What should you judge before approving an AI draft?

Judge whether a customer can make a better decision after reading it. Write the intended decision above the draft before you edit anything. For a repair business, that might be whether to book an inspection or send photographs first.

Google recommends accuracy, quality and relevance for automatically generated content. Its guidance also says human quality raters' assessments do not directly influence rankings. Treat the document as publishing guidance, rather than a formula for reaching first place. Google's explanation of content quality sets out those limits.

Give your editor a clear brief

• Who is reading this, and what are they trying to decide?
• Which business facts must be confirmed before publication?
• What useful material will we contribute ourselves?
• Who can approve the final answer?

If you already draft in ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude, apply the same checklist. Do not make the tool's name your acceptance criterion. This guide does not rank those products or claim that one produces automatically publishable work.

For help choosing the reader's question, use the guide to search intent. Keep that question visible during editing. Remove paragraphs that neither answer it nor help the reader take the next step.

When does publishing become scaled content abuse?

Scaled content abuse means generating many pages mainly to manipulate search rankings, with little value for readers. Google says the policy applies regardless of how the content is created. Its spam policies cover this practice.

Hypothetical example: a local service company

Imagine a cleaning company commissioning separate articles for every nearby town. Each article repeats the same advice with a different place name. Before approving that project, ask the writer to identify the distinct customer question and useful local information for each page.

If those differences are missing, consider one complete service guide. If they exist, collect them before drafting: actual service coverage, access requirements and booking instructions. These are editorial decisions to investigate, not a promise that a particular page structure will rank.

For an existing library, start with an inventory using the duplicate content review guide. Record the purpose of each page before deciding what to combine or remove.

What should you check before publishing?

Check claims first, then improve the writing. Google explicitly calls for manual fact-checking and review of AI content, including titles, descriptions, structured data and image alternative text. Its prepublication guidance covers the whole page.

Use a claim register

Create a simple sheet with four columns: claim, evidence, reviewer and decision. Highlight every specification, date, quotation and promise in the draft. Give each highlighted statement a row.

1. Open the original evidence. Find the passage that supports the statement. Check whether the draft has dropped an important condition or limitation.
2. Confirm business details. Ask the operations owner about delivery, availability and service boundaries. Do not let the writer fill gaps with plausible guesses.
3. Remove unsupported material. Delete an unverified claim or leave a clear question for the editor. Softer wording should not disguise missing evidence.
4. Review the page furniture. Check the title, short description, captions and alternative text, meaning the written description attached to an image.
5. Approve the finished page. Read it in its final layout. Assign responsibility for correcting information after publication.

A practical editing instruction

List the claims in this draft that require verification. Do not add facts, quotations or personal experiences. Mark anything unsupported by the supplied material. Then suggest clearer wording while preserving the meaning and the limits of each claim.

Use that instruction to organize the review. Make the final evidence checks yourself. If a source says a service is available only under certain conditions, keep those conditions next to the relevant statement.

Give the headline its own review pass. Does it promise more than the article delivers? Use the title tag guide to work on clarity, then compare the proposed title with the actual answer.

How can you add useful experience without inventing it?

Start with material your business can stand behind. Ask the people doing the work for examples, photographs and common misunderstandings. Use AI to help organize that material, while keeping responsibility for the claims with your team.

E-E-A-T is shorthand for experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness. For this review, turn those ideas into questions: who knows this, what supports it and how can the reader check? The practical E-E-A-T guide provides a related reading path.

Hypothetical example: an online furniture shop

A draft calls a desk perfect for small apartments. Ask the shop to replace that broad praise with confirmed dimensions, a clear photograph and assembly information. If nobody has tested the desk in a particular room, do not present an imagined setup as a customer experience.

Interview the person handling returns. Ask which measurement customers overlook and which question they wish shoppers asked before ordering. Build the guide around the answers you can verify.

• Label an invented illustration as hypothetical.
• Describe a real test only if it happened.
• Include relevant limitations alongside advantages.
• Use a named reviewer only with their actual involvement.

Before signing off, circle words such as best, effortless and guaranteed. Replace unsupported praise with a concrete detail the reader can evaluate. Keep a strong recommendation only when you can explain its basis and scope.

Should you disclose that AI helped create the content?

Explain the process when that context would help the reader. Google suggests considering information about how automatically generated content was created. Its general website guidance does not present one compulsory label for every blog post. The section on giving users context describes this recommendation.

A disclosure you can adapt

Hypothetical wording: AI helped organize the initial outline. Our service manager verified the operating details, and our editor reviewed the final article.

Use that wording only when it describes the work actually done. If nobody verified the details, arrange the review before making the claim. A disclosure should explain responsibility clearly.

Choose a location where the note makes sense, such as near the author information or at the end. Keep it specific and brief. Tell readers what was automated and what the human reviewer checked, rather than listing every tool involved.

How can a small team apply this process this week?

Choose one article and complete the whole review before expanding production. Use the following sequence as a working plan, adjusting the timing to your team. The deliverable is a publishable answer and a reusable editorial checklist.

1. Select a real question. Take it from a sales conversation or support request. Remove personal customer information from the working brief.
2. Collect the evidence. Gather approved business details and source material. Write down unanswered questions before drafting.
3. Prepare and edit the draft. Use short sections organized around the reader's decisions. Add a practical action where it helps.
4. Complete the claim register. Resolve every important uncertainty with the responsible person. Hold the article if an essential answer remains unverified.
5. Record the publication decision. Note who approved it and who will maintain it. Save the evidence with the working document.

For older articles, assign one of four actions: keep, update, combine or investigate. Start with pages that matter to current customers. Use the SEO audit guide to place this content review within a broader website check.