Google's new text and content AI position and policy [2023]

This Google statement, in my opinion, perfectly summarizes the issue (and what I have been saying up to this point):

“High-quality content is rewarded by Google regardless of how it is created,”

Google emphasizes in the blog post that they don't care how information is created.

And that even human-generated content can be spammy in the same manner that one could argue AI content sometimes can be.

For example, about 10 years ago, there were understandable concerns about a rise in mass-produced yet human-generated content.

Nobody would have believed that it was reasonable for us to respond by outlawing all human-generated stuff. It made more sense to upgrade our algorithms to recognize and reward quality material, which is what we did.

What kind of AI content will be punished then?

Content that “games search engine rankings” and “manipulates ranking in search results” are the two categories of AI content that Google uses to highlight the types of content that are against Google AI guidelines.

Instead, they place emphasis on the need to pay attention to “material made primarily for people”. It is true that we all attempt to manipulate search engine algorithms in some way to raise the visibility of our material, and therefore this statement remains unclear.

Google defines “Spammy automatically-generated content” as follows in the blog post link to their spam policies:

• Unintelligible writing that nonetheless contains search terms
• The automated translation of text without human inspection or editing before publication
• Text produced by automatic procedures, with no consideration for quality or the user experience
• Text produced by automated systems for paraphrasing, synonymizing or obscuring
• Text created by skimming search results or feeds
• Integrating or stitching together content from many web pages without providing enough value

I believe you can ignore the first point?about AI writings that are illogical unless you employ extremely mediocre AI-generating platforms and methods.

This is a holdover from the days when individuals would employ content spinners to produce endless streams of meaningless, nonsense text.

Thus, I believe we can transform it; if we use these to evaluate AI content:

• You must include a human touch element.
• You should prioritize great quality rather than a lot of low quality.
• The AI text needs to be improved in some areas (perspective, examples, etc.)
• You shouldn't merely have the AI modify the text that already exists.

These are some takeaways from Google's policy blog post, to wrap things up.

• Provide creative material that puts the needs of people before anything else and is of the highest caliber (expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness).
• Keep in mind that not all automation, including artificial intelligence (AI), is spam and that automation has been utilized to provide informative information.
• Understand that Google has faced challenges with low-quality content in the past, and that its processes are designed to surface high-quality information from reputable sources.
• Regardless of whether the content is produced using AI or not, it should be evaluated in terms of Whom, How, and Why in connection to how it was done.
• Include disclosures about automation or AI when it would be reasonable to expect them.

#HighQualityContent #RewardingQuality #GoogleAI #ContentCreation #SearchEngineRankings #SpamPolicies #HumanTouchElement #PrioritizeQuality #AIImprovements #CreativeMaterial #Expertise #Authoritativeness #Trustworthiness #AutomationInformedContent #ReputableSources #EvaluationCriteria #DisclosureOfAutomation #TheDigitalRevolution