So I think the visual content is such a new arena and is really cool. I do think to Mike’s points, the algorithms are trying to go in that direction and trying to maybe get a little bit savvier in the way of trying to identify it, but so far I haven’t seen it fully take effect. In some cases, the inability to differentiate between some well-written AI content, and quite frankly, some poorly written human content. There is a place and a space where it can be used effectively. It can be if used incorrectly, but I think we’ve come a long way.Įven just to what Mike talked about, many years ago with content spinners and just absolutely trash-reading content, AI content has come a long way. Zach’s Take: No, I don’t think it’s bad for SEO. I just think they need to be used in the right way to scale content creation. So I’m very skeptical that these latest updates that just came out were able to identify that so perfectly, that that is why people lost their rankings.īut I don’t think those tools are inherently bad, especially if you’re using them in the right way and you’re not just spinning up a whole bunch of terrible content and throwing it right out on the web like people used to do with content spinners and things like that. And so that’s inherently going to be difficult to definitively track without there being a lot of false positives and false negatives. Not to say that those were the sites that necessarily got hit, because I haven’t seen true evidence of that.ĪI determines the probabilities of the next word in the sequence based on learning from tons and tons and tons of writing across the web.
#Battlezone 2 ai update
And I believe that both the Spam Update and the Helpful Content Update are steps in that direction. I think we are going to see them (Google) checking the bad stuff. I think that there are a lot of misconceptions because people don’t really understand how it works… like most things in SEO. Mike’s Take: AI content is not inherently bad.
0 kommentar(er)
