Your Money or Your Life content can help people make better health, financial, and safety decisions. It can also cause serious harm if it’s wrong, outdated, or misleading.
Google holds YMYL content to higher standards than other topics. Not higher in the sense of “we’d like you to try harder,” but higher in the sense of “inadequate quality signals will actively prevent you from ranking.”
A Nashville supplement company learned this when their health content plummeted after a core update despite strong technical SEO. Their articles lacked author credentials, citations, and medical review processes. Their competitors covering similar topics had all three. The gap wasn’t subtle.
This guide covers what qualifies as YMYL, what standards apply, and how to meet them without over-engineering content that doesn’t require YMYL treatment.
What Qualifies as YMYL
YMYL content covers any topic where wrong information could significantly harm readers’ health, financial stability, safety, or well-being.
Google’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines provide categories, but the concept is simpler: if being wrong about this could hurt someone, it’s YMYL.
| YMYL Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Health and safety | Medical conditions, treatments, medications, symptoms, mental health, nutrition, fitness for medical purposes |
| Financial | Investing, taxes, retirement planning, loans, insurance, major purchases |
| Legal | Rights, processes, regulations, legal advice |
| News and current events | Major news stories affecting public decisions |
| Groups of people | Content about race, religion, nationality, disability, gender that could promote harm |
| Important decisions | Major life choices, housing, education, employment |
| Safety critical | Product safety, emergency procedures, potentially dangerous activities |
The category isn’t binary. A light article about saving money tips faces less scrutiny than detailed investment guidance. A cooking article is generally non-YMYL, but an article about safely preparing foods for people with severe allergies becomes YMYL.
When in doubt, ask: If this information is wrong and someone acts on it, what’s the worst realistic outcome? Financial loss, health complications, or safety issues indicate YMYL territory.
Why YMYL Faces Higher Standards
Google’s quality systems assign disproportionate importance to trust signals on YMYL content. The reasoning is straightforward: the cost of surfacing harmful YMYL content exceeds the cost of being conservative.
A wrong answer about the best hiking boots disappoints someone. A wrong answer about whether chest pain requires emergency care could contribute to someone’s death.
This calculus means Google’s algorithms:
- Weight expertise signals more heavily on YMYL queries
- Penalize thin or unsubstantiated YMYL content more severely
- Require stronger trust signals for YMYL content to compete
- Apply more conservative ranking to uncertain YMYL content
YMYL content that would rank adequately in a non-YMYL space often fails to rank at all. Meeting baseline SEO requirements isn’t sufficient when competing against content with strong E-E-A-T signals.
Author Credentials: Not Optional
For YMYL content, author credentials aren’t enhancement; they’re table stakes.
This doesn’t mean every YMYL article needs an MD or CPA as the credited author. It means the authorship should be appropriate to the content’s claims and risks.
What counts as appropriate credentials:
- Professional licenses relevant to the topic (medical, financial, legal)
- Degrees in the subject area
- Recognized expertise through professional experience
- Formal training or certification
- Published work in the field
Health content specifically:
Google’s guidelines explicitly look for medical content written or reviewed by healthcare professionals. “Reviewed by” arrangements, where a medical professional reviews content written by non-clinicians, satisfy this requirement when the review is genuine and the reviewer is clearly identified.
Financial content:
CFPs, CPAs, licensed advisors, and financial professionals carry weight. But long-tenured financial journalists and recognized industry experts can also demonstrate appropriate expertise for educational content that stops short of personalized advice.
Legal content:
Attorneys licensed in relevant jurisdictions provide the strongest signals. Content should make clear it’s general information, not legal advice, and that readers should consult qualified attorneys for their specific situations.
| Content Type | Minimum Credential Expectation | Enhanced Credential Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Medical treatment info | Healthcare professional written or reviewed | Board-certified specialist, academic researcher |
| Mental health | Licensed therapist/counselor or reviewed | PhD psychologist, psychiatrist |
| Investment guidance | Financial professional or extensive experience | CFP, CFA, registered investment advisor |
| Tax information | Tax professional or reviewed | CPA, enrolled agent, tax attorney |
| Legal processes | Attorney reviewed or clear general-info framing | Licensed attorney in relevant practice area |
Content Requirements Beyond Credentials
Credentials establish who’s speaking. Content quality demonstrates whether they’re saying something valuable and accurate.
Accuracy standards:
YMYL content must be factually correct and current. Outdated medical advice, superseded tax rules, or changed legal precedents cause real harm. Regular review cycles (at minimum annual for stable topics, more frequent for evolving areas) are expected.
Citation matters. Claims should trace to authoritative sources: peer-reviewed research, official government guidance, professional organization recommendations. “Studies show” without identifying which studies weakens credibility.
Completeness considerations:
YMYL content should address foreseeable reader questions, particularly those involving risks. A medication article that doesn’t mention common side effects or contraindications fails completeness expectations regardless of what it covers well.
This doesn’t mean every article must be exhaustive. It means gaps shouldn’t exist where readers would reasonably expect information that protects them.
Appropriate hedging:
YMYL content should distinguish between:
- Established facts
- Professional consensus
- Emerging evidence
- Individual opinions
- Situations requiring personalized professional guidance
Presenting uncertainty as certainty, or vice versa, undermines trust. “Most financial planners recommend…” differs meaningfully from “You should…” and content should reflect these distinctions.
Required Disclaimers and Disclosures
Legal and practical requirements mandate specific disclosures on YMYL content.
Medical disclaimers:
Content providing health information should clarify that it doesn’t constitute medical advice and that readers should consult healthcare providers for their specific situations. This isn’t just good practice; it’s necessary liability management.
Placement matters. A buried disclaimer at article’s end doesn’t adequately inform readers encountering the content mid-article. Consider both top-of-article notices and contextual reminders where appropriate.
Financial disclaimers:
Financial content should distinguish between general education and personalized advice. If the content comes from a regulated entity (registered investment advisor, broker-dealer), specific regulatory disclosures may apply.
Affiliate relationships and compensation arrangements require clear disclosure where they could influence recommendations.
Legal disclaimers:
Legal content must avoid creating attorney-client relationships. Clear statements that content is general information, varies by jurisdiction, and doesn’t substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney protect both readers and publishers.
Disclosure best practices:
| Disclosure Type | Placement | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Medical disclaimer | Article top and/or sidebar | Not medical advice, consult healthcare provider |
| Financial disclaimer | Article top and/or with specific recommendations | Not personalized advice, consider consulting advisor |
| Legal disclaimer | Article top | General information, not legal advice, consult attorney |
| Affiliate disclosure | Near affected content | Clear statement of compensation relationship |
| Review sponsorship | Article top | Whether products were provided or content sponsored |
Fact-Checking and Review Processes
YMYL content should go through verification processes beyond what casual content receives.
Source verification:
Primary sources trump secondary sources. A health article citing a medical journal study is stronger than one citing a news article about the study. Where possible, link to original sources so readers (and Google) can verify claims.
Expert review:
For health content, medical review is increasingly expected. This involves a credentialed professional reading the content and attesting to its accuracy. Their name and credentials should appear on the article.
Review processes should be documented. If Google or users question content accuracy, you want records showing that qualified people verified the information.
Currency maintenance:
YMYL topics change. Medical guidelines update. Tax laws shift. Court decisions create new precedents. Content review schedules should reflect how quickly your topics evolve.
A Nashville law firm maintains their estate planning content by flagging all articles for review whenever Tennessee probate law changes. Articles showing “Last reviewed” dates within 12 months signal active maintenance. Articles last touched three years ago signal potential staleness.
Structured Data for YMYL Content
Schema markup helps Google understand content characteristics, including YMYL-relevant signals.
Article schema with author information:
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Article Title",
"author": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Dr. Jane Smith",
"url": "https://example.com/authors/jane-smith",
"jobTitle": "Board Certified Cardiologist",
"affiliation": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Nashville Heart Center"
}
},
"reviewedBy": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Dr. Medical Reviewer",
"jobTitle": "Internal Medicine Physician"
},
"datePublished": "2024-06-15",
"dateModified": "2025-01-10"
}MedicalWebPage for health content:
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "MedicalWebPage",
"about": {
"@type": "MedicalCondition",
"name": "Condition Name"
},
"lastReviewed": "2025-01-10",
"reviewedBy": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Reviewer Name",
"credential": "MD, FACC"
}
}Structured data doesn’t substitute for actual quality. It helps Google recognize quality signals that exist. Marking low-quality content with impressive-sounding schema won’t help and may hurt.
YMYL Audit Checklist
Use this framework to evaluate whether your YMYL content meets expectations.
Author signals:
- [ ] Clear author attribution on all YMYL articles
- [ ] Author pages with verifiable credentials
- [ ] Credentials appropriate to content claims
- [ ] Medical/financial/legal content reviewed by qualified professionals
- [ ] Reviewer credentials clearly displayed
Content quality:
- [ ] Information accurate and current
- [ ] Claims supported by authoritative sources
- [ ] Sources cited and linked where possible
- [ ] Appropriate hedging for uncertainty
- [ ] Risks and limitations addressed
- [ ] No outdated information that could cause harm
Trust signals:
- [ ] Clear contact information for the organization
- [ ] About page explaining who creates/reviews content
- [ ] Editorial standards documented
- [ ] Correction policy published and followed
- [ ] HTTPS and security basics implemented
- [ ] No deceptive practices or dark patterns
Disclosures:
- [ ] Appropriate disclaimers present and visible
- [ ] Commercial relationships disclosed
- [ ] Content clearly labeled when promotional
Maintenance:
- [ ] Review schedule established and followed
- [ ] Content updated when underlying facts change
- [ ] Dates accurately reflect last meaningful update
When Content Isn’t YMYL (And Shouldn’t Pretend to Be)
Over-engineering non-YMYL content with excessive YMYL treatment wastes resources and can make content feel inappropriately clinical or inaccessible.
A lifestyle blog’s article about morning routine ideas isn’t YMYL. Adding medical disclaimers and demanding physician review creates unnecessary friction for content that carries no medical risk.
Content that often gets incorrectly treated as YMYL:
- General fitness motivation (not exercise prescriptions for medical conditions)
- Basic budgeting tips (not investment advice)
- Productivity and organization advice (not mental health treatment)
- Recipe content (unless targeting specific medical dietary needs)
- Hobby and entertainment content
When your content genuinely falls outside YMYL, focus resources on quality rather than compliance theater. High-quality non-YMYL content doesn’t need YMYL-level process overhead.
The Long-Term Perspective
Building YMYL credibility takes time. Google’s systems evaluate reputation signals that accumulate gradually. A new site can’t manufacture overnight the trust signals that established authorities built over years.
This doesn’t mean new YMYL publishers can’t compete. It means competing requires patience and genuine expertise building rather than quick optimization fixes.
Realistic expectations:
- Expert authors and review processes can be implemented immediately
- Credibility signals from external recognition take months to years
- Trust recovery after YMYL quality issues often takes 6-12+ months
- Consistent quality over time matters more than individual optimizations
For organizations serious about YMYL content, the investment in proper processes, credentialed contributors, and genuine accuracy isn’t just SEO strategy. It’s ethical obligation to readers who may make consequential decisions based on what you publish.
Sources
- Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
- Google Search Central: How Google identifies authors
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/publication-information
Note: YMYL requirements reflect Google’s documented standards as of early 2025. Standards evolve with quality rater guideline updates and algorithm changes.