Google Flags AI Content as Lowest Quality

If you’ve been using AI to create content, it’s time to pause and take a hard look at what you’re publishing. 

Google has updated its Search Quality Rater Guidelines as of January 2025, introducing major changes aimed at reducing the visibility of low-quality, AI-generated content. 

Human quality raters are now instructed to assign the lowest rating to any webpage where most of the main content has been created using generative AI tools—especially when the content shows little originality, editing, or added value.

If content is auto-generated, copied, or paraphrased with minimal human input, it can now be flagged as lowest quality—even if sources are credited.

Where the Update Was Highlighted

John Mueller discussed these changes during Search Central Live in Madrid. His comments emphasized the importance of human effort in content creation. 

Not long after, Aleyda Solis, an industry-respected SEO expert, shared highlights of the guideline changes via LinkedIn, bringing further attention to the January update.

While the update itself was part of the regularly scheduled changes to the rater guidelines, Mueller’s comments and Solis’s post helped raise its awareness.

How Google Defines Generative AI and What It Means for Content

I’ve been using generative AI tools for a couple of years now, and I know how tempting it is to use them to create blog posts or landing pages. They’re fast and efficient, but they aren’t always thoughtful, and that’s the problem.

Google’s new definition of generative AI acknowledges its value but makes the danger crystal clear. 

If a page’s main content (not just parts of it) is copied, auto-generated, paraphrased, or pulled together with no editing or added insight, it’s going to be rated Lowest.

It doesn’t matter if you credit your sources. If there’s no real effort, it doesn’t meet the standard.

And from what I’ve seen in the wild lately, this is going to impact a lot of sites.

Expanded Definitions of Spam and Content Abuse

The 2025 update didn’t stop at AI content. It also introduced several new categories to better define and target manipulative practices. 

Key additions include:

• Expired Domain Abuse: When an old domain is purchased and filled with irrelevant or low-value content just to benefit from the domain’s previous authority.
• Site Reputation Abuse: Publishing content on reputable websites simply to boost visibility, not because it adds value to that site’s original focus.
• Scaled Content Abuse: Creating large amounts of low-effort content—often using automation—with no originality or human review.
• Low-Effort Main Content (Section 4.6.6): Pages with content that is paraphrased, embedded, or copied from other sources, offering little to no added value.

The Difference Between Low and Lowest Ratings

Google has also added clarification around the distinction between Low and Lowest quality pages:

• Low Rating: The page contains reused content, but shows minimal effort—such as some editing, commentary, or curation.
• Lowest Rating: The content is mostly copied, auto-generated, or paraphrased, with no clear sign of human involvement or purpose beyond SEO.

Examples of content that could fall under these ratings include social media reposts with no added commentary, best-of lists pulled from other sites, and pages that summarize other sources without offering anything new.

Filler Content Is Now a Quality Concern

One thing I appreciate about this update is that it doesn’t assume bad intent. It acknowledges that filler, fluff, and even reused content aren’t always trying to deceive. But that doesn’t mean they deserve to rank.

For example, “filler content” now gets special mention. That means intros that don’t say anything, keyword-stuffed paragraphs, or explanations so broad they could apply to any topic. 

Even if the page isn’t dangerous or misleading, it can still be rated low if it gets in the user’s way.

Exaggerated Author Bios? Those Count Too

Another change that jumped out at me—probably because I had written for many others in the past—is the emphasis on author credibility.

If a page claims to be written by an expert, Google now expects to see that expertise reflected in the actual content.

It’s not enough to say, “I’ve been in the industry for 5 years.” Raters are instructed to do their own research, check credentials, and rely on what the page actually demonstrates. 

Overstated bios, vague references to qualifications, or claims of experience that aren’t backed up by the material itself can now result in a Low rating.

This directly ties into Google’s E-E-A-T criteria. These qualities must be evident in the content and not just claimed.

What I’d Recommend to Creators Right Now

If you’re a writer, marketer, or site owner, this isn’t the time to panic—but it is time to act. Here’s what I suggest based on the changes and what I’ve seen working in the field:

Edit AI-generated drafts before publishing: Add insights, examples, or original viewpoints.

Avoid padding content: Every paragraph should help the user.

Show, don’t tell: Prove expertise through clear, valuable information—not just a strong-sounding bio.

Audit old content: Revisit posts that may have been created with minimal effort or too much automation.

Focus on purpose: Every page should serve a clear goal and provide value.

Key Takeaways

• AI-generated content is a quality risk. If it lacks originality or human editing, it may receive the lowest rating.
• New definitions of content abuse were added. This includes expired domain use, site reputation abuse, and scaled content generation.
• Filler content is now penalized. It can lower a page’s rating even if the information is technically accurate.
• Author credibility must be backed up. Exaggerated bios or vague claims can hurt quality scores.
• Originality and effort matter most. Pages must clearly show human involvement and intent to serve users.