YouMoz Rubric
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
This is used to score YouMoz submissions, and provide objective standards for whether to decline a post, ask for further revisions, or go ahead and publish a post. Tentative scoring guidelines are:
0-5 points: Decline Post
6-11 points: Needs Author Revisions
12-14 points: Ready to publish, with minor edits
AttributeExamples of a 0 point scoreExamples of a 1 point scoreExamples of a 2 point scorePoints Earned
Actionable, Detailed Information
Primarily opinion or editorial, with no information readers can use in their own work.

A rant against a particular company, website, or practice.

Speculation, with no implications for reader's work.

Post briefly tells reader to do something, but gives no instructions on how to do it and no context.
Information presented, but readers need more details before they can use this on their own.

No technique limitations addressed.
The reader can take this to their boss/client and say "look at what this person did, I think we can do this and get good results too"

Either in post or via external references, provides step-by-step information.

User can figure out how to do something from start to finish.

Limitations of technique are included (only for for US customers, only works on a PC, etc.)
New Information or Fresh Insight
Information is not new, and there is not a fresh take on the information.

Information many months or years old.

Information is new, but post doesn’t add anything new to the conversation.

Post contains significant amount of material copied from another post.
Attempt at adding something new to the conversation, but really doesn’t make it clear as to why this is important.
Covers something not explored in detail before.

Offers a new take on an existing topic.

Makes the reader stand up and take notice of this information.
Valid, Referenced InformationInformation is not correct.

Statements are presented as fact, with no explicit or implicit references.
May be alternate reasons for results not explained in post.

Statements such as "Google says" with no reference or link.
Information is correct.

Steps taken to minimize interfering factors (like using incognito window for SERPS).

References are provided to original source of information.
Writing Tone, Writing Quality, Content LayoutEnglish is very poor, and it's difficult to understand the author's intent (even if we had time, we wouldn't be able to make the post readable).

Lots of separate thoughts without anything to connect them.

Not TAGFEE in tone.
Abbreviations are not explained.

Unfamiliar jargon is used.

Moderate amount of spelling and grammar errors.

Structure of post needs some help to make it flow or needs conclusion.
Jargon and abbreviations are explained.

Only minor typos.

Post tells a cohesive story. Clear introduction, logical flow, firm conclusion.

Headings, subheadings, bullets, lists used as needed.

Post uses a TAGFEE tone.
ImagesImages not relevant to post.

Images needed but not included.
No citations for image source

Images are watermarked.

Images are copyright and no permission is mentioned.

Images are difficult to read and need to be retaken or resized.
Images are relevant to the post.

Graphics are used to highlight important parts of screenshots.

Images are clear and information is readable.

Images are properly sized.
LinksLinks unnecessary or unrelated to contents of post.

Affiliate links.
Links relevant to the post, but relationship with author not disclosed.

Primarily links to own company/clients.

Rich anchor text links.
Links are relevant to the post.

Links cite authoritative, trusted sources.

Any relationship between author and links is disclosed.
Audience (topic, size)Not written for a marketing/technical audience.

Information only applies to a small number of readers, such as how to do a small operation in an uncommon CMS.
Topic narrow, but with effort, could be expanded to a broader audience.

Post needs to focus content more on the Moz audience.

Examples may not be relevant to our audience; most readers don't have the budget to do a plan like Starbucks or Coke
Written for people involved in online/technical marketing.

People in multiple specialities can use this information.

Examples are relevant to our readers.
Formatting based off of the content evaluation rubric mentioned in
YouMoz Rubric