How AI-generated content performs in Google Search: A 16-month experiment [SEL]

[slashbye]

Actually a pretty good article, thanks for sharing

Did you publish once and then let it just run or did you publish frequently on the sites?

[VDule]

What did your team come up with then as the solution?

[Naina_Hainre]

It’s interesting to see more data on AI content performance. I feel like the consensus is still pretty mixed, with some seeing success and others struggling. It really depends on the niche and how much human editing is involved.

[geekHedgy]

Thank you for sharing

[distant_gradient]

Thanks for sharing u/WebLinkr

I have been looking for such long term studies – was on my way on doing it myself

Pasting the entire contents of the SearchEngineLand study here:

—-

# We Ran a 16-Month Experiment Publishing AI Content on 20 New Domains. Here’s What Happened.

Google indexed most pages quickly, but without authority, unique insight, or trust signals, rankings collapsed within months.

With AI, you can generate dozens (if not hundreds) of articles in hours and publish at scale. But publishing is the easy part. **What happens after they go live is what matters.**

Together with the research team at SE Ranking, we ran a 16-month experiment to track how well AI-generated content performed on brand-new domains with zero authority.

As you’ll see, the results are hard to call a success.

# Methodology

The goal was simple: test how far AI content — with no human editing, rewriting, or enhancement — could go in search.

* How quickly would it get indexed?
* Could it rank for relevant queries?
* Most importantly, could it drive traffic?

We purchased **20 new domains** with no backlinks, domain authority, brand recognition, or search history. Each domain focused on a different niche (Arts & Entertainment, Finance, Health, Travel, Tech, Food & Drink, etc. — 20 niches total).

For each niche, we gathered **100 informational “how-to” keywords** — long-tail terms with lower competition. Each site received 100 AI-generated articles, totaling **2,000 pieces** across the experiment.

After publishing, we added the sites to Google Search Console, submitted sitemaps, and then **left the sites completely untouched**.

# Month 1: Indexing and Early Visibility

Just over a month after publication (36 days), the first results came in — stronger than expected.

* **70.95% of pages indexed** (1,419 of 2,000)
* **122,102 impressions**
* **244 clicks**
* 11 of 20 domains had all 100 pages indexed
* 80% of sites ranked for at least 100 keywords each
* Over 28% of ranking URLs were already in the top 100

Top-performing niches for impressions:

|Niche|Impressions|
|:-|:-|
|Hobbies & Interests|17,425|
|Business & Services|17,311|
|Travel & Tourism|13,598|
|Lifestyle & Well-being|13,072|
|Law & Government|11,794|
|Games & Accessories|11,083|
|Vehicles & Boats|10,677|

At this stage, it looked like AI-generated content could gain traction quickly — even without backlinks, editorial input, or any SEO work.

# Months 2–3: Growth Continues

Impressions and clicks kept growing as Google discovered and tested pages.

By ~2.5 months after publication:

* **Impressions:** 122,102 → 526,624
* **Clicks:** 244 → 782
* 12 sites ranked for 1,000+ keywords (up from 8)
* Remaining 8 sites ranked for 100–1,000 keywords

No backlinks, no internal linking, no SEO improvements. The content gained exposure purely because it targeted low-competition queries and followed basic SEO structure.

At this point, it looked like a strong case for large-scale AI content.

**But the growth didn’t last.**

# Months 3–6: The Ranking Collapse

Around Feb 3, 2025 (~3 months after publication), the experiment hit a turning point.

>

The content was still indexed but rarely appeared where users could actually see it.

By the six-month mark:

* **Impressions:** 526,624 → 706,328
* **Clicks:** 782 → 1,062

Sounds like growth, right? Not really. **70–75% of all impressions and clicks came from the first 2.5 months.** The next 3.5 months added only 25–30%.

# Month 16: The Long-Term Picture

We let the experiment run for over a year to see if rankings would recover.

**For the most part, they didn’t.**

There was one notable fluctuation: in late August 2025, 50% of sites (10 of 20) saw a two-week spike in impressions, closely aligned with the **Google August 2025 spam update** (rolled out Aug 26).

Of those 10 sites:

* 6 quickly lost visibility and returned to prior lows
* 4 maintained *slightly* improved performance

After the update, pages ranking in the top 100 rose to **20%** — up from 3% at six months, but still below the 28% seen in month one.

**66.9% of pages were still indexed**, but some YMYL niches got hit hard:

* Finance domain: only 9 of 100 pages indexed
* Health domain: only 14 of 100 pages indexed

By month 16, cumulative totals:

* **Impressions:** 1,092,079
* **Clicks:** 1,381

Most of those impressions still came from the early growth phase.

# Why SEO Visibility Didn’t Last

The 2,000 articles lacked many signals Google uses to assess quality:

* **Authority** — No backlinks or external validation
* **Expertise and credibility** — No authors, credentials, or real-world expertise (especially critical for YMYL topics)
* **Content differentiation** — Most content resembled what already exists, no unique insights
* **Site structure** — No internal linking, topical organization, or clear hierarchy

Google can identify AI-generated patterns. Without authority, uniqueness, or supporting signals, early visibility declines.

# Bonus: Adding New AI Content to Existing Pages

In early March 2026, we ran a follow-up — adding new AI content to 8 of the tracked sites.

Interestingly, the traffic lift came primarily from **older posts**, not the new ones:

|Site|Feb 2026 Impressions|Mar 2026 Impressions|Increase|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Business|458|7,750|**17x**|
|Law|19|356|**19x**|
|Science|34|633|**19x**|

Publishing new content — even fully AI-generated — can apparently signal to Google that the site is active, giving older pages a temporary boost. But these are early results and don’t guarantee lasting gains.

# TL;DR

* 2,000 AI articles published across 20 new domains, zero human editing
* ~71% indexed within 36 days, early impressions looked promising
* **By month 3, only 3% of pages remained in the top 100**
* After 16 months: ~1M impressions total, but only 1,381 clicks
* YMYL niches (finance, health) got hit hardest
* Adding new content later gave a temporary boost to older pages
* **Bottom line: AI can speed up content creation, but it can’t replace SEO strategy, authority building, and human expertise**

[Character_Ad_1990]

Interesting. Thanks for posting 👍.

[thegorilla09]

In other words, SEO is easy lol (sarcasm).

Doesn’t seem to be a fair representation of ‘AI’ content farms either. There are loads of people who are churning out sites that are growing month on month, earning income and developing actual brands.

[who_am_i_to_say_so]

I had a blog that had AI generated content as an experiment which Google brought 1000 visitors a day over for about 6 months, then crashed to zero overnight recently. Coincidence? It worked for the short term, though. Not convinced it can hold long term.

[sstarwarsfan]

Just a genuine question – how could the results be any different without link building, internal links etc. meaning aren’t these results going to be the same regardless of who or what wrote the copy? If it was 100 human written articles, it would fail the same way because it lacks other stuff?

[[deleted]]

[removed]

[Ok_Permission9792]

But arent u the great defender that content does not matter? So what does it even matter if its AI generated content or not lol

[The_Crawl_Father]

**TL;DR:** Pumped 2,000 AI articles across 20 new domains, ranked well for the first couple of months, then Google collapsed the rankings at month 3 and they never recovered. AI content gets indexed fine but without real SEO behind it, it’s a short-term spike at best.

[TowerHou]

Interesting experiment but lacks many details.

From what they wrote you can’t really pinpoint it to AI-written articles.

– They did zero setup, bulk launched articles at the start, and then stopped updating the site > Would I have similar results if they were all human-written? Maybe yes.

– They wrote with AI, but how? Low quality, high quality? 300 words? 3000 words? > This might make all the difference. Would 300 words low quality human-written articles have the same faith? Likely yes.

– What were the on-site metrics? Did traffic stay? How long?

I wish they could have provided more insights, cause this is a very interesting topic. But this article looks like a PR stunt to make their audience happy…this experiment was made by a famous SEO tool.

[raviranjan2291]

Spam update just released .. I am curious to know how it goes

[[deleted]]

[removed]