Highest: the top of the scale

What the document says

Highest uses the same structure as High — demonstrating one of the three attributes is enough — but with “very” attached to everything: MC with very high effort, originality, talent or skill; very positive reputation; very high E-E-A-T. The definition of very-high-quality MC is absolute, not relative: “some of the most outstanding content on a topic that’s available online.”

The document details what that means by content type:

News: original reporting that reveals information that wouldn’t otherwise be known — investigative, accurate, in-depth, citing primary sources and meeting professional journalistic standards.
Artistic content: unique, original work by highly skilled creators — with the caveat that art addressing YMYL topics (to inform or sway opinion) answers to YMYL standards.
Informational content: original, accurate, comprehensive, clearly communicated, reflecting expert consensus where it exists — with expectations calibrated by field (a scientific paper ≠ a stamp-collecting post, but both need accuracy and clarity).

On very positive reputation: for YMYL, it comes from recommendations by recognized experts and professional societies; prestigious awards count. For light topics, being seen as “one of the best sources available online” for the subject suffices — and, again, pages without reputation can still be Highest. On very high E-E-A-T: it means being the go-to source — the uniquely authoritative site (the national park about the park itself, the tax agency about tax forms), the creator whose wealth of experience anchors trust on topics where experience is the primary factor.

The examples run from the obvious to the instructive: prize-winning investigative features, the official Yosemite site, kernel.org for Linux, the NIH’s BMI calculator — but also a recipe blog whose author documented extensive experimentation with chocolate chip cookies, an amateur cat video that won a festival award, and a Q&A page where non-experts answer “how long do most cancer patients live” by sharing experiences with loved ones — Highest, on heavy YMYL, sustained by lived experience.

In practice

Highest has two paths, and only one is accessible to most: being the origin. Either you’re the uniquely authoritative institution (you can’t become the tax agency), or you create information that didn’t exist — the test, the experiment, the dataset, the investigation. The cookie blog got there by documenting its own experimentation. It’s investigative reporting’s mechanism at household scale: the value comes from revealing something the rest of the web can only cite.

“Comprehensive” always travels with “clear.” The definition of Highest informational content stacks original + accurate + comprehensive + clearly communicated. Depth without readability doesn’t score; the 8,000-word definitive guide nobody can navigate isn’t Highest — it’s Medium with wasted effort.

The cancer Q&A is the most important precedent for communities and forums. Highest, on heavy YMYL, with no expert on the page — because the purpose was support and shared experience, not medical advice. If you run a community, UGC or a forum: your content’s quality ceiling isn’t limited by format; it’s defined by the fit between purpose and the kind of trust delivered.

For brands: your product is your authority monopoly. The store that manufactures its own backpack is “an expert on the product, making the page on their own website authoritative” — Highest. Deep, honest, complete documentation of your own product is the cheapest Highest content a company can produce, and most outsource it to third-party reviews.