How's your experience with AI Based Content in SEO?

[SilverLine22]

Hey Guys,

I have never been a fan of AI-based content generators but still curious.

What's your experience with using ai content for:

- SEO Performance
- Adsense Approval
- Traffic Analytics

Cheers

 

[tazarbm]

I know that it passes the Adsense checks, I don't know about the other points though

 

[Chris Newman]

Remember that any AI generated content is never fully ready to publish (that would result in a disaster). AI generated content needs to always be checked, edited (or re-edited) by a human, due to the grammatical mistakes, etc and then checked for being plagiarism free and then it is good enough to be published towards SEO related efforts.

 

[shekhar1205]

My results are mixed. For general sites, I have 80% success rate publishing them on various websites. The ai generated content after proper editing and checking by a human is normally accepted by real humans for publishing. In few cases (say 20%) people asked me to edit it . However, almost all the content was intended for general magazine type websites. When I target a specific niche related site owners, almost 50% rejected the content stating that they were looking for in-depth articles with insights - something which only human expert in a niche can do. My conclusion is that ai is useful for general type of shallow articles which can be read quickly by people with no intention to gain some insight i.e casual reading. The ai is simply not suitable or mature enough to be used in in-depth articles as of now.

 

[Kinu Actaz]

AI content can be used in the form of filler content. It doesn’t help if your keyword is low competition long tail keyword due to the fact that if the information is not available on such big platform like Google, then how come the AI knows about it?

 

[SilverLine22]

My results are mixed. For general sites, I have 80% success rate publishing them on various websites. The ai generated content after proper editing and checking by a human is normally accepted by real humans for publishing. In few cases (say 20%) people asked me to edit it . However, almost all the content was intended for general magazine type websites. When I target a specific niche related site owners, almost 50% rejected the content stating that they were looking for in-depth articles with insights - something which only human expert in a niche can do. My conclusion is that ai is useful for general type of shallow articles which can be read quickly by people with no intention to gain some insight i.e casual reading. The ai is simply not suitable or mature enough to be used in in-depth articles as of now.

Yes, correct, I also tried a couple of times multiple AI Content Generators but the problem is, the generated stuff comes too basic and doesn't add any value or deep research stuff.

I believe editing & fixing grammatical stuff, and removing plags would take more time than manual writing.

 

[TheDankChocolate]

If you are looking for Churn and burn generic types of websites which you can afford to lose in the near future, I would say AI does the job. I have an AI website that at its peak generated 8k page views/day and I somewhere knew it would be dying in the future.

But on the other hand, if you are looking for something that is very specific to a certain amount of people (generally specific niche websites), AI will generate shit content for you!

TLDR:

• Long term projects; avoid AI
• Chrun and burn; AI is your friend

 

[GainTheImpossible]

To be fair, AI content is pretty bad by itself.

It took me a long time to come up with a winning solution.

My solution was to write content with AI but edit it, add to it, etc. It's pretty good if you take your time with it.

Even for long-term, it's doable.

 

[FlyFlay]

I can summarize my experience in two cases for ai content:

1. AI content that is manually edited - in this case you are probably going to have an even better piece of content than your competitors.
The downside: more time for each piece, less pieces for a given time frame. you can't produce 50 articles a day this way.
2. Automated AI - I have to say I have seen pretty impressive models and algorithms that produce content, but if you want to do 100 articles a day or stuff like that, you can't reach the satisfactory level of a manually edited content.

HOWEVER, IF YOU FINE TUNE YOUR MODEL, TAKE CARE OF LITTLE NUEANCES AND ORGANIZS THE CONTENT AND APPLY SOME TRICKS TO ENHANCE READABILITY AND ENGAGEMENT, APPLYING GOOD KW RESEARCH AND YOU KNOW, DATA FROM GOOGLE, YOU ARE PROBABLY ON THE RIGHT PATH TO A DECENT-LEVEL CONTENT.

Also, ai content won't work for reviews and stuff so you need to focus on info pieces.

*I think with the new AI image models, there is a good potential to increase article quality.

 

[Steven Orr]

If you use it wisely, it will give you a good result

 

[IM Dude]

1 2 are good. Analytics is mixed. With ai writer text everywhere people are and sooner or later will figure it out its ai content.

 

[I Will Meet You There]

If you use it wisely, it will give you a good result

first truthful answer I think. my content is all AI and it looks and reads just great as if I had written it myself. In a few cases I caught that there was a paragraph started and ended off mid the first sentence so I either delete that line or complete it. One of the articles which was generated 100% by AI was about seven different types of a certain category of knot making! That is not generic broad content! These other people are either defensive of something or they are not aware of what AI generators are out there and what kind of quality they can churn out.

 

[susane]

If you use it wisely, it will give you a good result

I totally agree wit you

 

[HustleTong]

I'm optimistic about AI writing assistants
If you use them the right way, you can crank out 2-3X more content with ease