We published a lot of AI content. Can it be fixed?

Some of it, yes. We triage: pages with a real topic and audience can be rewritten with genuine expertise, while pages that only ever existed for a keyword are better consolidated or removed.

Does Google penalise AI-assisted content?

The stated position targets unhelpful, scaled content rather than the tool used to write it. In practice, unreviewed generated pages tend to be unhelpful, which is why review is non-negotiable in our workflow.

Who reviews the content?

A named person with relevant domain knowledge — your practitioner or ours — and the attribution appears on the page.

Should we remove weak pages entirely?

Often yes, with a redirect where a relevant destination exists. Removing weak pages can strengthen how the rest of the site is assessed.

AI Content

AI content optimization with human accountability

AI content optimization is the process of reworking existing content so it is equally usable by human readers and by AI retrieval systems. It covers passage structure, evidence, entity clarity and metadata, and it always includes human expert review before publication.

Request a growth plan Explore services

The problem

Two failure modes are common: content too loosely structured to be retrieved usefully, and content generated at volume by AI with no review, which is inaccurate, undifferentiated and damaging to trust.

How we approach it

We run a structured optimisation pass over your existing library — direct answers, self-contained passages, supported claims, consistent entities — with a human subject-matter reviewer accountable for every page that goes live.

Business outcomes

Existing content made retrievable and clearer to read
Unsupported or inaccurate claims removed
Consistent entity and factual language across the library
A documented review process you can stand behind

What's included

Library triage

Existing pages are scored on performance, accuracy and strategic value, then routed to optimise, consolidate, rewrite or remove.

Passage and structure rework

Sections are rebuilt so each answers one question directly and makes sense if retrieved alone.

Claim verification

Statistics and factual claims are checked and sourced; anything unsupportable is removed rather than softened.

Entity and terminology consistency

Product, service and brand terms are standardised across the library so systems are not reconciling three different names.

Human review workflow

We define who reviews what, what they check, and how it is recorded, with attribution shown on the page.

AI usage policy

A written standard sets out where AI assistance is acceptable in your workflow and what must always be human-verified.

What you receive

Content inventory with triage decisions
Optimised priority pages
Claim and source register
Terminology and entity style guide
Editorial review workflow documentation
Written AI usage policy

How we work

1
Inventory
Catalogue existing content with performance and accuracy data.
2
Triage
Decide page by page whether to optimise, merge, rewrite or retire.
3
Optimise
Rework structure, evidence and entity language on priority pages.
4
Review
Route everything through named human expert review.
5
Standardise
Document the workflow so new content meets the same bar.

How we measure it

Visibility change on optimised pages
Retrieval and citation rate across a prompt set
Volume of unsupported claims removed
Engagement metrics against site norms
Share of library meeting the editorial standard

Honest limitations

Optimisation cannot rescue content with no genuine expertise or utility behind it — sometimes retiring a page is the correct outcome. Review capacity from your subject-matter experts is usually the real constraint on pace.

Frequently asked questions

We published a lot of AI content. Can it be fixed?: Some of it, yes. We triage: pages with a real topic and audience can be rewritten with genuine expertise, while pages that only ever existed for a keyword are better consolidated or removed.
Does Google penalise AI-assisted content?: The stated position targets unhelpful, scaled content rather than the tool used to write it. In practice, unreviewed generated pages tend to be unhelpful, which is why review is non-negotiable in our workflow.
Who reviews the content?: A named person with relevant domain knowledge — your practitioner or ours — and the attribution appears on the page.
Should we remove weak pages entirely?: Often yes, with a redirect where a relevant destination exists. Removing weak pages can strengthen how the rest of the site is assessed.

Related services

Let's build your growth system.

Tell us where you are now and what you need to reach. We'll come back with scope, sequencing and what we'd do first.

Request a growth plan Run a free audit