<b>Google's 'questions to ask yourself' list is a leaked rubric</b>

<b>Google's 'questions to ask yourself' list is a leaked rubric</b>

The question: what does Google's self-assessment guidance for helpful content actually reveal?

The 'Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content' document contains a long list of self-assessment questions. Read closely, it is a near-transcription of what the systems were trained to reward — a rubric published in the second person.

Several questions are unusually specific and worth treating as direct signals. 'Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis?' privileges primary contribution over synthesis. 'Does the content provide insightful analysis or interesting information beyond the obvious?' targets aggregator content explicitly. 'Would you trust this for an issue concerning your money or your life?' folds YMYL back in. And the meta-question — 'Is the content written by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well?' — pairs expertise with enthusiast, echoing the experience addition.

The most actionable is the 'search-engine-first' set: was the content made primarily to attract search traffic rather than to help people; does it summarize what others said without adding value; was it produced to hit a word count. These describe the exact failure profile of scaled affiliate content.

Caveat: this is guidance, not a checklist that flips a switch. Answering 'yes' to every question does not guarantee ranking; answering 'no' to several is a reliable predictor of trouble.

What we still don't know: the relative weight the systems place on 'original information' versus competent-but-derivative coverage that is genuinely well-organized.