Observed this pattern repeatedly with pure AI content

[samiaseo75]

Another prime example is Casual.app. In this “SEO heist,” a competitor’s sitemap was removed and over 1,800 articles were generated using AI. Traffic followed the same pattern. It rose for a few months. Then came a pause and then a drop of about 25%. And what happened next? A crash that took out almost all traffic. As far as the SEO community is concerned, there is some debate as to whether this drop was a manual intervention due to all the profit coverage it received. We believe the algorithm worked.

Perhaps even more interesting was the study of cash app data LinkedIn’s AI “collaborative” articles. These AI-generated articles created by LinkedIn invited users to collaborate on corrections, additions, and fact-checking. Top contributors were rewarded with a LinkedIn link for their efforts.


As in the cases mentioned above, the flow of new arrivals rose and then fell. However, LinkedIn maintained some traffic. The data suggests that the fluctuation in traffic was caused by the algorithm rather than manual action. When human editing came along, some of LinkedIn’s collaborative articles clearly met the definition of useful content. Others, according to Google’s estimates, did not. Perhaps Google is right in this case.