However, sites deemed to meet certain criteria, such as low-quality content or piracy, may be affected. Infowars cited as an example to quality assessors To perform quality assessments, quality assessors receive guidelines. These are public; you can read them yourself here. They are filled with examples of various pages and advice on how they might be rated, so that reviewers themselves make their own general decisions with the research they conduct. They do not contain instructions that a particular site or sites should always be rated poorly.
In addition to these guidelines, it appears that the vendor(s) hired by Google to handle these quality raters may provide additional instructions - and that's where all the current concerns come in. One of those vendors used Infowars as an example, and Cernovich was jewelry retouching service uploaded a screenshot of that example, which you can see on his blog. Infowars was used as an example of how an evaluator might judge the quality of a page in general. The example explained why the page might get a “low to medium”
score, placing it midway or below average on the quality scale. Here's what it looks like on Google's overall page quality scale, according to Google's official guidelines: The reasons for a lower score were primarily due to Infowars' reputation as a whole for "controversial and often debunked claims." Despite this, the example does not suggest that the page gets the lowest possible score. In fact, he explained why this shouldn't happen and even defended why this particular page would be useful to some Google searchers: