I audited 240 AI-generated articles that weren’t ranking.

Applied a systematic quality improvement process.

Average position improved from 28 to 11 over 5 months (67% improvement).

Here’s the exact audit framework: 🧵👇 **

1/ The baseline situation:

Starting performance data:

Content analyzed:

• 240 articles published over 8 months
• All AI-generated (Claude and GPT-4)
• Human editing: 20-30 minutes per article
• Average word count: 1,800 words

Performance metrics (after 4 months):

• Average ranking position: 28
• Page 1 rankings: 18 articles (7.5%)
• Organic traffic: 3,200 sessions/month
• Engagement: 1:24 average time on page

Clear underperformance relative to expectations. **

2/ The systematic audit methodology:

Quality assessment process:

Evaluated each article across 8 categories (scored 0-10):

1. Factual accuracy (sources cited, data current) 2. Content depth (comprehensive vs superficial) 3. Unique value (original insights vs rehashed) 4. User intent match (answers actual query) 5. Structure quality (scannable, logical flow) 6. E-E-A-T signals (expertise demonstrated) 7. Technical SEO (proper optimization) 8. Engagement elements (visuals, examples, CTAs)

Articles scoring under 60/80 flagged for improvement.

Result: 187 articles needed substantial updates (78%). **

3/ Common AI content problems identified:

Pattern analysis across 240 articles:

Issue 1: Generic information (found in 68% of articles)

• Restated common knowledge
• No unique perspective
• Indistinguishable from competitors

Issue 2: Weak examples (found in 71% of articles)

• Generic hypotheticals ("imagine a company...")
• No specific case studies
• Vague scenarios

Issue 3: Missing depth (found in 64% of articles)

• Surface-level coverage
• Key questions unanswered
• Insufficient how-to detail

Issue 4: Poor E-E-A-T (found in 82% of articles)

• No author expertise shown
• Sources not cited
• No original data or research **

4/ The improvement protocol:

Step-by-step enhancement process:

For each flagged article (187 total):

Week 1-4: Batch 1 (60 articles)

• Add 3-5 authoritative sources (linked)
• Insert 1-2 specific examples
• Expand thin sections by 300-500 words
• Add author expertise note
• Update publish date

Week 5-8: Batch 2 (64 articles)

• Create original data visualization
• Add industry-specific insights
• Improve structure with better H2s
• Insert FAQ section with schema

Week 9-12: Batch 3 (63 articles)

• Continue same protocol
• Focus on user intent refinement

Time per article: 90-120 minutes (vs original 20-30 minutes). **

5/ Specific enhancement tactics:

Actionable improvements applied:

Tactic 1: Source addition

• Before: Claims without attribution
• After: 3-5 links to authoritative sources (studies, government data, industry reports)

Tactic 2: Example specificity

• Before: "Many companies struggle with X"
• After: "According to Gartner’s 2024 survey of 500 enterprises, 67% report challenges with X, primarily due to Y and Z"

Tactic 3: Depth expansion

• Before: 200-word section covering topic
• After: 500-word section with subsections, examples, and actionable steps

Tactic 4: E-E-A-T signals

• Before: Anonymous content
• After: Author bio with credentials, "Based on analysis of 50+ client implementations" **

6/ Results tracking methodology:

Performance monitoring process:

Tracked weekly for 20 weeks:

• Position changes (Google Search Console)
• Click-through rate improvements
• Organic traffic per article
• Engagement metrics (GA4)

Measured in cohorts:

• Batch 1 (improved weeks 1-4): Tracked from week 5
• Batch 2 (improved weeks 5-8): Tracked from week 9
• Batch 3 (improved weeks 9-12): Tracked from week 13

Control group: 53 articles left unchanged for comparison. **

7/ Improvement results by timeline:

Performance progression data:

Month 1 post-improvement:

• Average position: 28 → 23 (18% improvement)
• Page 1 rankings: 18 → 29 articles
• Traffic: 3,200 → 4,100 sessions/month (+28%)

Month 3 post-improvement:

• Average position: 23 → 15 (46% improvement)
• Page 1 rankings: 29 → 67 articles
• Traffic: 4,100 → 8,900 sessions/month (+178%)

Month 5 post-improvement:

• Average position: 15 → 11 (67% total improvement)
• Page 1 rankings: 67 → 89 articles
• Traffic: 8,900 → 12,400 sessions/month (+288% from start)

Control group (unchanged articles):

• Average position: 29 → 27 (minimal change) **

8/ The AI content audit improved rankings because:

✓ Systematic quality assessment (8-category scoring) ✓ Pattern identification (68-82% of articles had common issues) ✓ Specific enhancements (sources, examples, depth, E-E-A-T) ✓ Substantial time investment (90-120 min per article vs original 20-30) ✓ Phased implementation (12-week improvement cycle) ✓ Performance tracking (weekly monitoring, control group)

Timeline: 5 months from audit start to 67% improvement.

Investment: 280-375 hours total editing time (187 articles × 90-120 min).

AI content can perform well, but requires quality control and strategic enhancement.

Initial light editing (20-30 min) insufficient for competitive niches.

Proper enhancement (90-120 min) brings AI content to competitive performance levels. **

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh