Aşırı tepki vermem durumunda, bağırıp SEO uzmanlarının tavsiyelerine başvurmam gerekiyor!
Bir Salas şirketinde çalışıyorum ve yakın zamanda bir SEO ajansıyla çalışmaya başladık. Bazı şema düzeltmeleri ve ayda 30 içerik optimizasyonu yapıyorlar (oldukça iyi sıralamalara sahip aktif bir blogumuz var).
Yapay zeka kullandıklarını ve sağlam bir iş akışlarına sahip olduklarını söylediler, ancak ilk üç optimizasyonu kontrol ettim ve söyleyecek söz bulamıyorum:
Madde 1 – Bu bizim ürünümüze çok yakın bir konu ama ürünümüze ve özelliklerine dair atıfları kaldırıp çok genel hale getirmişler. Garip ama tamam. TOV kapalı ama sorun yok. Daha sonra bir rakip önerirler.
Madde 2 – Konu geribildirim sürecidir. SSS bölümü de dahil olmak üzere biyolojiye (diyabet, kan pıhtılaşması, idrar, pankreas) altı referans var – açıkça biyoloji endüstrisinde bir müşterileri var ve yapay zekaları çapraz polen yayıyor
Madde 3 – TOV daha iyi, ancak makaledeki AI yanıtını açıkça kopyalanıp yapıştırılan bir bölümde bırakmışlar.
Ekibimde bunun büyük bir mesele olduğunu düşünen ve iyi, insanlar tarafından yazılmış, araştırılmış makaleleri yapay zeka ile değiştireceğimizden endişe eden tek kişi ben gibiyim (ayda 30 makale neredeyse her makalenin bu muameleye tabi tutulacağı anlamına geliyor).
Muhtemelen algoritma nedenleri olduğunu biliyorum, ancak kalite çok daha kötü ve taktik daha fazla kelime eklemek gibi görünüyor.
İçimi rahatlatabilecek veya bunun uzun vadede SEO performansımıza zarar vereceğini doğrulayabilecek deneyimli SEO uzmanları var mı? Anladığım kadarıyla Google, yapay zeka tarafından oluşturulan içeriğe çok açık bir şekilde değer vermiyor. Daha az kalite optimizasyonu uzun vadede daha iyi bir taktik olmaz mı, yoksa yanlış mı anlıyorum?
There is no algorithmic benefit to replacing good content with AI slop.
Google crawlers cannot, and don’t even try, to determine what is AI written content. You won’t get any kind of “AI penalty”.
If the quality of their work is this obviously poor on content, I would be worried about other aspects of work they are doing. Especially off page.
It is not an overreaction at all. What you describe is a clear sign of poor QA and a weak content process. Any good SEO agency would treat your existing content as an asset. They would protect brand tone, product relevance and factual accuracy. What they delivered shows they are running bulk AI prompts with little or no review.
Here is what is going wrong from an SEO point of view:
Removing product context harms topical authority as if an article ranks because it is linked to your product and your niche, stripping that out can weaken relevance. Google reads your pages in context of your whole site. Going generic can dilute that.
Recommending a competitor is a huge red flag as no strong workflow should allow that through. It shows no one is doing a final read. Even basic editors would catch this.
The biology references show they are using one prompt template for many clients with no guardrails. Google does not punish AI itself, but people will punish poor quality content that is wrong, irrelevant, misleading or unhelpful. They will pogo stick to the next result below yours… This type of mistake is a trust killer.
AI is fine when it is well edited and provides real value. It fails when it is lazy, hallucinated or stuffed with filler. What you describe is the type of content update that can cause traffic drops.
More words are not an SEO tactic, Google rewards clarity and usefulness. You get no gain from padding an article. In many cases you hurt the page because users bounce.
Your fear about scale is valid as If they do 30 of these a month, you can end up with a site wide quality issue that is then time consuming to fix. Site quality is judged at the domain level. A flood of poor updates can drag down sections of your site that already perform well, either by reducing conversions or people pogo sticking.
What a good agency would do instead is to keep your tone of voice, add missing sections based on search intent, improve structure, update facts, strengthen internal linking, remove fluff, not add it, only use AI as a support tool, not as the final output.
You are right to question this. Fewer high quality optimisations are always better than many low quality rewrites.
If this is the first batch, I would stop them now and ask for a new workflow. If they cannot explain their process in plain language and show human QA steps, I would move on.
Article 2 is a massive red flag. Id be ticked off. Leaving ai artifact is sloppy.
I just turned off my ‘memories’ bc of insane levels of gaslighting and pollination.
AI can do 99% of the work. To not put in the 1% human effort is a poor long term desicion. Lazy.
Fire them. Immediately. You aren’t overreacting, you’re the only one watching the house while it burns down.
The “biology” references in a feedback article are the smoking gun. It means they are likely using a single ChatGPT thread or a poorly configured API wrapper for multiple clients and didn’t clear the context window before generating your “optimizations.” That is amateur hour level negligence.
And Article 3? Leaving the AI prompt/response in the text is the classic sign of a “churn and burn” agency. They are selling you a deliverable (30 articles/month) to justify a retainer, not actual SEO strategy.
The biggest risk here isn’t just that the new content won’t rank—it’s that they are overwriting *currently ranking* human content with unedited AI slop. Google’s recent updates (especially the HCU and core updates) have been hammering sites for exactly this kind of low-effort, scaled content.
You are paying them to de-optimize your site. Pause the contract before they nuke your existing traffic.
The issue with AI correcting content is, that it doesn’t necessarily understand the context, since it wasn’t tought a specific context. So it corrects things and drops passages it doesn’t know.
A good agency would use AI and then use human eyes to check and correct. Your company doesn’t seem to do that and it is sloppy.
The craziest AI articles have the subheading “Conclusion”. 😆
You’re not overreacting. Replacing good, human-written articles with generic, AI-generated content will hurt your SEO in the long run.
Google’s recent updates reward depth, originality, and clear expertise. Low-quality AI rewrites, especially ones that get facts wrong, lose your product focus, or cross-pollinate unrelated topics are a recipe for ranking drops and loss of trust.
Quantity doesn’t beat quality. It’s better to do fewer, high-quality optimizations that keep your brand voice and product focus than to churn out 30 weak updates a month.
Bring this up with your team, show examples of the mistakes and explain the risks. If your agency can’t deliver quality, it’s time to push back or find someone who can.
If the quality is bad, then just tell the agency to STOP, that the content is unacceptable, and must now go through you to get approved before it goes public/live.
There’s no “algorithm benefit” to providing AI generated slop, in fact it’s ruining your brand and company image if anything.
Sounds like the “SEO agency” is just being lazy and cheap, not even paying someone to review and edit the content they produce.
110 percent you need to push back on this.
>Article 1 – This is on a topic very close to our product, but they have removed references to our product and features and made it very generic. Weird but ok. TOV is off, but fine. **Then they recommend a competitor.**
You don’t need more than this
>I know there are probably algorithm reasons, but the quality is so much worse and the tactic seems to be add more words.
Probably not – Google doesnt’ know everything – actually, it doesnt seem to know very much. I’m currently using my SEO blog to challenge SEO myths and I rank for saying the opposite of others (so there’s the consensus = accuracy myth, which is an absolutely terrible logical fallacy)
>Any experienced SEO folks here that can either put my mind at ease or validate that this will hurt our SEO performance
Directly – not really but publishing incorrect information esp in healthcare (this doesnt make your site YMYL necessarily)
>
My understanding was that Google doesn’t value very clearly AI generated content.
Google welcomes AI content with open arms
[Google Search’s Guidance on Generative AI Content on Your Website | Google Search Central | Documentation | Google for Developers](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content)
> Would fewer quality optimizations not be a better long-term tactic or am I getting this wrong?
It depends where you are – if you need to build topical authority, then more pages – but pages dont have to have a certain word count (and any attempts here would be random/arbitrary)
But you can also increase topical authority with things like glossaries, FAQs,