An information gain score is useful when two editors can explain why they gave a page different marks. ROI.LIVE uses the rubric below to review the contribution of a draft. It has five dimensions, each scored from zero to two. The ten-point total is an editorial aid. It is not a Google metric or a prediction of search position.
The worksheet is designed for a business owner reviewing paid content. Each mark needs a sentence of evidence. An attractive total cannot excuse a false claim or a page that answers the wrong question.
The ten-point review
| Dimension | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reader decision | The task is unclear | The question is stated but only partly answered | The reader can make the intended decision |
| Useful contribution | Repeats alternatives without improving them | Adds explanation or organization | Adds a substantiated example, tool, comparison or insight that resolves a gap |
| Evidence | Material claims have no support | Support exists but needs context | Sources, dates, definitions and limitations are adjacent to the claims |
| Practical use | Advice remains general | Steps exist but require guesswork | Inputs, sequence, exclusions and next action are clear |
| Editorial clarity | Repetition or ambiguity obscures the answer | Usable with edits | Easy to scan and read without distorting the facts |
Editable resource
Use the worksheet
The CSV opens in Excel, Google Sheets or another spreadsheet editor. It contains labeled fields; sample data, where included, is illustrative.
Download the editable worksheet (CSV)
Preview the fields
- URL
- Reader decision
- Review date
- Reviewer
- Reader decision 0-2
- Contribution 0-2
- Evidence 0-2
- Practical use 0-2
- Clarity 0-2
- Reason and source
- Required repair
- Owner
- Status
Score one page against one purpose
Record the primary question, intended reader and review date. Read the whole page, including the title, image labels, calculator outputs and FAQ. Then examine a few current alternatives. Include a primary source when the subject has one. A top result is useful context, but ranking alone does not establish accuracy.
Score each dimension and quote the passage supporting your mark. Two reviewers can score independently before discussing the largest differences. Keep the disagreement in the worksheet. It often reveals an unclear target reader or an assumption the writer has left unstated.
There is no validated pass threshold. Use the score to prioritize edits within a comparable batch. A seven-point glossary entry and a seven-point buying guide may need different work. A safety, pricing or product claim without evidence requires correction regardless of the total.
A worked example: a service quote guide
This example is illustrative. A draft says a website costs between two large numbers and recommends asking an agency for a quote. Its reader decision score is one: the subject is clear, but the owner still cannot compare scope. Its contribution score is zero if the same range appears across the alternatives without a useful explanation.
Add a sample scope that separates page design, content writing, data migration, integrations, hosting and maintenance. Label its prices as sample inputs, not market averages or an agency offer. Add a calculation for the owner's total first-year cost. The revision can improve practical use even if it contains no original survey.
Evidence remains a separate judgment. A calculator with the wrong formula can look useful while misleading the reader. Review the arithmetic before raising the score.
What the score cannot tell you
It cannot establish authorship, plagiarism, indexing, conversion lift or an AI citation probability. Those questions require different evidence. An AI detector's percentage is not a substitute for checking whether the claimed experience happened.
The definition of information gain explains why the editorial concept must be separated from the Google patent. Keep that explanation in any client report that uses the term. Calling a private rubric a search-engine score creates false precision.
Turn the marks into a repair list
Assign one owner and one concrete change for each weakness. Replace “needs more depth” with “show which migration work is excluded from the quoted price.” Replace “improve authority” with “link the product rating to the manufacturer's current specification and identify the exact model.”
Rescore after the revision, retaining the original row. Track search and business outcomes separately over time. A higher editorial score means the page better satisfies this review method. It does not prove that the edit caused a later traffic change. The content audit process explains how to apply this method to a larger inventory without losing that distinction.
Questions owners ask
Is this score validated against Google rankings?
No. It is an editorial rubric for reviewing usefulness, evidence and clarity. No ranking guarantee or internal Google measurement is implied.
What score is enough to publish?
There is no universal numerical cutoff. Correct material errors, satisfy the intended reader and complete the normal editorial and technical checks. Use the score to prioritize improvements.
How should two reviewers resolve a difference?
Compare the passages and assumptions behind their marks. Agree on the reader and page purpose, then record the reason for any changed score.
Can a short page score well?
Yes. The rubric evaluates whether a page completes its task. Extra length earns no points by itself.
Method
This guide presents ROI.LIVE’s editorial analysis and worked methods. Numerical examples are illustrative unless expressly identified otherwise. No ranking, citation or business outcome is guaranteed.
Substantively revised September 7, 2026. Definitions, calculations, sources and internal destinations were reviewed for this edition.