Google Search Guidance for AI-Generated Content and Author Markup Policy
After reading Google Search’s guidance about AI-generated content and Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, I’d like to share the author markup policy I’ve formulated.
Should I add author bylines to all my content?
Consider adding accurate author bylines to content where it would be naturally expected and where readers might want to know “who wrote this”.
Note that news organizations appearing in Google News are required to provide bylines and author information. For more, see Google News policies.
Should I add AI or automation disclosures to my content?
For content where someone might reasonably wonder “How was this created?”, providing information about the use of AI or automation is helpful. This information could be in such situations where it might be expected.
Can I list AI as the author of content?
While Google recommends being clear with readers when AI is used to generate part of content, listing “AI” in author bylines is not an appropriate way to do that.
Can I list AI as the author of content?
While Google recommends being clear with readers when AI is used to generate part of content, listing “AI” in author bylines is not an appropriate way to do that.
Who (created the content)
When it’s clear who created content, that content’s E-E-A-T is often easier to assess. This is the “who” to consider. Ask yourself these “who” questions about your content:
Is it clear to your visitors who authored the content? Do pages have bylines where you’d expect them? Do bylines lead to more information about the author or authors involved, such as author pages or profiles that provide background on their expertise and experience? When it’s clear who authored content, you’re generally aligned with E-E-A-T concepts and are on a successful path. We strongly recommend providing accurate author information for content where someone authoring it would be expected.
How (the content was created)
Knowing how content was created is also valuable information for users. This is the “how” to consider for your content.
For example, product reviews can help readers trust that content by showing evidence of testing, such as the number of products tested, test results, and how testing was conducted, including photos.
The “how” element can exist in many types of content. This includes content that’s automatically generated, AI-generated, or AI-assisted. Explaining relevant processes can help users understand the unique and valuable role that automation plays.
If you’re using automation, including AI-generation, to create a significant portion of your content, ask yourself these questions:
Are you clearly disclosing to users that you’re using AI or automation, such as in bylines or other means? Are you explaining how you’re using automation or AI-generation to create content? Are you explaining why you think automation or AI is useful for creating content? In general, for content where someone might reasonably think “how was this created?”, disclosing the use of AI or automation is beneficial. For situations where this might reasonably be expected, we recommend adding information about your use of automation. For more, see our blog post and FAQ about how Google Search views AI-generated content.
author Markup PolicyBased on the above information, I’ve formulated the following author markup policy:
author markupauthor.name as “AI”, but specify the AI’s nameauthor.url
author Markup Best PracticesFor author markup best practices, please refer to the following article:
That’s all from the Gemba.