Google’s documented criterion is narrow and categorical, not a granular scoring system: in August 2023, Google significantly reduced the number of sites eligible for FAQ rich results in Search, restricting eligibility to what its own announcement described as well-known, authoritative government and health websites. Google has not published a detailed algorithmic checklist, a verification process, or a list of qualifying domains beyond that categorical statement. If you’re trying to reverse-engineer specific qualifying factors (domain type, E-E-A-T score, a whitelist), you’re looking for something Google has never disclosed, and treating any granular criteria as fact would be inventing a mechanism Google hasn’t described.
What actually changed and when
Before August 2023, FAQ rich results were broadly available: any site marking up a page’s FAQPage structured data correctly, with content that genuinely matched a frequently-asked-question format, could potentially see the expandable question-and-answer rich result in search, along with the additional SERP real estate that came with it. This made FAQ schema one of the more popular technical SEO tactics of the preceding several years, since the rich result meaningfully increased a listing’s visual footprint on the results page even without a ranking change.
Google’s own Search Central changelog documented a change to this in August 2023, alongside a similar scale-back of HowTo rich results. The stated rationale in Google’s public communication was about SERP quality and relevance: Google indicated it wanted to reduce how often these particular rich result types appeared in search, reserving FAQ rich results specifically for what it called authoritative government and health sites, rather than the general web. This was framed as a policy change, not a bug fix or a temporary rollback, and it has remained the standing policy since.
The mechanism: categorical restriction, not a published scoring rubric
The honest, precise answer to “what criteria does Google use” is that Google has told us the category (authoritative government and health sites) and has not told us the method by which it identifies membership in that category. It’s reasonable to assume Google’s systems are drawing on the same general signals it uses elsewhere to establish site authority and topical trust for YMYL (your money or your life) content, since government and health information sits squarely in YMYL territory: things like domain characteristics (many government sites use recognizable top-level domains such as .gov or its international equivalents), established topical and entity authority in health or public-sector information, and the kind of longstanding, well-corroborated reputation that Google’s broader quality systems already weigh heavily for YMYL topics generally.
But that’s informed inference about how Google’s existing quality and authority systems might apply to this specific eligibility gate, not a documented FAQ-specific rubric. Google has never published, for example, a specific domain authority threshold, a specific list of qualifying government or health domains, or a scoring formula that determines FAQ eligibility distinctly from its general site-quality assessment. Any brief, article, or vendor claim that presents a granular checklist beyond “authoritative government and health sites” should be read skeptically, because it’s very likely extrapolation dressed up as documented fact.
It’s also worth being precise about what “government and health” means in scope. This isn’t necessarily limited to literal .gov domains; health information sites with strong, independently recognized authority (major public health organizations, well-established medical institutions) plausibly qualify under the health half of the category even without a government TLD. But again, Google hasn’t published the exact boundary of that category, so the safest characterization is the one Google itself used: authoritative sites in the government and health space, evaluated by Google’s existing systems for judging authority and trust in YMYL contexts.
Practical implication: stop treating FAQ schema as a growth lever outside these categories
For the overwhelming majority of sites, which are not government portals or established health authorities, the practical takeaway is straightforward: FAQ rich results are no longer a realistic SEO opportunity, regardless of how well-implemented the FAQPage schema is. Continuing to maintain FAQ structured data purely in hopes of winning back that rich result is very likely wasted effort for most site categories, since the restriction is a policy-level gate, not something better markup, more content depth, or improved technical implementation can route around.
If your site sits in a genuinely qualifying category (an official government agency site, a widely recognized public health authority, a major medical institution with independent, verifiable authority), it’s reasonable to keep FAQPage markup live and monitor Search Console’s structured data reports for actual FAQ rich result impressions, since you may be one of the sites still eligible. For everyone else, the schema itself isn’t harmful to keep (it doesn’t violate policy merely by existing), but it shouldn’t be prioritized as an SEO investment, and any team currently budgeting effort toward “optimizing” FAQ schema for display purposes on a general commercial or informational site should redirect that effort elsewhere. The visibility this schema type used to reliably deliver for the broader web is gone, and there’s no published path back to it short of being the kind of authoritative government or health entity Google explicitly carved out.
If you’re unsure whether your site plausibly qualifies, the only reliable test is empirical: implement or retain correct FAQPage markup, then check Search Console’s Search Appearance or structured data reports over several weeks for actual FAQ rich result impressions. If none appear, that’s a stronger practical signal than any theoretical checklist, since it reflects Google’s live, current determination for your specific site rather than a guess about unpublished criteria.
