[[["易于理解","easyToUnderstand","thumb-up"],["解决了我的问题","solvedMyProblem","thumb-up"],["其他","otherUp","thumb-up"]],[["没有我需要的信息","missingTheInformationINeed","thumb-down"],["太复杂/步骤太多","tooComplicatedTooManySteps","thumb-down"],["内容需要更新","outOfDate","thumb-down"],["翻译问题","translationIssue","thumb-down"],["示例/代码问题","samplesCodeIssue","thumb-down"],["其他","otherDown","thumb-down"]],[],[[["\u003cp\u003eGoogle Search prioritizes high-quality content that demonstrates E-E-A-T (expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness), regardless of how it's created, including by AI.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eUsing AI to generate content solely for manipulating search rankings is against Google's spam policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's systems are designed to identify and demote spam, including content generated through automation, while rewarding original, helpful content.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eContent creators should focus on producing original, high-quality, people-first content, whether using AI or not, to succeed in Google Search.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eTransparency about the use of AI in content creation is encouraged, with disclosures and appropriate bylines where relevant.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],["Google focuses on rewarding high-quality content, regardless of whether it's human or AI-generated. Using AI to manipulate search rankings violates Google's spam policies, but AI's use for creating helpful content is acceptable. Creators should prioritize original, people-first content demonstrating expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-E-A-T). Google's systems evaluate content helpfulness and use signals to identify spam. AI-generated content should include clear disclosures and author information when reasonably expected.\n"],null,["# Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content\n\nWednesday, February 8, 2023\n\n\nAt Google, we've long believed in the power of AI to transform the ability to deliver helpful\ninformation. In this post, we'll share more about how AI-generated content fits into our\nlong-standing approach to show helpful content to people on Search.\n\nRewarding high-quality content, however it is produced\n------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nGoogle's ranking systems aim to reward original, high-quality content that demonstrates qualities\nof what we call E-E-A-T: expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. We share\nmore about this [in our How Search Works site](https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/how-search-works/rigorous-testing/).\n\n\nOur focus on the quality of content, rather than how content is produced, is a useful guide that\nhas helped us deliver reliable, high quality results to users for years.\n\n\nFor example, about 10 years ago, there were understandable concerns about a rise in mass-produced\nyet human-generated content. No one would have thought it reasonable for us to declare a ban on\nall human-generated content in response. Instead, it made more sense to improve our systems to\nreward quality content, [as we did](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-quality-sites-in.html).\n\n\nFocusing on rewarding quality content has been core to Google since we began. It continues today,\nincluding through our [ranking systems](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide)\ndesigned to [surface reliable information](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide#reliable-information-systems)\nand our [helpful content system](/search/updates/helpful-content-update). The helpful\ncontent system was introduced last year to better ensure those searching get content created\nprimarily for people, rather than for search ranking purposes.\n\nHow automation can create helpful content\n-----------------------------------------\n\n\nWhen it comes to automatically generated content, our guidance has been consistent for years.\nUsing automation---including AI---to generate content with the primary purpose of manipulating\nranking in search results is a [violation of our spam policies](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#scaled-content).\n\n\nGoogle has many years of experience dealing with automation being used in an attempt to game search\nresults. Our spam-fighting efforts---including our [SpamBrain system](/search/blog/2022/04/webspam-report-2021)---will\ncontinue, however spam is produced.\n\n\nThis said, it's important to recognize that not all use of automation, including AI generation, is\nspam. Automation has long been used to generate helpful content, such as sports scores, weather\nforecasts, and transcripts. AI has the ability to power new levels of expression and creativity,\nand to serve as a critical tool to help people create great content for the web.\n\n\nThis is in line with how we've always thought about empowering people with new technologies. We'll\ncontinue taking this responsible approach, while also maintaining a high bar for information quality\nand the overall helpfulness of content on Search.\n\nOur advice for creators considering AI-generation\n-------------------------------------------------\n\n\nAs explained, however content is produced, those seeking success in Google Search should be looking\nto produce original, high-quality, people-first content demonstrating qualities E-E-A-T.\n\n\nCreators can learn more about the concept of E-E-A-T on our\n[Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content)\nhelp page. In addition, we've updated that page with some guidance about thinking in terms of\n[Who, How, and Why](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content#ask-who-how-why)\nin relation to how content is produced.\n\n\nEvaluating your content in this way, whether you're using AI-generated content or not, will help\nyou stay on course with what our systems seek to reward.\n\nPosted by [Danny Sullivan](https://mastodon.social/@searchliaison)\nand [Chris Nelson](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nelso/),\non behalf of the Google Search Quality team\n\nFAQ\n---\n\n\nTo further help, here are some answers to questions you may have about AI content and Google Search: \n\n### Is AI content against Google Search's guidelines?\n\n\nAppropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines. This means that it is not used\nto generate content primarily to manipulate search rankings, which is\n[against our spam policies](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#scaled-content). \n\n### Why doesn't Google Search ban AI content?\n\n\nAutomation has long been used in publishing to create useful content. AI can assist with and\ngenerate useful content in exciting new ways. \n\n### How will Google Search prevent poor quality AI content from taking over search results?\n\n\nPoor quality content isn't a new challenge for Google Search to deal with. We've been tackling poor\nquality content created both by humans and automation for years. We have existing\n[systems](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide) to determine the\n[helpfulness of content](/search/updates/helpful-content-update). Other systems work\nto elevate [original news reporting](https://blog.google/products/search/original-reporting/).\nOur systems continue to be\n[regularly improved](https://status.search.google.com/products/rGHU1u87FJnkP6W2GwMi/history). \n\n### How will Google address AI content that potentially propagates misinformation or contradicts\nconsensus on important topics?\n\n\nThese issues exist in both human-generated and AI-generated content. However content is produced,\nour systems [look to surface high-quality information](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide#reliable-information-systems)\nfrom reliable sources, and not information that contradicts well-established consensus on important\ntopics. On topics where information quality is critically important---like health, civic, or\nfinancial information---our systems place an even greater emphasis on signals of reliability. \n\n### How can Search determine if AI is being used to spam search results?\n\n\nWe have a variety of systems, including [SpamBrain](/search/blog/2022/04/webspam-report-2021),\nthat analyze patterns and signals to help us identify spam content, however it is produced. \n\n### Will AI content rank highly on Search?\n\n\nUsing AI doesn't give content any special gains. It's just content. If it is\n[useful, helpful, original, and satisfies aspects of E-E-A-T](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content),\nit might do well in Search. If it doesn't, it might not. \n\n### Should I use AI to generate content?\n\n\nIf you see AI as an essential way to help you produce content that is helpful and original, it\nmight be useful to consider. If you see AI as an inexpensive, easy way to game search engine\nrankings, then no. \n\n### Should I add author bylines to all my content?\n\n\nYou should consider having accurate author bylines when readers would reasonably expect it, such\nas to any content where someone might think, \"Who wrote this?\"\n\n\nAs a reminder, publishers that appear in Google News should use bylines and author information.\nLearn more on our [Google News policies](https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/6204050)\npage. \n\n### Should I add AI or automation disclosures to my content?\n\n\nAI or automation disclosures are useful for content where someone might think \"How was this created?\".\nConsider adding these when it would be reasonably expected. \n\n### Can I list AI as the author of content?\n\n\nGiving AI an author byline is probably not the best way to follow our recommendation to\n[make clear to readers](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content#how-the-content-was-created)\nwhen AI is part of the content creation process."]]
