Learn · AI Search · Beginner
Use Google's published guidance as a checklist: confirm the page has a purpose, check facts and metadata, test for originality, and decide how to credit and disclose.
By Dean Cruddace · 45 minutes per page to do · Updated · Last reviewed
Many teams now draft pages with AI tools. Google does not ban this, and it does not reward it either. What it asks for is content that is accurate, original and made to help people.
A review step is the check a person does on a draft before it goes live. This guide turns Google's published guidance into a procedure you can run on each draft, using a simple pass or fail record.
It covers what Google says, not what any search ranking will do.
Google says appropriate use of AI or automation is not against its guidelines, but that using it to generate content primarily to manipulate rankings is a spam policy violation (Google's guidance on AI-generated content). It adds: Using AI doesn't give content any special gains. Its generative AI guidance says it is critical to manually fact-check and review all AI-generated content for accuracy and trustworthiness before publishing (guidance on generative AI content). The documented check sits before publication.
Google calls "why" perhaps the most important question: content should be created primarily to help people, and be useful to visitors who come to your site directly. Write one sentence naming who the page is for and what it helps them do. See people-first content.
You will know it worked when You have a one-sentence purpose that is about the reader, not about ranking.
Google's spam policies define scaled content abuse as many pages generated primarily to manipulate rankings and not help users, and list generative AI used to produce many pages without adding value as an example. Count how many similar pages this draft belongs to, and ask what each adds for users. The policy sets no number, so judge value, not volume. If you host such content, Google says to exclude it from Search. See the spam policies.
You will know it worked when For this page, you can state what it gives a reader that your other pages and sources do not.
Google explains that generative models predict a likely sequence of words rather than retrieve facts, so outputs may contain inaccuracies. Go through the draft claim by claim and find each in a source you can name. Remove or correct anything you cannot find.
You will know it worked when Every figure, name, date and statement is matched to a source, or has been removed.
Google says the review also applies to title elements, meta descriptions, structured data and image alt text, which can appear in Search results. For structured data, it says to follow the general guidelines and the policies for the specific feature, and to validate the markup. Read each of these as a visitor would.
You will know it worked when Title, description and alt text are accurate, and any structured data has been validated.
From Google's self-assessment list, ask: does it provide original information, reporting, research or analysis? If it draws on other sources, does it avoid simply copying or rewriting them? Does it have easily verified factual errors, or look sloppy or hastily produced? Is it written or reviewed by someone who demonstrably knows the topic? Google says its rater data is not used directly in ranking, so treat these as questions, not a score.
You will know it worked when You have answered each question yes or no, and fixed or rejected the draft for every answer that is not satisfactory.
Google encourages accurate bylines where readers might expect them, and warns that fabricating creator profiles, such as AI-generated headshots or false credentials, is deception. It says AI or automation disclosures are useful where someone might think "How was this created?", and to add them when reasonably expected. It adds that listing AI as the author is probably not the best way to make this clear. For ecommerce, Google Merchant Center has separate rules for AI-generated images and product data.
You will know it worked when The page has an accurate byline where one is expected, and you have decided whether a disclosure is reasonably expected.
Record each step as pass or fail, with the reviewer's name and the date. Publish only when every step passes. This record is a practical suggestion for your own team; Google's documentation does not prescribe a workflow.
You will know it worked when A completed record exists for the page before it goes live.
Go deeper
Describe how the content is produced and checked today. Planning content from evidence is part of the SEO strategy work.
