Short answer
Google has updated its generative AI content guidance to say that AI output may contain errors and must be fact-checked by hand before publishing. The review now also covers metadata such as title tags, meta descriptions and image alt text. Teams that produce content with AI should therefore not limit their approval process to the article text alone.
Highlights
- Google's AI content guidance gained three new sentences saying that output may contain errors and asking for manual fact-checking.
- The manual review rule now covers metadata too: title elements, meta descriptions, structured data and image alt text.
- Producing many pages with AI without adding value can violate Google's spam policy on scaled content abuse.
2 min readEditor-in-chief: Uğur Deniz İlhan
According to Search Engine Journal, Google has updated the guidance page it publishes for sites that use generative AI. The added warning is short but clear: AI output can contain mistakes and should be checked by a person before it is published.
What exactly did Google add to the guidance?
Google added three sentences to the guidance's section on accuracy and quality. According to the text, generative models do not retrieve facts from a database; they predict a likely sequence of words based on their training data. As a result, outputs can contain inaccuracies known as hallucinations, meaning statements the model delivers with confidence that are not true. Google therefore calls manually fact-checking all AI-generated content before publishing "critical".
Does the rule cover only article text?
No. With the update, the wording "this includes metadata" became "this review also applies to metadata". The items covered include title elements, meta description elements, structured data and image alt text that can appear in search results. Teams that have AI write titles and alt text fall under the same manual review.
The rest of the guidance is unchanged. The page still says generative AI can help with research and with adding structure to content. The same paragraph also reminds publishers that using AI tools to produce many pages without adding value for users may violate Google's spam policy on scaled content abuse.
What should content teams in Turkey do?
The report does not present this change as a ranking signal; it describes Google writing down an existing expectation more explicitly. Even so, for agencies and in-house teams that produce content with AI, these sentences are a reference point for documenting an approval process. Three steps are a reasonable start:
- Add a verification step to your pipeline that a named editor signs off before every publication, checking figures, names and quotations against their sources.
- Apply the same check to title elements, meta descriptions, structured data and image alt text; bulk-generated metadata is often overlooked.
- On pages scaled with AI, regularly audit whether each one adds something original, and remove or merge those that do not.
Frequently asked
- Does Google penalise content written with AI?
- The guidance in the report does not ban AI use; it says AI can help with research and structure. The problems are unverified output and mass-produced pages that add no value.
Sources
- Search Engine Journal ·
Follow UNIT Journal
What's new in search, AI and technology, in your feed every day.
