←back to thread

8 points jankydev | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.451s | source
Show context
jankydev ◴[] No.44471080[source]
Okay, we're talking content marketers and SEO people here (yuck), but still, I can believe these figures being at least ballpark accurate.
replies(1): >>44471286 #
1. dazc ◴[] No.44471286[source]
I believe most publishers are still using human writers although the are obviously all getting their ideas from the same source. It's hard to find any 'lifestyle' content that doesn't have 100 or so similar versions.

Around 15 years ago I employed an journalist to write unique articles for a wedding site project - it was all copied by bigger sites who easily outranked us. A lot f this content was 'ever-green' and is still around to this day.

I learned not to spend so much money on content after this point. I guess most other people did too - hence the general lack of quality.

Ironically, these sites are now complaining about regurgitated AI content. I find it hard to sympathise.

replies(1): >>44472299 #
2. jankydev ◴[] No.44472299[source]
Lately, even reputable legacy publishers are farming out search bait listicles to AI. It's all quite depressing. Though I do get your point. LLMs are only making existing problems (much) worse.