Agencies: How to address client inquiries on Google's approach to AI-generated content

March 7, 2024
0 minute read

If your agency had a dollar for every time the question of how Google treats AI-generated content came up, you wouldn’t need clients, right?


AI-generated content has been a hot topic these past two years, and this question comes up frequently. It's the kind of query that makes you wish you had a crystal ball, a direct line to Google's algorithm engineers, or at the very least, a hotline to John Mueller's office. It's as sensitive as asking someone about their favorite conspiracy theory - touchy, complex, and likely to lead to a spirited debate.


This article will summarize the latest guidance from Google to help you answer the complicated question of Google’s approach to AI-generated content and will equip you with the knowledge needed to address client concerns without tiptoeing around the topic nervously.


Is AI-generated content “spam”?


If you’re struggling to keep pace with Google’s approach to AI-generated content, it’s not your fault! Google's communications on AI content have largely been vague and have evolved rapidly, but reading between the lines reveals a shift since the big boom of ChatGPT in 2022.


During the 2022 April first Google Search Central SEO office-hours hangout, Mueller called AI-generated content “spam” that violates Google's Webmaster Guidelines and is subjected to penalties, emphasizing that the search giant frowns upon content generated by AI.


From that statement (and assuming Google can tell the difference between AI-generated content and human-generated content), you would think that you should avoid AI-generated content, right?


Indeed, many articles written after that “spam” statement warned about using AI-generated content. To name a few:



However, in the same April 2022, Google changed its Webmaster Guidelines (now Google Search Essentials) from instructions to avoid “Automatically generated content” to instead say “Automatically generated content intended to manipulate search rankings.” That’s quite a change!


Just for reference, up until recently, the Google Search Essentials spam policies defined spam in the following way:


Google's spam policy - screenshot

Notice the “without regard to quality or user experience.” This is a big tell on Google’s direction regarding AI-generated content, with quality being the focus.


Google’s latest extensive March 2024 Core update, announced in a blog post, takes another stab at low-quality content created for search engines:


“This update involves refining some of our core ranking systems to help us better understand if webpages are unhelpful, have a poor user experience or feel like they were created for search engines instead of people. This could include sites created primarily to match very specific search queries.”


The blog post also includes a warning or a hint to a significant drop in ranking (40%!) to come for ‘unoriginal’ content:


“Based on our evaluations, we expect that the combination of this update and our previous efforts will collectively reduce low-quality, unoriginal content in search results by 40%.”


Google also refreshed its spam policies, so notice the “Scaled content abuse” section warning about using AI tools to generate large-scale content “without adding value”:

Google new spam policy - screenshot

Google discusses this change in spam policies in another blog post, confronting and directly answering the question of how Google treats AI-generated content:

A screenshot from Google's blog gpost

Again, as Google says, it’s in the same spirit as the previous spam policy, meaning there’s no direct call to avoid using generative AI, but rather to avoid using it if the purpose is to manipulate ranking.


“However it is produced”


If you look at Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content from about a year ago (Feb 8th, 2023), Google recognizes that “not all use of automation, including AI generation, is spam.” and rewards quality content “however it is produced.


Now, you would think that you shouldn’t stay away from AI-generated content as long as it’s quality content and not a parade of keyword-stuffed gibberish, right?


Well… Basically yes! Or as Search Engine Land described it: “Google does not penalize AI content. It penalizes poor content.”


Catching up on some reading


If you’re seeking a more in-depth, chronological look at Google’s approach toward AI-generated content, as it is portrayed by various publications - here’s a list we’ve prepared:



The answer


By this point, if you want to create content using artificial intelligence, you might be asking yourself, “What’s the right way?” You probably shouldn’t generate articles wholesale without any oversight, but there’s no reason to avoid using AI altogether either. Instead, like so many things in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.


This is similar to our opinion on AI in general, first shared by our CEO, Itai Sadan, in his article “Beyond the hype: what AI means for agencies.” In that piece, Itai states “[t]he reality is that while AI can be an incredibly powerful tool, it’s just that: a tool.” Using AI to generate content for SEO is very similar to using a drill to mount a television. Without a strong understanding of your tools, you may mount your television slanted or in a way that’s unstable. Similarly, without some level of competency in both content and prompt writing, your pages are unlikely to rank.


Industry experts shared this opinion too. Search Engine Journal recently wrote that “[the] synergy between man and machine ensures that the content produced is not only algorithm-friendly but also deeply engaging for human readers,” in their aptly-titled article “The Hybrid Human-AI Strategy In The Era Of Google SGE.”


One relationship you can employ with AI is a writer-editor strategy, where the AI creates content and you simply review it. However, there are plenty of other approaches you can take to create high-quality AI-generated content. You could generate outlines, conduct research, modify existing articles, and so much more. We discuss a few of these ideas in greater detail (with prompts!) in a recent article titled “The top AI prompts to use for your agency.”


Your answer should address the content rather than how it was produced. Does it add value? Is it quality content? Does it include original thoughts and information? If the answer is ‘Yes!’ then your clients are on safe ground, as far as Google is concerned.


Final note


The journey from the introduction of ChatGPT to the present day has seen Google adapting and refining its approach to AI-generated content. Through statements by key figures like John Mueller and algorithm updates, Google has consistently emphasized the importance of user-focused, high-quality content. Content creators navigating the world of AI-generated content should prioritize user value and stay abreast of Google's guidelines to maintain a strong online presence.




Did you find this article interesting?


Thanks for the feedback!
By Shawn Davis April 1, 2026
Core Web Vitals aren't new, Google introduced them in 2020 and made them a ranking factor in 2021. But the questions keep coming, because the metrics keep changing and the stakes keep rising. Reddit's SEO communities were still debating their impact as recently as January 2026, and for good reason: most agencies still don't have a clear, repeatable way to measure, diagnose, and fix them for clients. This guide cuts through the noise. Here's what Core Web Vitals actually measure, what good scores look like today, and how to improve them—without needing a dedicated performance engineer on every project. What Core Web Vitals measure Google evaluates three user experience signals to determine whether a page feels fast, stable, and responsive: Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) measures how long it takes for the biggest visible element on a page — usually a hero image or headline — to load. Google considers anything under 2.5 seconds good. Above 4 seconds is poor. Interaction to Next Paint (INP) replaced First Input Delay (FID) in March 2024. Where FID measures the delay before a user's first click is registered, INP tracks the full responsiveness of every interaction across the page session. A good INP score is under 200 milliseconds. Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) measures visual stability — how much page elements unexpectedly move while content loads. A score below 0.1 is good. Higher scores signal that images, ads, or embeds are pushing content around after load, which frustrates users and tanks conversions. These three metrics are a subset of Google's broader Page Experience signals, which also include HTTPS, safe browsing, and mobile usability. Core Web Vitals are the ones you can most directly control and improve. Why your clients' scores may still be poor Core Web Vitals scores vary dramatically by platform, hosting, and how a site was built. Some of the most common culprits agencies encounter: Heavy above-the-fold content . A homepage with an autoplay video, a full-width image slider, and a chat widget loading simultaneously will fail LCP every time. The browser has to resolve all of those resources before it can paint the largest element. Unstable image dimensions . When an image loads without defined width and height attributes, the browser doesn't reserve space for it. It renders the surrounding text, then jumps it down when the image appears. That jump is CLS. Third-party scripts blocking the main thread . Analytics pixels, ad tags, and live chat tools run on the browser's main thread. When they stack up, every click and tap has to wait in line — driving INP scores up. A single slow third-party script can push an otherwise clean site into "needs improvement" territory. Too many web fonts . Each font family and weight is a separate network request. A page loading four font files before rendering any text will fail LCP, especially on mobile connections. Unoptimized images . JPEGs and PNGs served at full resolution, without compression or modern formats like WebP or AVIF, add unnecessary weight to every page load. How to measure them accurately There are two types of Core Web Vitals data you should be looking at for every client: Lab data comes from tools like Google PageSpeed Insights, Lighthouse, and WebPageTest. It simulates page loads in controlled conditions. Lab data is useful for diagnosing specific issues and testing fixes before you deploy them. Field data (also called Real User Monitoring, or RUM) comes from actual users visiting the site. Google collects this through the Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX) and surfaces it in Search Console and PageSpeed Insights. Field data is what Google actually uses as a ranking signal — and it often looks worse than lab data because it reflects real-world device and connection variability. If your client's site has enough traffic, you'll see field data in Search Console under Core Web Vitals. This is your baseline. Lab data helps you understand why the scores are what they are. For clients with low traffic who don't have enough field data to appear in CrUX, you'll be working primarily with lab scores. Set that expectation early so clients understand that improvements may not immediately show up in Search Console. Practical fixes that move the needle Fix LCP: get the hero image loading first The single most effective LCP improvement is adding fetchpriority="high" to the hero image tag. This tells the browser to prioritize that resource over everything else. If you're using a background CSS image for the hero, switch it to anelement — background images aren't discoverable by the browser's preload scanner. Also check whether your hosting serves images through a CDN with caching. Edge delivery dramatically reduces the time-to-first-byte, which feeds directly into LCP. Fix CLS: define dimensions for every media element Every image, video, and ad slot on the page needs explicit width and height attributes in the HTML. If you're using responsive CSS, you can still define the aspect ratio with aspect-ratio in CSS while leaving the actual size fluid. The key is giving the browser enough information to reserve space before the asset loads. Avoid inserting content above existing content after page load. This is common with cookie banners, sticky headers that change height, and dynamically loaded ad units. If you need to show these, anchor them to fixed positions so they don't push content around. Fix INP: reduce what's competing for the main thread Audit third-party scripts and defer or remove anything that isn't essential. Tools like WebPageTest's waterfall view or Chrome DevTools Performance panel show you exactly which scripts are blocking the main thread and for how long. Load chat widgets, analytics, and ad tags asynchronously and after the page's critical path has resolved. For most clients, moving non-essential scripts to load after the DOMContentLoaded event is a meaningful INP improvement with no visible impact on the user experience. For websites with heavy JavaScript — particularly those built on frameworks with large client-side bundles — consider breaking up long tasks into smaller chunks using the browser's Scheduler API or simply splitting components so the main thread isn't locked for more than 50 milliseconds at a stretch. What platforms handle automatically One of the practical advantages of building on a platform optimized for performance is that many of these fixes are applied by default. Duda, for example, automatically serves WebP images, lazy loads below-the-fold content, minifies CSS, and uses efficient cache policies for static assets. As of May 2025, 82% of sites built on Duda pass all three Core Web Vitals metrics — the highest recorded pass rate among major website platforms. That baseline matters when you're managing dozens or hundreds of client sites. It means you're starting each project close to or at a passing score, rather than diagnosing and patching a broken foundation. How much do Core Web Vitals actually affect rankings? Honestly, they're a tiebreaker — not a primary signal. Google has been clear that content quality and relevance still dominate ranking decisions. A well-optimized site with thin, irrelevant content won't outrank a content-rich competitor just because its CLS is 0.05. What Core Web Vitals do affect is the user experience that supports those rankings. Pages with poor LCP scores have measurably higher bounce rates. Sites with high CLS lose users mid-session. Those behavioral signals — time on page, return visits, conversions — are things search engines can observe and incorporate. The practical argument for fixing Core Web Vitals isn't just "because Google said so." It's that faster, more stable pages convert better. Every second of LCP improvement can reduce bounce rates by 15–20% depending on the industry and device mix. For client sites that monetize through leads or eCommerce, that's a revenue argument, not just an SEO argument. A repeatable process for agencies Audit every new site before launch. Run PageSpeed Insights and record LCP, INP, and CLS scores for both mobile and desktop. Flag anything in the "needs improvement" or "poor" range before the client sees the live site. Check Search Console monthly for existing clients. The Core Web Vitals report surfaces issues as they appear in field data. Catching a regression early — before it compounds — is significantly easier than explaining a traffic drop after the fact. Document what you've improved. Clients rarely see Core Web Vitals scores on their own. A monthly one-page performance summary showing before/after scores builds credibility and makes your technical work visible. Prioritize mobile. Google uses mobile-first indexing, and field data shows that mobile CWV scores are almost always worse than desktop. If you only have time to optimize one version, do mobile first. Core Web Vitals aren't a one-time fix. Platforms change, new scripts get added, campaigns bring in new widgets. Build the audit into your workflow and treat it like any other ongoing deliverable, and you'll stay ahead of the issues before they affect your clients' rankings. Duda's platform is built with Core Web Vitals performance in mind. Explore how it handles image optimization, script management, and site speed automatically — so your team spends less time debugging and more time building.
By Ilana Brudo March 31, 2026
Vertical SaaS must transition from tools to an AI-powered Vertical Operating System (vOS). Learn to leverage context, end tech sprawl, and maximize retention.
By Shawn Davis March 27, 2026
Automate client management, instant site generation, and data synchronization with an API-driven website builder to create a scalable growth engine for your SaaS platform.
Show More

Latest posts