- Apr 4, 2014
- 6,481
- 4,873
Basically, you're saying that AI content (even of low quality) could be more SEO optimised than hand written content?
Google Update - May 27th 2022 - What I Have Noticed
- Thread starter homeriscool
- Start date
dandan594594
Elite Member
- Jan 31, 2013
- 1,664
- 1,238
Yep, monkeys on a typewriter.
The interesting part is working out why.
People keep saying that google doesn't read the content on a page, which I agree with.
However, nobody then takes that next step to figure out how google actually extracts, organizes and ranks the data provided on the page.
I understand why... Reverse engineering that, and then writing a semantically optimized article takes weeks, if not months.
A good read: www.earley.com/insights/what-difference-between-taxonomy-and-ontology-it-matter-complexity
Cutoff
Junior Member
- Oct 25, 2016
- 131
- 50
Almost all the AI for write the articles, for now, is only shit. The AI work only with article with many many many many general sources and almost always the result is full of inaccues. If you want a article technical is impossible have a good article with AI. If Google accept the trash of AI amen and not of the real human Is the end of internet information.
cynicalSEO
Newbie
- Jun 24, 2019
- 27
- 35
This. Google cares about entities. Not so much the "writing".
On the sites I manage for work we got hit pretty hard on a few -- not that hard on others (50/50) -- and we improved massively on a few others.
I noticed that on-page technical optimization didn't really seem to matter, but semantic optimization (using Wordmetrics, Clearscope, etc.) did matter. We had sites that were well CWV / speed optimized that got whacked. And we had sites that were not all that CWV / speed optimized which fared really well. (So who knows what to make of that... I'm just saying it like I see it).
My personal observations on how this difference in performance seemed to break down:
1) The sites that got hit really hard on were heavy affiliate sites that were very well written by professional writers, but not all that well semantically optimized. They had good dwell time and ppv, but that didn't seem to help, contrary to everything we used to think. They got whacked anyway. (To your point: "Google doesn't read the content on the page").
2) The sites that got hit "kind of" were affiliate sites and/or single product promotion sites that were AI optimized (to be clear: NOT AI written. Just AI optimized). However, these sites were also producing content at a rate of less than 3 articles per month -- if that. Many of these were just focusing on on-page optimization. I think maybe Google is trying to weed out the pros from the casual bloggers? Not sure.
3) The sites that improved massively seemed to be non-affiliate sites (no Amazon links, few if any well-known affiliate network links) that were heavily AI optimized (again, not AI-generated). These were also very regularly updated.
Interestingly, long-form content didn't really seem to matter -- also contrary to what we used to think.
Summary:
So my takeaway from this round of algo changes is: Right now you're better off doing sites that are light on affiliate links, and use heavily AI semantically optimized content (Using WordMetrics, Clearscope, MarketMuse or whatever your favorite AI semantic optimizer is), and you need to be producing new content a couple times a week or more. Content length of 500-1000 words seems fine (again). And CWV is important, but probably not the ultimate arbiter of success.
My 2 cents.
Last edited:
Jayampathi
Junior Member
- Apr 29, 2019
- 102
- 58
According to the comments it looks like whitehat sites have hit the update hard. here is my experience.
The interesting thing is (actually sad to see) my genuine site with 42 well-researched articles went down during the update from 1K impressions to 40 impressions per day. The site is 2 months old and is an info site in the tech niche (Social media account-related issues).
The funny thing is one of my testing sites with fully duplicate and word ai spun contents went up from 800 to 3K impressions per day.
No change for my entertainment (Quiz) site. For this site, I had never any issue for 3 years now during any Google update.
* Even I lost my rankings for my tech niche site, the first page is filled with crapy, spun, duplicate content sites. Just two words i have to say. 'Meyterious Google'.
The interesting thing is (actually sad to see) my genuine site with 42 well-researched articles went down during the update from 1K impressions to 40 impressions per day. The site is 2 months old and is an info site in the tech niche (Social media account-related issues).
The funny thing is one of my testing sites with fully duplicate and word ai spun contents went up from 800 to 3K impressions per day.
No change for my entertainment (Quiz) site. For this site, I had never any issue for 3 years now during any Google update.
* Even I lost my rankings for my tech niche site, the first page is filled with crapy, spun, duplicate content sites. Just two words i have to say. 'Meyterious Google'.
- Apr 4, 2014
- 6,481
- 4,873
The update is still unrolling... no need to panic.
I wish I could trade off this chart.
I wish I could trade off this chart.
Today Google works on the basis of its own database. It knows you are talking about a keyword based on semantics for similar articles with that same keyword.
For example, if you talk about video games, your article will talk about playstation, xbox, nintendo, mario, god of war, games, resolution, fps and so on. Because Google's algorithm is able to detect and relate these articles with connected semantics.
Politics likewise, Google understands that you talk about politics if you are talking about USA, Trump, Russia, Ukraine, War, Covid, etc.
So there is no way for Google to find out if the content was AI-generated or not. Only if it's for grammatical or concordance error. Then it's up to the editor to correct these grammatical errors.
The AI content update came just before this May 26 update. Before that, my site was not affected. But now, it's gone down like shit.
Not sure yet, but I believe it must be something to do with domain authority, linking, affiliates or something. Much less text related than people realize.
- Apr 4, 2014
- 6,481
- 4,873
I do agree with you.
Would you please collaborate here please?
Ita-user
Regular Member
- Jul 8, 2021
- 253
- 78
Mine is the Same as Your First One.... Do You think Google will Resolve it by itself? Even my (money website) all hand made content, structure, top immages, not AI Generated...etc etc.... Very Sad...
paisawaisa
Elite Member
- Mar 23, 2022
- 3,972
- 1,079
Google will never let it happen. Some people might be able to rank AI content currently but it will soon be over with Google updates.
Is AI content that is proof read and edited that much different to regular content?
Jayampathi
Junior Member
- Apr 29, 2019
- 102
- 58
What's the wrong with AI content? I don't understand. If you use the AI to auto-generate a complete article, then it will be garbage sometimes. But what about if you get the help of an AI writer to write some sections of a blog and you edit them manually? How can you tell if the blog is written with an AI or not?
When writing an article as I know all we do is get the ideas from other articles and then gather that information in a single article. Instead of writing the sentences manually, what I do is use the 'rephrase' option of the AI. Here are some examples. Can you tell me what's wrong with these AI rephrased contents?
Example 01;
original
Once you walk away from a toxic relationship, spend time on self-love, set your life goals and work on them, and concentrate on your growth and happiness.
Rephrased
Toxic relationships aren't always easy to leave, but once you're no longer with the person anymore it's important to make sure you focus on yourself and your happiness. Take time to work on self-love for yourself, set your life goals, and make sure they are realistic. You can also concentrate on your growth and whatever things that could improve how happy you feel in life.
Example 02;
Original
Visualize yourself taking complete control of your life and achieving whatever specific goal you've set for yourself. This makes it easier for you to overcome fear and take actionable steps toward achieving your goals.
Rephrased;
Visualize yourself succeeding. This way, before you take action, self-doubt will be limited to a small corner of your mind, and won't be able to hold you back from reaching your goals.
Example 03;
Original
Your brain cannot tell the difference between real and imagined memories. As a result, when you vividly imagine something, your brain chemistry changes as if you had experienced it.
Rephrased;
The power of your mind is such that when you vividly imagine something, your brain chemistry changes as if you had experienced it for real.
* After rephrasing I will run the article through Grammaly. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this procedure?
(Getting help of an AI)
When writing an article as I know all we do is get the ideas from other articles and then gather that information in a single article. Instead of writing the sentences manually, what I do is use the 'rephrase' option of the AI. Here are some examples. Can you tell me what's wrong with these AI rephrased contents?
Example 01;
original
Once you walk away from a toxic relationship, spend time on self-love, set your life goals and work on them, and concentrate on your growth and happiness.
Rephrased
Toxic relationships aren't always easy to leave, but once you're no longer with the person anymore it's important to make sure you focus on yourself and your happiness. Take time to work on self-love for yourself, set your life goals, and make sure they are realistic. You can also concentrate on your growth and whatever things that could improve how happy you feel in life.
Example 02;
Original
Visualize yourself taking complete control of your life and achieving whatever specific goal you've set for yourself. This makes it easier for you to overcome fear and take actionable steps toward achieving your goals.
Rephrased;
Visualize yourself succeeding. This way, before you take action, self-doubt will be limited to a small corner of your mind, and won't be able to hold you back from reaching your goals.
Example 03;
Original
Your brain cannot tell the difference between real and imagined memories. As a result, when you vividly imagine something, your brain chemistry changes as if you had experienced it.
Rephrased;
The power of your mind is such that when you vividly imagine something, your brain chemistry changes as if you had experienced it for real.
* After rephrasing I will run the article through Grammaly. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this procedure?
(Getting help of an AI)
ranga
Senior Member
- Aug 9, 2009
- 800
- 628
This update did not specifically targeted AI content, both kind of sites are hit. Also, the PAA sites mostly use paraphrasing and AI rewriting got a boost.
Google has nothing to gain targeting AI content because first its not 100% accurate in identifying AI content and second, due to this error lots of unintended sites will go down. What google is good at is finding out authority of a website through social media, engagement, entities and relationships so it can use that going forward to fight AI. Kind of think YMYL applied to most of internet.
dandan594594
Elite Member
- Jan 31, 2013
- 1,664
- 1,238
There's nothing wrong with using AI writers, Surfer or other tools to aid content creation.
However, even though the content reads as original, more often than not the semantic information isn't. In your examples, It's basically the same content, just said in another way.
This is what google looks for when determining the quality of a piece of content. Identical semantic information automatically indicates the writer has used data already ranking highly online to compile their article, and regardless of what tools were used, is deemed surplus to requirements for that specific search intent.
Using tools or writing techniques to be as good as what is already ranking, just doesn't cut it any-more in the originality stakes. Let's take one of your phrases as an example, and rather than rewriting it, we'll semantically add to it...
"Your brain cannot tell the difference between real and imagined memories. As a result, when you vividly imagine something, your brain chemistry changes as if you had experienced it."
"Your brain, which consists of the cerebrum, the brainstem and the cerebellum, cannot tell the difference between real (physical construct of reality) and imagined (created by a widespread neural network) memories.
As a result, when you you vividly imagine something, which is the ability to form pictures or ideas in your mind, your brain chemistry (the function of neurotransmitters) changes as if you had experienced it."
This is a very quick example of adding entity depth, without rewriting the content, vastly improving the authority of the statement. Basically, when comparing the two pieces, which one would be considered to be written by someone who understands the subject and wants to provide the reader with as much context as possible.
As far as I know, no tool available can add value to content like this.
Last edited:
Jayampathi
Junior Member
- Apr 29, 2019
- 102
- 58
wow. your inputs are very helpful and well explained. Thanks.
I got an idea of how to improve the content by explaining it in more depth. Thanks again. are you a content writer?
dandan594594
Elite Member
- Jan 31, 2013
- 1,664
- 1,238
It's easier to think about adding more "entities" than just depth. Goggle reading those two statements will understand the semantic relationships between the new terminology, and when comparing the two, will deem the one with more correctly connected entities a better resources for the search intent. A bit difficult to wrap your head around, especially when people rely so much on tools to do the heavy lifting.
Not a content writer mate, just for my own sites.
seomaster5
Elite Member
- Oct 31, 2021
- 5,161
- 1,482
Were website with AI content hit by this update ?
GrabThatHoodie
Newbie
- Nov 5, 2020
- 20
- 17
Hello everyone,
I thought it would be very interesting to show you the development of my main site as well.
My website is in a niche that is mainly dominated by giants, some of which have been around since 1999. These are mainly magazines.
With the latest update, I've managed for the first time to gain a lot of visibility - not just for the typical long-tail keywords which I dominated previously.
Even though my site is an affiliate site, most of the content (>95%) are informational articles. All articles are between 1800 and 7100 words long and are as holistic as possible.
In general, I try to make the site as unique (own images, texts, videos, ... if possible) and user-centric as possible (like building hubs, interlink to relevant artikles, easy user guidance, ...). These points seem to outweight the design aspect of my website (it literarily looks like a absolute noob coded it).
I also noticed that pages in my niche that didn't pay attention to E-A-T, published superficial content or simply translated content lost visibility.
I thought it would be very interesting to show you the development of my main site as well.
My website is in a niche that is mainly dominated by giants, some of which have been around since 1999. These are mainly magazines.
With the latest update, I've managed for the first time to gain a lot of visibility - not just for the typical long-tail keywords which I dominated previously.
Even though my site is an affiliate site, most of the content (>95%) are informational articles. All articles are between 1800 and 7100 words long and are as holistic as possible.
In general, I try to make the site as unique (own images, texts, videos, ... if possible) and user-centric as possible (like building hubs, interlink to relevant artikles, easy user guidance, ...). These points seem to outweight the design aspect of my website (it literarily looks like a absolute noob coded it).
I also noticed that pages in my niche that didn't pay attention to E-A-T, published superficial content or simply translated content lost visibility.
TurboCharge
Junior Member
- Dec 5, 2017
- 128
- 51
Does the good quality content website have content that is well structured with CSS? Ie short paragraphs, clear headers, blockquotes with summaries, tables and so on? Or well-written, well-structured text? I've noticed that a lot of websites have started to use a lot of CSS in their content, most don't just write text but I don't see how this means the content is better