During the late 90s, my understanding of SEO was shaped by insights from ‘deadspin’, a website that has since become defunct. At that time, Google’s core expectation from content creators was focused on delivering quality content for the end-user. Today, this fundamental goal persists. Whether content is manually crafted or AI-generated, its quality remains paramount. Keep reading to delve into Google’s current stance on AI-generated content.
Google and AI
To determine if Google penalizes content created by AI, it’s essential to understand Google’s guidelines and the stance they take on AI-generated content. I’ll conduct a search to gather the most recent information on this topic. Please hold for a moment.
Google does not ban AI-generated content in its search results, as long as the content is high-quality, helpful, and adheres to their E-E-A-T guidelines (Expertise, Experience, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). [source] This stance was clarified in a blog post on their Search Central platform. [source] Google emphasizes that they reward high-quality content, regardless of how it is produced [source]. The focus is on the quality of the content rather than its means of production. [source]
AI content that aims to manipulate search engine rankings or is created primarily for gaming search engine results rather than being user-focused is against Google’s guidelines. [source] Google’s guidelines specify the types of AI content that are not acceptable, including text that makes no sense but contains search keywords, text translated without human review, text generated without regard for quality or user experience, text created through automated synonymizing or paraphrasing, content scraped from other sources, and stitching or combining content from different web pages without adding sufficient value. [source]
For content creation, Google advises focusing on original, high-quality content that aligns with the E-E-A-T principles. Not all uses of automation or AI are considered spam, and AI has been used to create helpful content. The content should be evaluated in terms of who produced it, how it was produced, and why, regardless of whether it is AI-generated or not. Accurate author bylines are encouraged for content where readers would reasonably expect to know who wrote it, and disclosures of AI or automation use are advised when appropriate. [source]
