Google Revises Content Guidelines: Prioritizes Quality Over Human Authorship
Summary:
Google recently updated the description of its helpful content system, removing the necessity for content to be authored by humans. This subtle change indicates that Google now focuses more on the quality of content rather than its production process. The move raises questions regarding the definition of quality and the differentiation between human and AI-generated content. Critics express concerns about unchecked and unsourced information flooding the internet due to the removal of the human authorship requirement.
Google recently altered the description of its helpful content system, a system aimed to assist website administrators in generating content that shines on Google's search engine. Albeit Google remains quite secretive about its rank determining methodologies, it does offer counsel on the do's and don'ts of content creation. Until September 16, Google imparted emphasis to content crafted by actual humans, in an aim to prioritize superior, human-authored content over AI-developed counterparts. This point was duly highlighted in the system description.
Following the description update, observant readers identified a minor change, making it apparent that Google had removed the necessity for human authorship. This change was confirmed by a Google representative speaking to Gizmodo. The representative iterated that Google Search concerns itself more with the content quality, as opposed to its creation process, and any spammy content made solely for the purpose of ranking would be penalized as per guidelines.
These modifications provoke intriguing speculations about Google's definition of quality and the viewer's perception of human-authored vs machine-authored content. Echoing these concerns, Mike Bainbridge from the project Don't Believe The Truth, voiced apprehensions about the unchecked influx of unsourced information likely to flood the internet.
With regards to content quality determination, research points towards various factors including article length, image inclusion, error-free writing, frequency of content generation, among others. However, the system does not account for the style, structure, and factual accuracy of the content. Instances of AI software producing convincing yet fact-devoid content have also come to light.
In this scenario, there are tools for fact-checking available, but their accuracy and functionality remain an enigma. Plus, it's unlikely that the average internet user checks the authenticity of all online content. It is also worth noting that much of the online content might already be AI-generated owing to constantly improving technology, making it progressively difficult to distinguish between human and machine-generated articles.
"The current internet trajectory is a risky one -- a realm of unchecked power where credible sources might become more essential," Bainbridge opined. Google declined to comment on these developments in response to Cointelegraph's request.
Published At
9/27/2023 1:01:00 PM
Disclaimer: Algoine does not endorse any content or product on this page. Readers should conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the asset, company, or any information in this article and assume full responsibility for their decisions. This article should not be considered as investment advice. Our news is prepared with AI support.
Do you suspect this content may be misleading, incomplete, or inappropriate in any way, requiring modification or removal?
We appreciate your report.