effort.
- Originality: The extent to which the content offers unique, original information or perspectives not already available on other websites.
- Talent or skill: Whether the content shows the talent, skill, or expertise necessary to provide a satisfying experience, such as clear writing, well-produced video, or functional page tools. The document notes that not all content requires specialized expertise.
- Accuracy: For informational pages, content should be factually accurate. For YMYL topics (Your Money or Your Life, content about health, finance, safety, or other areas that could significantly impact people’s lives or well-being), content must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus.
What did Google add about author profiles?
The same page also gained a warning about fabricated authors, which Search Engine Journal reported separately. In the section on who created the content, right after its existing advice (“We strongly encourage adding accurate authorship information, such as bylines to content where readers might expect it.”), Google now writes: “However, avoid using deceptive authorship information. Fabricating creator profiles (such as by using AI-generated headshots, made-up names, or false credentials to make content appear as if it was written by human experts) is a form of deception. Any form of deception makes a page untrustworthy to both users and our automated quality systems, and is a signal of a low-quality page.”
According to Search Engine Journal, a copy of the page saved June 8 went from the bylines advice straight to the “How” section, with no such paragraph.
What this means for AI-search visibility
Think of this update as Google publishing its grading rubric: four named attributes that Search Quality raters are trained to evaluate.
The Effort criterion directly addresses AI-generated content. Google explicitly states that using generative AI to produce large amounts of text without manual oversight or curation represents “little to no effort.” This language now appears in the same help document publishers and SEOs consult when trying to understand what Google rewards.
In Hingewise’s view, the Originality criterion is the more operationally important signal for AI-search visibility specifically. A page that only restates what dozens of other URLs already say is less likely to be selected as a citation. The Originality signal points in a clear direction: publish a perspective or data point that does not already exist elsewhere.
The expanded definition of main content also has practical implications for structured pages. Product pages with tabbed specifications, review sections, or interactive tools now have those elements explicitly counted as main content, not supplementary material. The quality signals in those sections contribute to the page’s overall evaluation, not just the introductory paragraph.
One dynamic the update does not address: how rater evaluations feed back into algorithmic signals, and at what weight. The direct relationship between a rater score and a page’s ranking or citation probability in AI systems is not publicly documented.
The timing is worth noting. Both updates, the helpful content document and the AI-generated content document, were published the same day. Whether this signals a coordinated review of quality standards ahead of an algorithm update is worth monitoring.
Before your next publish: a quick checklist
- Does your main content directly fulfill the page’s stated purpose, not just surround it?
- Is there visible human effort: original analysis, a unique synthesis, or a perspective not found verbatim elsewhere?
- Does the page offer something that other URLs covering the same topic do not?
- If AI assisted in drafting, was there meaningful human oversight, editing, and curation beyond a light proofread?
- For YMYL topics, are all factual claims consistent with established expert consensus and verifiable?
- Are tabbed sections, interactive tools, and user-generated content sections high quality? They now count as main content too.
- Are your author bylines real people with accurate credentials? Google now calls fabricated creator profiles a form of deception.
The next development to watch: whether Google updates its full Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines to formally adopt this EOT/SA framing, and whether the language appears in any subsequent algorithm update communications.
Sources: Search Engine Roundtable, October 2, 2026; Search Engine Journal, October 2, 2026; Google Search Central, “Creating Helpful, Reliable, People-First Content”
Lam Nguyen · Hingewise
This article was drafted with AI assistance from the sources cited above and checked against them before publishing. The "What this means for AI-search visibility" section is Hingewise's editorial analysis, built on the frameworks and positions we use in our GEO work. How we work: Editorial policy.