Despite constant reminders to create useful content and the importance of EEAT (expertise, experience, authority and trustworthiness), Google Search still finds ways to rank content on Page 1 that shouldn’t be there.
Look no further A chronological list of Star Wars films and television showspublished yesterday on Gizmodo (note: updated today with multiple corrections).
Author: Gizmodo Bot.
Page 1 for [Star Wars movies]. Despite several errors, the article ranked well:
It is now at position 5, but before that day, it was at position 3, above the Rotten Tomatoes page.
Freshness may have been a key factor here. Also, Gizmodo is a strong brand and publishes a lot of content on this and related topics.
This article. He lives in the io9 section (publishing content around sci-fi and fantasy movies, TV, books, comics) of the Gizmodo tech blog.
Editor’s response. As everyone knows, AI generated content is not bad just because AI created it. However, it was so bad James Whitebrook, deputy editor, took to Twitter to make it clear that neither he nor his team were involved in editing or publishing the article:
Hello! As you may have seen today, an AI-generated article appeared on io9. I was notified about 10 minutes earlier, and no one at io9 was involved in editing or publishing it.
Here’s a statement I sent to G/O Media, along with a long list of corrections. pic.twitter.com/xlROmxmupA
— James Whitbrook (@Jwhitbrook) July 5, 2023
Your full statement:
“For 15 years, io9 has grown an audience that demands quality coverage of genre entertainment, from critical analysis to insightful explanations to accurate news and investigative reporting on the industry. These readers have made io9 one of the top-performing desks at Gizmodo, G/O Media’s flagship site in terms of traffic, and they’ve done so by rigorously holding this team and the colleagues who came before us to a level of expertise and accuracy. that we have been product to achieve. The article published today on io9 rejects the very standards that this team holds itself to daily as critics and as journalists. It is poorly written, full of basic errors; in closing the section of comments, it denies our readers, the lifeblood of this network, the opportunity to hold us publicly accountable and call this work exactly what it is: shameful, unpublishable, disrespectful to both the public and the people who work. here, and a blow to our authority and integrity. It’s a shame that this work has been given to our audience and our industry peers as a window into the future of G/O, and it’s a shame that we as a team have had to spend a great deal of time far from our reality. please work to clear up any unacceptable mistakes made in publishing this piece.
the correction The editorial team has updated the article and added a note at the bottom:
“A correction was made to this story on July 6, 2023. The episode classification was incorrect. In particular, The Clone Wars was placed in the correct chronological order in the corrected list.”
If you’re curious what the original version looks like, you can watch it via the Wayback Machine.
Why we care You can post AI-generated content. Some of them may rank well, even on page 1. But if that content has incorrect information, because it hasn’t been reviewed by an editor and/or subject matter expert, there could be serious damage in the long run term to your brand reputation.
Neither the first nor the last. Many brands, in an attempt to save costs by laying off human writers (see: Red Ventures’ BankRate and CNET), are turning to AI-generated content. It’s faster and cheaper to produce, but the end result hasn’t always been good:
[ad_2]
Source link
