Danny Sullivan, Google’s Search Liaison, responded to Vox Media’s claim that AI content is currently “well-received by search engines.” Sullivan said, “It’s still not correct that AI content will be “well-received by search engines,” at least for us.”
Sullivan went on to explain on Twitter that “There’s lots of AI content on the web that doesn’t rank well and hence isn’t well received” by Google Search. “AI content has no magic ranking powers,” Sullivan said.
Only “if content is helpful, then it might succeed,” but not because AI wrote it does it mean the content is helpful.
Sullivan wrote to the author, “FYI about this part: “he’s learned that AI content ‘will, at least for the moment, be well-received by search engines’.” This isn’t correct. Our systems are looking at the helpfulness of content, rather than how it is produced,” Danny Sullivan clarified.
“We’d encourage publishers, however they produce content, to ensure they’re making it for people-first,” he added. “Producing a lot of content with the primary purpose of ranking in search, rather than for people, should be avoided. Sites producing a lot of unhelpful content not intended for people-first may find all of their content less likely to be successful with search,” he said.
Here are those tweets:
It’s still not correct that AI content will be “well-received by search engines,” at least for us. There’s lots of AI content on the web that doesn’t rank well and hence isn’t well received. AI content has no magic ranking powers. If *content* is helpful, then it might succeed.
— Google SearchLiaison (@searchliaison) July 18, 2023
To be fair, I didn’t read Peter Kafka’s line as saying all AI-content is received well by Google Search. Just that Google Search is open to saying AI-content can rank well if it is quality.
