Google adds a main content section to its helpful content page

Google added a passage and a new section to its “Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content” page, reported by Search Engine Roundtable on 2 October 2026. The page now says that beyond E-E-A-T, the Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines treat the quality of the main content as one of the most critical factors in assessing page quality.

What counts as main content?#

Google defines it as any part of the page that directly helps the page achieve its purpose. The examples are:

• Primary text and media: text, articles, images, audio and video.
• Interactive features: calculators, online tools, games and search functionality.
• User-generated contributions: forum discussions, reviews, comments and uploaded media, when they directly fulfil the page’s purpose.
• Tabbed or expanded sections, such as product specs, safety notes and reviews.
• Page titles and headings that summarise the topic.

What do raters assess?#

Raters are trained to look at effort, originality, talent or skill, and accuracy.

• Effort. The human work behind the content or the systems powering it. High effort includes original analysis, translating a poem manually or a custom interactive map for a game.
• Originality. Unique information or perspectives not already on other sites.
• Talent or skill. Clear writing, well-produced video, functional tools. Not all content needs specialized expertise: Google’s example is someone sharing how they cleared their driveway of snow.
• Accuracy. Informational pages should be factually accurate, and YMYL topics must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus.

Where does automation fit?#

Google puts automatically generating pages from feeds, or using generative AI to produce large amounts of text without manual oversight or curation, at little to no effort. It adds that crediting other sources does not replace the need for original effort.

The “Who, How and Why” section stays. Its “How” part now notes disclosing automation or AI where readers would reasonably expect it, and says using automation to produce content mainly to manipulate rankings violates spam policies. Fabricating creator profiles, such as AI headshots, made-up names or false credentials, is called deception.

Does this change rankings?#

The page does not say so. It keeps its line that raters have no control over rankings and that rater data is not used directly in ranking algorithms, using an analogy of restaurant feedback cards. It also still states that E-E-A-T is not a specific ranking factor and that trust is the most important aspect.

For publishers, the useful reading is a checklist for a self-review: what is the main content on each page, and does it show effort, originality, skill and accuracy? Our September 2023 helpful content update page covers the earlier history of this guidance, and Google also updated its generative AI content guidance the same week.