Google検索品質評価ガイドラインPart 1「ページ品質評価のガイドライン」

11.0 ページ品質評価に関するFAQ

最新原文: 2024年03月05日｜公開日: 2024年10月25日

質問	答え
なんでこんなに手順を踏まないといけなんですか？長い時間がかかりすぎます！	練習すれば正確なPQ評価をするのに必要な時間は短縮されるでしょう。行わなければならないステップは重要で、貴方がPQのさまざまな側面を評価するのに役立つように設計されています。これらから驚くような発見があるかもしれません。最初は低品質に見えたページも注意深く見直し検査することで中品質または高品質になるかもしれません。もちろん、その逆もありえます。私たちは貴方の情報に基づいた、思慮深い意見を求めています。
私たちは「見た目」が良いページに「高品質」の評価を与えているだけなのでしょうか？	いいえ、違います！目的、ゴールはその正反対です。これらのステップは表面的な「見栄えが良いか」というアプローチを使わずにページを分析できるようにするためのものです。
個人的な経験や意見を共有することは有益な目的ですか? 個人的な意見が不快だったり攻撃的な場合はどうすればよいですか?	個人的な経験や意見を共有することは、人々が異なる視点を理解できるようになるため、有益な目的となる場合があります。インターネット上のコンテンツは、他の人がなぜそのように考え、感じているかを理解するのに役立ちます。たとえそれがあなたにとって不快、不愉快であったり、動揺させる、攻撃的なものであったりしても、他の人の意見や視点を見ることは価値があります。自分自身の個人的な意見や見解ではなく、これらのガイドラインの基準を適用してください。ただし、意見や視点が誤解を招く情報を広めたり、害を及ぼす可能性もあるかもしれません。したがって、これらのガイドラインの基準はあらゆる種類のページとコンテンツに適用してください。覚えておいてください：害に関する評価は、コンテンツ作成者の人生経験や専門知識などの他の考慮事項よりも優先されます。
人生経験はYMYLトピックのページに最高品質評価を与える根拠になりますか?	YMYLのトピックに関する事実情報とアドバイスは、専門家から得られるべきです。YMYLのトピックに関する人生経験の共有は最高品質になる可能性がありますが、信頼性が高く、安全で、確立された専門家のコンセンサスと一致し、人生経験が価値のあるトピックについて語っている必要があります。例えば、いつどこで投票するかに関する情報はYMYLのトピックです。市民になって初めて投票するという感動的で個人的な投稿など、投票に関する人生経験を共有する最高品質のページを作成することは可能です。ただし、誰かの投票経験に関するページの故意または不注意な見落としで、いつ、どこで投票するかについて不正確な情報を提供した場合、他の人が投票の機会を逃す可能性があるため、そのページは最低評価にするべきです。
MCを評価する際に専門性の話をされましたが、すべてのトピックで専門性が重要ですか？専門家がいないテーマもあるのでは？	私たちは単に正式な専門知識の話をしているのではないことを忘れないでください。非公式な専門知識も同様に重要であり、トピックによってはより一般的なタイプのE-E-A-Tとなる場合があります。ほとんどのページの目的とトピックでは、分野自体がニッチであったり主流でなかったりしても、専門家を見つけることができます。例えば鍼灸や漢方薬療法などの一流の施術者が作成した専門家による代替医療のウェブサイトがあります。専門知識や経験のない人によって書かれた代替医療に関するページもあります。 E-E-A-Tではこれら2つのシナリオを区別する必要があります。覚えておいてください：ページが人々や社会に有害であったり、信頼できない、またはこのガイドラインで定義されているスパムである場合、専門知識と経験は関係ありません。最低評価にするべきです。

質問	答え
E-E-A-T について考えると、専門知識と経験は多くの点で重複しているように思えます。違いは何でしょう?	考え方の1つを次に示します: ● 専門知識には客観的でテスト可能な知識やスキルが含まれることがよくあります。例えば橋の耐荷重重量を計算できますか? ● 経験はより主観的で個人的なナレーションを通じて共有されることがよくあります。例えば他の人への愛を経験するとどのような感じですか? PQ評価では専門知識と経験を区別することは重要ではありません。代わりに、どのようなコンテンツがページの目的に対して信頼でき、満足できるかに焦点を当てます。同じトピックに対して、専門知識と経験の両方が信頼でき満足できる場合があります。例えば医療ウェブサイトは治療オプションの信頼できる情報源である可能性があり、治療を受けた他の人の経験は精神的なサポートとなり今後の事態に備えるのに役立つかもしれません。
有名人のゴシップなど、一部のタイプのページは常に低品質ではありませんか？	ほとんどすべてのタイプのページや情報トピックにはコンテンツの品質に幅があります。例えば、有名人のゴシップページには質の高いものと低いものがあります。これらのページの目的は、有名人に関する興味深く正確な情報を共有することです。有名人のストーリーには他の人にインスピレーションを与えたり、同じような困難に直面している人を助ける効果があるかもしれません。ゴシップページでも正確で興味深いい情報があり、低品質や最低品質の特徴が無く、信頼できる情報源からのものである場合は「高品質」でになります。
タイプ X の高品質ページは見たことがありません。このタイプXの高品質なページがないのであれば、なぜ既存のページにわざわざ低品質の評価を与えているのでしょうか？	トピックやページの種類によっては今はあまり（あるいは全く！）高品質なページが存在しないかもしれませんが、将来的には存在する可能性があります。まだ作成されていないページも含めて全てのページに適用される統一した基準が必要なのです。
これらの基準の中には不公平に思えるものもあります。例えばアートなページには目的が無いものもあります。これらのページは「低品質」なのでしょうか？	アートページには目的があります、芸術的表現という目的です。芸術的な表現のために作られたページは他の目的が無いという理由だけで「低品質」の評価に値しません。芸術表現、ユーモア、エンターテイメント、写真や動画の共有などはすべてページ目的として有効で有益です。
インタースティシャル（オーバーレイ広告等）は評価にどのように影響しますか?	タスクURLをクリックするとインタースティシャルページが表示されることがあります。MCに簡単にアクセスできる場合は評価基準でこのページを無視してかまいません。ただし、インタースティシャルによってMCにアクセスしてページが目的をどの程度達成しているかを評価することが非常に困難（または不可能）な場合は、PQ評価の考慮事項とする必要があります。

原文
11.0 Page Quality Rating FAQs

Question Answer

Why do we have to do all these steps? This takes a long time!
With practice, the amount of time needed for accurate PQ ratings will decrease. The steps are important and are designed to help you assess many different aspects of PQ. You may be surprised by what you find. Pages that initially look Low quality may turn out to be Medium or High quality with careful inspection. The reverse may happen as well. We want your most informed, thoughtful opinion.

Are we just giving High quality ratings to pages that “look” good?
No! The goal is to do the exact opposite. These steps are designed to help you analyze the page without using a superficial “does it look good?” approach.

Is sharing a personal experience or opinion a beneficial purpose? What if the personal opinion is upsetting or offensive?
Sharing a personal experience or opinion can be a beneficial purpose as it allows people to appreciate different perspectives. Content on the Internet can help people understand why others think and feel the way they do.

It can be valuable to see the opinions and perspectives of others, even when they are off-putting, distasteful, upsetting, or offensive to you personally. Apply the standards of these guidelines rather than your own personal opinions or views.

However, sometimes opinions and perspectives can spread misleading information or otherwise have the potential to cause harm. Therefore, apply the standards in these guidelines to all types of pages and content.

Remember: Your assessment of harm happens before and overrides other considerations such as the life experience or expertise of the content creator.

Can life experience justify a Highest quality rating for a page on a YMYL topic?
Factual information and advice on YMYL topics should come from experts. Sharing life experience on YMYL topics can be Highest quality, but it must be trustworthy, safe, consistent with well-established expert consensus, and speak to topics that life experience is valuable for.

For example, information about when and where to vote is a YMYL topic. It’s possible to have a Highest quality page that shares life experience about voting, such as an inspiring personal post about becoming a citizen and voting for the first time. However, if a page about someone’s voting experience gives inaccurate information about when and where to vote either deliberately or through careless oversight, the page should be rated Lowest because it could cause others to miss the opportunity to vote.

You talked about expertise when rating MC. Does expertise matter for all topics? Aren’t there some topics for which there are no experts?
Remember that we are not just talking about formal expertise. Informal expertise is equally important, and for some topics may be a more common type of E-E-A-T.

For most page purposes and topics, you can find experts even when the field itself is niche or non-mainstream. For example, there are expert alternative medicine websites created by leading practitioners of acupuncture, herbal therapy, etc. There are also pages about alternative medicine written by people with no expertise or experience.
E-E-A-T should differentiate between these two scenarios.

Reminder: If the page is harmful to people or society, untrustworthy, or spammy as defined in these guidelines, expertise and experience doesn’t matter. It should be rated Lowest.

Question Answer

When I think about E-E-A-T, it seems like expertise and experience overlap a lot.
What’s the difference?
Here’s one way to think about it:
● Expertise often involves objective, testable knowledge or skills, for example: can you calculate the load bearing weight of a bridge?
● Experience can be more subjective and is often shared through personal narration, for example: how does it feel to experience love for another person?

For PQ rating, it’s not important to distinguish between expertise and experience. Instead, focus on what kind of content is trustworthy and satisfying for the purpose of the page. You may find that both expertise and experience can be trustworthy and satisfying for the same topic. For example, a medical website may be a trustworthy source for treatment options, and the experiences of other people who have gone through treatment may provide emotional support and prepare you for what to expect.

Aren’t some types of pages always Low quality, such as celebrity gossip?
For almost any type of page or informational topic, there is a range of content quality.

For example, there are both High and Low quality celebrity gossip pages. The purpose of these pages is to share interesting, accurate information about celebrities. There may be benefits in celebrity stories that inspire others or help people going through similar challenges. A celebrity gossip page is High quality if it has accurate and interesting information, has no characteristics of Low or Lowest quality, and comes from a reasonably reliable source.

I’ve never seen a High quality page of type X. If there are no high quality pages of this type, why are we giving existing pages a Low quality rating? For some topics or types of pages, there may not be many (or any!) High quality pages now, but there may be in the future. We need a uniform set of standards that apply to all pages, even for pages that have not yet been created.

Some of these criteria seem unfair. For example, some art pages do not have a purpose. Are these pages Low quality?
Art pages do have a purpose: artistic expression. Pages created for artistic expression do not deserve the Low quality rating simply because they have no other purpose.
Artistic expression, humor, entertainment, sharing photos and videos, etc. are all valid and beneficial page purposes.

How should interstitials factor into my rating?
Sometimes clicking on the task URL will bring up an interstitial page. You can ignore this page in your rating criteria if you can easily get to the MC. However, if the interstitial makes it extremely hard (or impossible) to get to the MC and evaluate how well the page achieves its purpose, that should factor into your PQ rating.

Copyright 2024

会社概要

沿革

11.0 ページ品質評価に関するFAQ

11.0 Page Quality Rating FAQs

目次

Question	Answer
Why do we have to do all these steps? This takes a long time!	With practice, the amount of time needed for accurate PQ ratings will decrease. The steps are important and are designed to help you assess many different aspects of PQ. You may be surprised by what you find. Pages that initially look Low quality may turn out to be Medium or High quality with careful inspection. The reverse may happen as well. We want your most informed, thoughtful opinion.
Are we just giving High quality ratings to pages that “look” good?	No! The goal is to do the exact opposite. These steps are designed to help you analyze the page without using a superficial “does it look good?” approach.
Is sharing a personal experience or opinion a beneficial purpose? What if the personal opinion is upsetting or offensive?	Sharing a personal experience or opinion can be a beneficial purpose as it allows people to appreciate different perspectives. Content on the Internet can help people understand why others think and feel the way they do. It can be valuable to see the opinions and perspectives of others, even when they are off-putting, distasteful, upsetting, or offensive to you personally. Apply the standards of these guidelines rather than your own personal opinions or views. However, sometimes opinions and perspectives can spread misleading information or otherwise have the potential to cause harm. Therefore, apply the standards in these guidelines to all types of pages and content. Remember: Your assessment of harm happens before and overrides other considerations such as the life experience or expertise of the content creator.
Can life experience justify a Highest quality rating for a page on a YMYL topic?	Factual information and advice on YMYL topics should come from experts. Sharing life experience on YMYL topics can be Highest quality, but it must be trustworthy, safe, consistent with well-established expert consensus, and speak to topics that life experience is valuable for. For example, information about when and where to vote is a YMYL topic. It’s possible to have a Highest quality page that shares life experience about voting, such as an inspiring personal post about becoming a citizen and voting for the first time. However, if a page about someone’s voting experience gives inaccurate information about when and where to vote either deliberately or through careless oversight, the page should be rated Lowest because it could cause others to miss the opportunity to vote.
You talked about expertise when rating MC. Does expertise matter for all topics? Aren’t there some topics for which there are no experts?	Remember that we are not just talking about formal expertise. Informal expertise is equally important, and for some topics may be a more common type of E-E-A-T. For most page purposes and topics, you can find experts even when the field itself is niche or non-mainstream. For example, there are expert alternative medicine websites created by leading practitioners of acupuncture, herbal therapy, etc. There are also pages about alternative medicine written by people with no expertise or experience. E-E-A-T should differentiate between these two scenarios. Reminder: If the page is harmful to people or society, untrustworthy, or spammy as defined in these guidelines, expertise and experience doesn’t matter. It should be rated Lowest.

Question	Answer
When I think about E-E-A-T, it seems like expertise and experience overlap a lot. What’s the difference?	Here’s one way to think about it: ● Expertise often involves objective, testable knowledge or skills, for example: can you calculate the load bearing weight of a bridge? ● Experience can be more subjective and is often shared through personal narration, for example: how does it feel to experience love for another person? For PQ rating, it’s not important to distinguish between expertise and experience. Instead, focus on what kind of content is trustworthy and satisfying for the purpose of the page. You may find that both expertise and experience can be trustworthy and satisfying for the same topic. For example, a medical website may be a trustworthy source for treatment options, and the experiences of other people who have gone through treatment may provide emotional support and prepare you for what to expect.
Aren’t some types of pages always Low quality, such as celebrity gossip?	For almost any type of page or informational topic, there is a range of content quality. For example, there are both High and Low quality celebrity gossip pages. The purpose of these pages is to share interesting, accurate information about celebrities. There may be benefits in celebrity stories that inspire others or help people going through similar challenges. A celebrity gossip page is High quality if it has accurate and interesting information, has no characteristics of Low or Lowest quality, and comes from a reasonably reliable source.
I’ve never seen a High quality page of type X. If there are no high quality pages of this type, why are we giving existing pages a Low quality rating?	For some topics or types of pages, there may not be many (or any!) High quality pages now, but there may be in the future. We need a uniform set of standards that apply to all pages, even for pages that have not yet been created.
Some of these criteria seem unfair. For example, some art pages do not have a purpose. Are these pages Low quality?	Art pages do have a purpose: artistic expression. Pages created for artistic expression do not deserve the Low quality rating simply because they have no other purpose. Artistic expression, humor, entertainment, sharing photos and videos, etc. are all valid and beneficial page purposes.
How should interstitials factor into my rating?	Sometimes clicking on the task URL will bring up an interstitial page. You can ignore this page in your rating criteria if you can easily get to the MC. However, if the interstitial makes it extremely hard (or impossible) to get to the MC and evaluate how well the page achieves its purpose, that should factor into your PQ rating.