Content Marketing Lead at Semrush, AI Search Solutions | Product Marketing Strategist | B2B SaaS Writer
You’ve probably heard that Google’s quality raters are now flagging AI-generated content as “Lowest quality.” Does that mean you need to cancel your ChatGPT subscription and go back to 100% human-only content? Still no. But it does mean you need to upgrade your workflow. Google’s updated rater guidelines now explicitly mention AI-generated, paraphrased, low-effort, and unoriginal content as reasons for lower ratings — even if the source is credited. This doesn’t mean AI is “bad.” It means misused AI is a liability. I’ve been using generative tools in my content workflows since the beginning. This update? Changes nothing for me. Why? Because I don’t let AI write content for me. I use it to accelerate ideas I already own. Here’s what an AI-assisted workflow looks like when it’s done right — and why it keeps working, no matter how Google evolves.👇
Still, wondering where the line between lazy and not lazy is. Some people, for example, claim they can train their GPTs to do all of those things you mentioned as "not lazy."
Google doesn’t auto flag all AI-generated content as “Lowest quality.” It only gets that rating if you’re pumping out unedited, uninspired zero-effort junk AI fluff with no originality or value. https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
It’s like someone saying, “Don’t use cars to travel—you can just walk." Or "don't use Webflow or WordPress, when you can code your website from scratch." Sure, you can walk. And you can code everything from scratch. But in most cases, that’s not the smartest use of your time. You can definitely create a bad website with Webflow—just like you can write bad content with AI. It depends on how you use the tool to create the end-piece.
Curious to learn how it’s actually identifying AI content, and what constitutes AI content. Is it everything that’s had a single sentence tweaked in Claude, or is it just content that starts with “In today’s fast-paced digital world…”?
The issue is people treat AI differently. They prompt it to create a basic outline or a blog and expect a high-quality draft. Unfortunately, most of them don't have a clear quality standard, leading to difficulty in distinguishing between generic AI output and a valuable content piece worth someone’s time.
google's quality-first approach resonates with my client advice. the problem isn't ai tools but their misuse in content creation. leveraging ai to accelerate your expertise rather than replace it aligns perfectly with what google wants - demonstrating genuine knowledge and delivering unique value, regardless of which tools assisted in the process.
Thanks for sharing, Margarita! Bottom line, when you put in no effort, you don’t get much back
Good and bad use of AI really is comparing apples to oranges. This update is also a reminder to bring internal and external experts into the content creation. AI can't replace collaboration with SMEs, sales, or CS, for example. The best-performing pieces going forward will most likely be the ones that capture unique human expertise and knowledge AI simply doesn't have access to.
This is really useful, thank you. Jo Murray food for thought.
Director of SEO | Fame Engineer | Engineering Brand Fame & Measurable Revenue Growth through GEO, SEO, Digital PR & Content Marketing | Helping Ambitious Brands Win in the Age of AI Search
7moThe main take from the guidance is "with little to no effort, little to no originality, and little to no added value for visitors." That in itself is a wide scope.