Google Does Not Mind About Ai Content, Provided It Is Factual.

AI is bad for content creation. It could be decent to get some coverage ideas but that's it.

If you believe the AI-generated content is "publishable" you either have no idea about the quality content standards or have poor writing and English skills. No offense but that's the truth.

Every sentence is generic, not authentic and the pattern is repetitive and easy to spot.

Plus, almost everyone is driven by the idea of integrating AI into their content strategy, which means they no longer invest time in writing authentic content, which also means people who actually write informative content can get on top of the search more quickly.
 
Advertise on BHW
MisterF said:
“Our ranking team focuses on the usefulness of content, rather than how the content is produced,” says Danny Sullivan, public liaison for search at Google.
Click to expand...
This contradicts the idea of E-A-T to some degree, doesn't it? AI can't have any level of authoritativeness, not to mention expertise.

First, they say you have to be authoritative and a known source of information about a particular niche, and now they say whoever (in this case whatever) the heck you are, we don't care, just make helpful content.
 
I believe and I will always believe that people are the ultimate ranking factor, if your blog provides genuine good information and your readers like what they read, then you're good to go.
This doesn't mean you don't need to proof read and edit your content, don't be lazy.
 
How can AI be factually correct ? Even chatGPT does not have recent data, then how can it include recent facts.
 
I won't trust them in this regard
They'll say all that and still, take down AI sites
 
seomaster5 said:
How can AI be factually correct ? Even chatGPT does not have recent data, then how can it include recent facts.
Click to expand...
Have you used it before? I can pick 300 random subjects and it would be a hundred times more knowledgeable than your random 5 experts to cover the same 300 subjects....

Maybe I only know really ignorant people but it's amount of knowledge seems vast and pretty accurate to me.

Using it to do medical research was a little bit mind-blowing.
 
notNewB said:
This contradicts the idea of E-A-T to some degree, doesn't it? AI can't have any level of authoritativeness, not to mention expertise.

First, they say you have to be authoritative and a known source of information about a particular niche, and now they say whoever (in this case whatever) the heck you are, we don't care, just make helpful content.
Click to expand...

Sadly they have no idea as to what is good or not, and it is all about the money and nothing else.
 
deppo said:
Not with my 1 minute edits.
Click to expand...
lol your 1 minute edits will do less than a premium rewriter, which is still obvious. chat gpt will be considered "thin content" if you do not merge it with more valuable content. Maybe not right now, but soon.
 
Danny Sullivan replied on https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1613465456429633536 referencing the previous comments they said about https://www.seroundtable.com/more-from-google-on-ai-content-34372.html. He said, "As said before when asked about AI, content created primarily for search engine rankings, however it is done, is against our guidance. If content is helpful & created for people first, that's not an issue."

Danny added that the "key to being successful with our helpful content system -- and if it's not helpful content, the system catches that." Then he references the Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies where he said, "Our spam policies also address spammy automatically-generated content, where we will take action if content is "generated through automated processes without regard for quality or user experience."

Finally, he goes to the new https://www.seroundtable.com/google-e-e-a-t-experience-search-quality-raters-guidelines-34576.html and writes, "For anyone who uses *any method* to generate a lot content primarily for search rankings, our core systems look at many signals to reward content clearly demonstrating E-E-A-T (experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness).
 
MisterF said:
Danny Sullivan replied on Twitter referencing the previous comments they said about using AI to write content. He said, "As said before when asked about AI, content created primarily for search engine rankings, however it is done, is against our guidance. If content is helpful & created for people first, that's not an issue."

Danny added that the "key to being successful with our helpful content system -- and if it's not helpful content, the system catches that." Then he references the Google spam policies where he said, "Our spam policies also address spammy automatically-generated content, where we will take action if content is "generated through automated processes without regard for quality or user experience."

Finally, he goes to the new EEAT guidelines and writes, "For anyone who uses *any method* to generate a lot content primarily for search rankings, our core systems look at many signals to reward content clearly demonstrating E-E-A-T (experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness).
Click to expand...
I think this is for those spamming hundreds and thousands posts per day
 
AlbinKurti said:
I think this is for those spamming hundreds and thousands posts per day
Click to expand...

Yup, so if you are fact checking and offering value you are fine.
 
site:bankrate.com "this article was generated"

end of story or debate....

If you've got good EEAT, you can just tell Google like Bankrate, "This article was generated using automation technology and thoroughly edited and fact-checked by an editor on our editorial staff."

And yes, they are ranking.

This is copy and paste:

"I looked at the SEO performance of 11 examples and found that most AI articles perform decently:
- 7/11 rank for at least 9 keywords in the top 3
- 10/11 drive at least 200 monthly visits (3 more than 1,000)
- All of them have at least 5 links from unique domains (one of them 130)
- Business value is hard to establish from the outside. Ahrefs estimated the SEO traffic value at a combined $23,500 per month ($280,000/year)".
 
dohologger said:
site:bankrate.com "this article was generated"

end of story or debate....

If you've got good EEAT, you can just tell Google like Bankrate, "This article was generated using automation technology and thoroughly edited and fact-checked by an editor on our editorial staff."

And yes, they are ranking.

This is copy and paste:

"I looked at the SEO performance of 11 examples and found that most AI articles perform decently:
- 7/11 rank for at least 9 keywords in the top 3
- 10/11 drive at least 200 monthly visits (3 more than 1,000)
- All of them have at least 5 links from unique domains (one of them 130)
- Business value is hard to establish from the outside. Ahrefs estimated the SEO traffic value at a combined $23,500 per month ($280,000/year)".
Click to expand...


If you've got good EEAT, you can just tell Google like Bankrate, "This article was generated using automation technology and thoroughly edited and fact-checked by an editor on our editorial staff."

It's like when they wanted people to confirm sponsored posts, UGC etc.
 
This is nothing but the surrender of google to AI. In short they are saying, " we are not capable to distinguish between AI content and manual content and hence we are accepting it as way of life. End user will be responsible for facts of the articles, we don't give a damn as we can't find it out on our own"
 
INCC said:
The problem is the duplicate text.

Any AI repeats itself so the same content gets absorbed by millions of pages sooner or later.
Click to expand...
You were straight on point:

ARpzykZ


And the possible move that will follow.
 
dohologger said:
Have you seen the SERPs for any good kw though? Its all ready regurgitated content anyway
Click to expand...
Yes, because before AI tools were released at scale, people would rewrite or just copy paste.

Also there's a limit of facts you can write on a subject, until it reaches saturation.

There are however personal blogs where they write own experiences, like traveling and life experience, etc, which are pretty unique. But these can't be made by AI unless completely fictional.
 
aurim said:
Yes, because before AI tools were released at scale, people would rewrite or just copy paste.

Also there's a limit of facts you can write on a subject, until it reaches saturation.

There are however personal blogs where they write own experiences, like traveling and life experience, etc, which are pretty unique. But these can't be made by AI unless completely fictional.
Click to expand...

People seem to miss this mate; " Also there's a limit of facts you can write on a subject, until it reaches saturation. "

There is only so many ways you can say; 4 + 4 = 8
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top