SEO & AI Engine Optimization Framework · May 2026

Search Quality Rater Guidelines: the 175-page document Google's human raters use

A comprehensive installation and audit reference for understanding how Google's human Search Quality Raters evaluate websites, and structuring a website to score well against the Page Quality (PQ)…

Google's 182-Page Quality Rater Manual — How Human Raters Actually Evaluate Content

A comprehensive installation and audit reference for understanding how Google's human Search Quality Raters evaluate websites, and structuring a website to score well against the Page Quality (PQ) and Needs Met (NM) rating scales raters use. This document is dual-purpose: installation manual and audit document.

Cross-stack implementation note: the code samples in this framework are written in plain HTML for clarity. For React, Vue, Svelte, Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Astro, Hugo, 11ty, Remix, WordPress, Shopify, and Webflow equivalents of every pattern below, see framework-cross-stack-implementation.md. For pure client-rendered SPAs (no SSR/SSG) see framework-react.md. For Tailwind-specific concerns (purge, dynamic classes, dark-mode CLS, focus accessibility) see framework-tailwind.md.

1. Document Purpose & How to Use This Document

1.1 What This Document Is

This is the canonical reference for the Search Quality Rater Guidelines (SQRG) — Google's internal manual used by thousands of contracted human evaluators worldwide to assess search result quality. The full document is publicly available at services.google.com/fh/files/misc/hsw-sqrg.pdf. It runs 182 pages, was last updated September 11, 2025, and is the most authoritative public document on what Google considers high-quality content.

This framework document distills the SQRG into actionable installation and audit procedures. Where the SQRG describes what raters look for, this document specifies what to put on a website to give those raters (and the algorithms trained on rater data) what they're scoring.

The SQRG itself is not a ranking algorithm. Quality raters do not directly affect rankings — Google has explicitly stated this. But rater feedback trains and validates the algorithms that do affect rankings. Sites that score well against SQRG criteria are sites that score well in Google's actual ranking systems. The SQRG is the most direct window into Google's quality philosophy.

1.2 Three Operating Modes

Mode A — Install Mode: Building SQRG-aligned infrastructure into a website. Follow Sections 2 → 14.

Mode B — Audit Mode: Self-rating the site as if you were a Google quality rater. Skip to Section 11.

Mode C — Hybrid Mode: Audit then install for failing items.

1.3 How Claude Code CLI Should Consume This Document

  1. Read Section 2 — collect client variables
  2. Read Section 3 — understand the SQRG structure (PQ ratings + NM ratings + EEAT + YMYL all integrate here)
  3. Apply Section 4 — Page Quality rating criteria for site-wide and per-page evaluation
  4. Apply Section 5 — Needs Met rating criteria for query-specific evaluation
  5. Install per Sections 6-9
  6. Validate per Section 11
  7. Generate report per Section 14

1.4 Conflict Resolution Rules

Conflict Rule
Existing low-quality sub-pages on otherwise-good site The lowest-quality page can drag site-wide PQ down. Remediate or remove.
Low-quality main content (MC) with good supplementary content MC quality is what raters score. Improve or remove.
Hidden content under accordions / show-more Acceptable for organization, but content must be substantive when revealed.
Disclaimer-heavy YMYL content with thin actual content Raters score the substantive content, not disclaimers. Improve substantive content.

1.5 Required Tools

2. Client Variables Intake

# ============================================
# SQRG FRAMEWORK CLIENT VARIABLES
# ============================================

# --- Business & Site Identity (REQUIRED) ---
business_name: ""
primary_domain: ""
site_purpose: ""                     # The single sentence that describes why this site exists
site_purpose_obvious_to_raters: false # Could a rater determine the site's purpose in 30 seconds?

# --- Page-Level Identity (REQUIRED for audit) ---
audited_page_url: ""
page_purpose: ""                     # What is this specific page trying to accomplish?
page_purpose_obvious: false
page_main_content_quality: ""        # "high", "medium", "low" (be honest)
page_target_query: ""                # What query is this page intended to satisfy?

# --- Site-Wide Content Quality (REQUIRED) ---
percentage_pages_high_quality: 0     # Percentage of indexed pages that would score "High" in PQ
percentage_pages_low_quality: 0      # Percentage that would score "Low" or "Lowest"
has_lowest_quality_pages: false      # If true, these need immediate attention
lowest_quality_examples: []          # URLs of pages that would score "Lowest"

# --- Critical SQRG Page Elements (REQUIRED) ---
has_clear_who_runs_site: false       # Can a rater determine who's behind the site?
has_clear_who_authors: false         # Can a rater determine who wrote each piece?
has_customer_service_info: false     # For e-commerce/transactional sites
has_clear_contact_info: false
has_purpose_statement_on_about_page: false

# --- Reputation Research (REQUIRED) ---
business_search_reputation: ""       # What appears when a rater searches "{{brand}} reviews"?
business_external_reviews_summary: ""  # Aggregate sentiment from Google, BBB, Trustpilot
known_negative_reputation_issues: []
reputation_research_completed_date: ""

# --- YMYL Status (REQUIRED) ---
ymyl_classification: ""              # "full", "partial", "lite", "non" — affects PQ thresholds
ymyl_categories: []

# --- E-E-A-T Status (REQUIRED — see framework-eeat.md) ---
eeat_self_assessment_score: 0        # Out of 130 from EEAT framework audit
eeat_critical_fails: 0

# --- Helpful Content System Status (REQUIRED — see framework-hcs.md) ---
hcs_self_assessment_score: 0         # Out of 54
hcs_critical_fails: 0

3. What the SQRG Is

The Search Quality Rater Guidelines is the manual Google provides to its thousands of contracted human evaluators worldwide. These evaluators ("quality raters" or "search quality evaluators") are paid contractors — typically fluent in their assigned language and trained extensively on the SQRG — who assess Google search results for quality. Their evaluations help Google understand whether ranking algorithm changes are improving or degrading search quality.

Critical clarification about how raters affect rankings: Raters do not directly change rankings. As Google's Danny Sullivan has stated: "Our systems aren't looking for [E-E-A-T]. Our raters are using that to see if our systems are working well to show good information." Rater data is feedback — like restaurant feedback cards — that helps Google adjust its algorithms. Aggregate rater feedback over time trains the ranking systems.

The SQRG covers two main rating tasks raters perform:

1. Page Quality (PQ) rating — How high-quality is this individual page? PQ uses a 5-level scale: Lowest, Low, Medium, High, Highest. Raters apply the PQ scale to evaluate any web page, regardless of search query.

2. Needs Met (NM) rating — How well does this page satisfy the user who issued a specific search query? NM uses a 5-level scale: Fails to Meet (FailsM), Slightly Meets (SM), Moderately Meets (MM), Highly Meets (HM), Fully Meets (FullyM). NM is query-specific.

The SQRG also covers:

The September 2025 SQRG update was significant. It:

The SQRG is publicly available. Reading it cover-to-cover is one of the most under-utilized SEO research activities. This framework document distills the operational implications, but the SQRG itself is the source of truth.

4. Page Quality (PQ) Rating

The PQ rating scale is what raters apply to evaluate any individual page. Sites should score "High" or "Highest" on every important page.

4.1 The Five PQ Levels

Lowest — The page should not exist in search results. Reasons to rate Lowest:

Low — The page has significant problems. Reasons to rate Low:

Medium — The page is acceptable but unremarkable. Could be either:

High — The page is well-made and trustworthy. Indicators:

Highest — The page is exceptional. Indicators:

4.2 What Raters Examine for PQ

For every page being PQ-rated, raters investigate:

4.2.1 Page purpose

Raters first determine: what is this page trying to do? Inform? Sell? Entertain? Help? Express opinion? Share experience?

The page's purpose must be obvious within seconds. Pages with unclear purpose fail PQ regardless of MC quality.

4.2.2 Main Content (MC) quality and quantity

MC is the content the page exists to deliver — the article body, product description, video, tool, etc. Raters evaluate:

For YMYL pages, MC quality requires demonstrably accurate information from credentialed sources.

4.2.3 Supplementary Content (SC) quality

SC is everything else on the page — navigation, related links, ads, comments, sidebars. Raters evaluate:

4.2.4 Information about the website

Raters research the website itself. Required elements that boost PQ:

Sites with no information about who runs them fail PQ research.

4.2.5 Information about authors/creators

Raters specifically research the people behind content:

4.2.6 Reputation research

Raters perform off-site research about the site and creators:

Negative reputation can reduce PQ even if the page itself is well-made. Strongly negative reputation can drop PQ to Low or Lowest.

4.2.7 Page experience signals

Raters consider:

Page experience problems can reduce PQ rating.

4.3 PQ-Boosting Implementation Requirements

To score High or Highest on PQ, ensure:

4.3.1 Every page has obvious purpose

The H1 and first paragraph must make the page's purpose obvious. Examples:

If the purpose isn't obvious in 5-10 seconds, the page fails this criterion.

4.3.2 MC is substantive and adequate for purpose

MC must match the page's stated purpose:

Thin MC for a substantial purpose claim is a PQ failure.

4.3.3 Author and creator transparency

Every content page has:

See framework-eeat.md Section 4.2 for full author implementation.

4.3.4 Information about the website

Required pages, all linked from footer:

See framework-eeat.md Section 5.2 for full requirements.

4.3.5 Reputation infrastructure

Take active steps to ensure reputation research returns positive results:

See framework-eeat.md Section 4.3 (Authoritativeness) for reputation infrastructure.

4.3.6 Functional design and clean experience

5. Needs Met (NM) Rating

NM is query-specific. For each query, raters evaluate whether each result meets the user's needs.

5.1 The Five NM Levels

Fully Meets (FullyM) — The result completely satisfies the user's specific need. Reserved for queries with a clear, single best answer that the page provides perfectly. Example: query "weather in San Francisco today" → result that shows San Francisco weather.

Highly Meets (HM) — The result is very helpful and likely to be what most users want. The result satisfies a primary user intent.

Moderately Meets (MM) — The result is helpful for some users, satisfies a secondary intent, or partially satisfies the primary intent.

Slightly Meets (SM) — The result is somewhat related to the query but doesn't really answer it, or answers a less likely interpretation.

Fails to Meet (FailsM) — The result doesn't satisfy the query at all. Off-topic, inaccurate, foreign-language, or otherwise irrelevant.

5.2 What Raters Consider for NM

5.2.1 User intent interpretation

Raters first determine likely user intents for the query. Most queries have multiple possible intents:

Pages that satisfy the most likely intent score higher.

5.2.2 Result usefulness

Beyond relevance, raters consider:

A page that buries the answer 2000 words deep when the user just needs a quick fact rates lower than a page that surfaces the answer immediately.

5.2.3 Query freshness needs

Raters consider whether the query implies need for fresh content:

Pages with dates that match the query's freshness expectation score higher.

5.2.4 Localization

For local-intent queries, results in the user's location score higher.

5.2.5 YMYL stricter NM

For YMYL queries, raters apply higher standards. A result might be relevant but rate lower if it's from an untrustworthy source on a YMYL topic.

5.3 NM-Optimization Implementation

5.3.1 Match content to genuine user intent

For every published page, document:

Don't create pages for intents you can't actually satisfy.

5.3.2 Surface the answer prominently

If users searching for the page's target query need a specific answer, deliver it in the first paragraph or hero section. Then expand below.

<article>
  <h1>{{HEADLINE_MATCHING_QUERY_INTENT}}</h1>

  <section class="answer-summary">
    <p>{{DIRECT_ANSWER_TO_QUERY_IN_2_3_SENTENCES}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="full-detail">
    {{COMPREHENSIVE_TREATMENT}}
  </section>
</article>

5.3.3 Match freshness to intent

For queries with freshness needs:

For evergreen queries:

5.3.4 Multi-intent pages handled correctly

For broad queries with multiple reasonable intents, address them with clear navigation:

<nav aria-label="Choose your path">
  <h2>What are you looking for?</h2>
  <ul>
    <li><a href="#beginners">If you're new to {{TOPIC}}</a></li>
    <li><a href="#advanced">If you're experienced with {{TOPIC}}</a></li>
    <li><a href="#troubleshooting">If you're troubleshooting</a></li>
  </ul>
</nav>

5.3.5 Mobile-first NM

Most rater work happens on mobile. The mobile experience must:

6. PQ-Optimization Site-Wide Installation

6.1 Phase 1: Site Identity Foundation

6.1.1 Homepage that demonstrates purpose

The homepage must communicate within 5 seconds:

<main>
  <section class="hero">
    <h1>{{SITE_PURPOSE_AS_VALUE_PROPOSITION}}</h1>
    <p class="subhead">{{WHO_ITS_FOR_AND_WHAT_THEY_GET}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="who-we-are-summary">
    <h2>Who We Are</h2>
    <p>{{SHORT_INTRODUCTION_OF_FOUNDER_OR_TEAM}}</p>
    <p><a href="/about/">More about us →</a></p>
  </section>

  <section class="what-we-do">
    <h2>What We Cover</h2>
    <ul>{{LIST_OF_PRIMARY_TOPICS_OR_SERVICES}}</ul>
  </section>

  <section class="trust-indicators">
    {{REVIEW_AGGREGATE}}
    {{FEATURED_IN_LOGOS}}
    {{KEY_CREDENTIALS}}
  </section>
</main>

6.1.2 Comprehensive About page

See framework-hcs.md Section 6.3 and framework-eeat.md Section 5.2.1 for full About page requirements. SQRG specifically rewards comprehensive About pages.

6.1.3 Author hub and individual author pages

See framework-eeat.md Section 7.

6.1.4 Customer service infrastructure for transactional sites

E-commerce or service sites need:

6.2 Phase 2: Reputation Infrastructure

6.2.1 Active review management

6.2.2 Earned media and press

See framework-eeat.md Section 4.3 (Authoritativeness pillar) for full implementation.

6.2.3 Wikipedia and Wikidata presence

For sites with sufficient notability, presence on Wikipedia and Wikidata is one of the strongest reputation signals raters check. See framework-eeat.md Section 4.3.4.

6.2.4 Industry recognition

6.3 Phase 3: Content Quality at Scale

6.3.1 No "Lowest" pages allowed

Audit the site for any pages that would rate "Lowest":

Remediate or remove all "Lowest" pages immediately. Their existence drags site-wide PQ.

6.3.2 No "Low" pages without remediation plan

Audit for pages that would rate "Low":

Either remediate to bring up to Medium or higher, or remove.

6.3.3 Aim for High or Highest on important pages

Top-traffic pages, money pages, and topic pillar pages should all aim for Highest. Apply:

6.4 Phase 4: Page Experience

Per Section 4.2.7 of this document and Tier 1 of the 14-tier framework:

6.5 Phase 5: AI Content Evaluation Per SQRG

The September 2025 SQRG update added specific guidance for AI-generated content. Key principles:

Implementation:

7. NM-Optimization Per-Page Installation

For each indexable page, configure for the queries it's targeting.

7.1 Document Target Query and Intent

For every page, document in the CMS or content management system:

7.2 Match Page Structure to Intent

7.2.1 Informational queries

User wants knowledge. Page structure:

7.2.2 Commercial queries

User is researching purchase. Page structure:

7.2.3 Transactional queries

User wants to take action. Page structure:

7.2.4 Navigational queries

User wants a specific destination. Page structure:

7.2.5 Local queries

User wants location-specific result. Page structure:

7.3 Freshness Signal Calibration

For pages serving freshness-sensitive queries:

7.4 Mobile-First Page Design

Every page must work well on mobile because raters work on mobile:

8. Reputation Research Optimization

Raters perform off-site research about every site they evaluate. The goal: ensure their research finds positive, supporting information.

8.1 Brand Search Audit

Search Google for these queries about your business and document what comes up:

Top 10 results for each should be:

If negative results appear in top 10:

8.2 Review Platform Coverage

Maintain active presence on:

Average rating target: 4.5+. Volume target: 100+ reviews per platform where applicable. Response rate: 100%.

8.3 Wikipedia and Wikidata

For notable businesses and individuals:

Wikidata (lower notability bar):

Wikipedia (higher notability bar):

8.4 Earned Media Inventory

Document all earned media at /press/ page:

8.5 Negative Reputation Management

If known negative reputation exists:

Legitimate complaints:

Outdated negative information:

Defamatory or false content:

9. AI Content Per SQRG (September 2025 Update)

The September 2025 SQRG update added specific guidance for evaluating AI-generated content. Key implementation requirements:

9.1 Disclosure Requirements

Per framework-eeat.md Section 4.4.6 — site-wide AI policy + per-article disclosure callouts.

9.2 Expert Review Requirements

For YMYL AI content: per framework-ymyl.md Section 5.8.

For non-YMYL AI content: still requires human review, factual verification, and bylined responsibility.

9.3 Quality Threshold

AI content must meet the same quality bar as human-written content:

9.4 What's Never Acceptable

10. PQ Audit Criteria

Score the site against PQ rating criteria:

# Criterion Severity
Q1 Site purpose is obvious within 30 seconds Critical
Q2 About page comprehensively explains the site Critical
Q3 Owner identity is transparent Critical
Q4 Real contact information accessible Critical
Q5 Customer service info available (transactional sites) Critical (transactional)
Q6 Author identity transparent on every content page Critical
Q7 Author credentials displayed appropriately for topic High
Q8 MC is substantive and matches page purpose Critical
Q9 MC quality is High or Highest on top pages High
Q10 No "Lowest" rated pages exist on site Critical
Q11 "Low" rated pages are rare and being remediated High
Q12 Reputation research returns positive top 10 results Critical
Q13 Active review management with high ratings High
Q14 Mobile experience is excellent Critical
Q15 Page load speed is good (CWV) Critical
Q16 No intrusive ads or interstitials High
Q17 Functional design with no UX failures High
Q18 YMYL pages meet elevated standards (if applicable) Critical (YMYL)
Q19 AI content disclosed and reviewed Critical (if applicable)
Q20 E-E-A-T appropriate for the topic Critical

Score: 40 max. World-class PQ: 36+/40 with zero Critical fails.

11. NM Audit Criteria

For sample pages, evaluate against query-specific NM criteria:

# Criterion Severity
N1 Page accurately addresses the target query Critical
N2 Primary user intent is satisfied Critical
N3 Answer is surfaced prominently (not buried) High
N4 Freshness matches query freshness need High
N5 Local intent satisfied for local queries High (local)
N6 Mobile experience supports query satisfaction Critical
N7 Page doesn't require unnecessary additional clicks Medium
N8 YMYL accuracy and credibility for YMYL queries Critical (YMYL)

Score per page: 16 max. World-class NM: 14+/16 with zero Critical fails.

12. Common SQRG Mistakes & Anti-Patterns

12.1 Generic About Pages

Anti-pattern: "We are a leading provider of solutions for businesses..." — generic, says nothing specific.

Why it fails: Raters research the site. Generic about pages signal a lack of genuine identity.

Fix: Specific, concrete, real. Who are you actually? What do you actually do? Why?

12.2 Hidden Owner Identity

Anti-pattern: Site doesn't say who runs it. Footer just shows business name with no individual.

Why it fails: SQRG specifically requires transparency about who's behind the site. Anonymity is a Trust failure.

Fix: Real names, real photos, real bios.

12.3 No Customer Service for Transactional Sites

Anti-pattern: E-commerce site with no phone number, no live chat, just a contact form going to a black hole.

Why it fails: SQRG explicitly requires customer service info for transactional sites. Lack of it can drop PQ to Low.

Fix: Real customer service, real responsiveness, accessible from every transactional page.

12.4 Misleading or Exaggerated Titles

Anti-pattern: "Ultimate Guide" that's 800 words. "Complete Tutorial" that covers basics only. "Best X in 2026" that's just a list.

Why it fails: Title-content mismatch is explicit PQ failure criteria.

Fix: Title matches content. If you can't deliver "ultimate," don't claim it.

12.5 Negative Reputation Ignored

Anti-pattern: Negative BBB rating, low Google reviews, complaints in industry forums — none addressed.

Why it fails: Reputation research drives PQ. Negative reputation drops PQ regardless of on-page quality.

Fix: Active reputation management. Address legitimate complaints. Drown out outdated negatives with current positives.

12.6 YMYL Without Expertise

Anti-pattern: Health blog written by non-credentialed bloggers, finance advice from unlicensed authors, legal information from non-attorneys.

Why it fails: SQRG holds YMYL content to expert standards. Lacking expertise is automatic Low or Lowest rating.

Fix: Either get credentialed authors and reviewers, or reframe content as personal experience (with proper disclaimers), or stop publishing in that category.

12.7 Site-Wide Quality Drag

Anti-pattern: Site has good content but also has hundreds of thin SEO experiments, abandoned categories, expired content.

Why it fails: PQ is evaluated holistically. Low-quality pages drag the entire site's evaluation.

Fix: Aggressive content audit. Remove or remediate all Low and Lowest pages. Quality > quantity.

12.8 Intrusive Ad Patterns

Anti-pattern: Pop-ups on entry, full-screen interstitials before content, ads that move during reading, pre-roll ads before short content.

Why it fails: Page experience explicitly impacts PQ. Intrusive ads drop PQ rating.

Fix: Ads that don't disrupt MC. Modest ad density. No interstitials before MC.

12.9 No Reputation Effort for Notable Businesses

Anti-pattern: Established business with no Wikipedia, no Wikidata, no consistent earned media coverage.

Why it fails: Notable businesses should have reputation infrastructure. Absence is suspicious.

Fix: Actively build reputation infrastructure per Section 8.

12.10 AI Content Pretending to Be Expert-Authored

Anti-pattern: AI-generated articles bylined to a person who didn't write them. No disclosure of AI involvement.

Why it fails: SQRG's September 2025 update explicitly addresses this. Detection results in Lowest rating.

Fix: Disclose AI use. Have credentialed reviewer sign off. Don't pretend.

13. Maintenance Schedule

13.1 Monthly

13.2 Quarterly

13.3 Annually

13.4 On SQRG Update

When Google publishes an updated SQRG (typically annually):

  1. Read the update document
  2. Identify new criteria or changed criteria
  3. Update this internal framework document accordingly
  4. Audit sites against new criteria
  5. Implement changes within 30 days

14. Implementation/Audit Report Templates

14.1 SQRG Implementation Report Template

# SQRG Framework Implementation Report

**Site**: {{BUSINESS_NAME}}
**Implementation Date**: {{TODAY}}

## Summary
- Self-rated PQ score: {{X}}/40
- Estimated PQ rating: {{HIGHEST/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/LOWEST}}
- YMYL pages reviewed: {{COUNT}}
- "Lowest" pages identified and remediated: {{COUNT}}
- "Low" pages identified and on remediation path: {{COUNT}}

## Site Identity Improvements
{{LIST}}

## Author Identity & Credentials Improvements
{{LIST}}

## Reputation Infrastructure Status
{{LIST}}

## Customer Service Status (if transactional)
{{LIST}}

## AI Content Compliance Status
{{STATUS}}

## Validation Results
{{AUTOMATED_AND_MANUAL_RESULTS}}

## Sign-Off

14.2 SQRG Audit Report Template

# SQRG Framework Audit Report

**Site**: {{BUSINESS_NAME}}
**Audit Date**: {{TODAY}}

## Executive Summary
{{SUMMARY}}

**Estimated Site PQ Rating**: {{RATING}}
**PQ Score**: {{X}}/40
**NM Score (Sample)**: {{X}}/16 average

## PQ Findings
### Site Identity ({{PASS/FAIL}})
{{FINDINGS}}

### MC Quality Distribution
- Highest: {{COUNT}} pages
- High: {{COUNT}} pages
- Medium: {{COUNT}} pages
- Low: {{COUNT}} pages
- Lowest: {{COUNT}} pages

### Reputation Research Findings
- Top 10 brand search results: {{POSITIVE/MIXED/NEGATIVE}}
- Review platform coverage: {{ASSESSMENT}}
- Earned media: {{ASSESSMENT}}

### Page Experience
{{ASSESSMENT}}

## NM Findings (Sample Pages)
{{PER_PAGE_FINDINGS}}

## Critical Failures
{{LIST_WITH_REMEDIATION}}

## Recommended Remediation Order
{{PRIORITIZED_LIST}}

## Sign-Off

End of Framework Document

Document version: 1.0 Last updated: 2026-04-29 Maintained by: ThatDeveloperGuy

The SQRG is the most comprehensive public document on what Google considers high-quality content. This framework distills it into operational requirements, but the SQRG itself should be read directly. The PDF is updated periodically — typically annually — and the most recent version (September 2025) added important guidance on AI Overviews and expanded YMYL to include civic content.

The SQRG is the framework that connects E-E-A-T, YMYL, and Helpful Content. Where those frameworks describe specific dimensions of quality, the SQRG describes how human raters synthesize all of them into Page Quality and Needs Met evaluations.

Companion documents:

Want this framework implemented on your site?

ThatDevPro ships these frameworks as productized services. SDVOSB-certified veteran owned. Cassville, Missouri.

See Engine Optimization service ›