Google: AI Content Is Not By Default Well Received By Its Algorithms 18
An anonymous reader shares a report: 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.
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.
Bad algorithm is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Bad algorithm is bad (Score:3)
Re:Bad algorithm is bad (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an extension of events started earlier, when Google started to slowly shift search from search engine model to pitch engine model. Where it doesn't present you best results, nor provide you with a way of seeing most of results engine has found for your search. Instead it will pitch you on things it things you should see as a response to your query.
Mostly as a tool to boost revenue. AI article spam appears to have made it worse by externally poisoning the results on top of the internal poisoning from the engine type shift.
Re: (Score:3)
So much this. I'm at the point where when I'm searching for something, I'm generally searching for very specific things. The keywords advertisers are buying might be in the search but has very little to do with me buying anything.
I've gotten to the point that I tend to skip the first screen, as it's obviously all bought content that is trying to sell me something that I have zero interest in buying.So that's 8-15 search results that immediately go into the mental trash bin.
AI content should be deindexed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't I ever have points when I need them? :D
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because this is Slashdot, and you may have expressed opinions that conflict with the site's unstated narrative goals.
I haven't been granted mod points since 2001, and the site had far more active users back in those days.
Re: (Score:2)
Either there's a glitch, or you've been shadow banned, sucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laughs with 5 points currently since he doesn't like using them and rather shit post and troll
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, when I get my points...
Re: (Score:2)
If AI generated content is genuinely helpful, where is the problem? Who cares about the process of making it?
I have experimented with ChatGPT a bit for writing technical documentation. And the result was better than if I did it myself. I know the technical details, but I am not a good writer. ChatGPT has a much better command of the English language than I do, it is its greatest strength. It hallucinates sometimes, but I am here fix its mistakes. What is wrong with that? Should I keep quiet, and not pass on
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that people are vetting and fact checking their AI-generated content before they post it on the Internet?
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting (Score:2)
Even AI hates its guts.
This is Garbage, (Score:2)
It's all garbage, everything he said:
""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."
Then why does literally every search result for a recipe result in pages where the recipe is at the bottom of the page? If I search for Tikka Masala recipes, the pages are so long and full of crap tha
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you, most of them have a "skip to recipe" button at the very top". And they're arranged that way because, well, actual articles rate higher than recipes, sadly.