Since we’ve been able to produce content at scale through AI, there have been graph screenshots littering X and LinkedIn, usually case studies or as part of sales materials.
An SEO I know well, Martin Sean Fennon, shared an example of an ongoing brand case study, scaling content through AI, and how the content is being received (through third-party traffic measurement).
The issue isn’t always that the content has been produced by AI; that’s always been a good differentiator to hang the blame on, as there are a lot more factors that go into whether or not content is being indexed, let alone served.
The real problem lies in the fact that scaling content production, regardless of the method, often introduces a raft of quality control issues. AI is simply the latest, and easiest, scapegoat for a fundamental breakdown in the content pipeline, which includes everything from keyword strategy and topic selection to editing, internal linking, and distribution.
This allocation, however, is not a guarantee of sustained performance.
The initial surge is often the result of Google’s systems efficiently processing new or novel content, meaning it benefits from a “freshness boost.” A similar freshness boost is applied when you submit a URL through Google Search Console for indexing.
The threshold we are currently facing is maintaining that quality and relevance at scale, once the initial novelty wears off and the “Mt. AI” effect subsides, leaving behind the underlying content-quality challenges.
When you introduce a lot of new URLs to your website, you’re asking Google to increase resources to your website, and how Google allocates these resources is well documented.
As their perceived inventory now no longer matches your actual inventory, Google has to choose how much of the new URL batch to invest in, or whether or not to invest in a representative sample of the new URLs (potentially based on a URL pattern, e.g., a subfolder) and then see how users react to and engage with the content.
This process determines if, minus the initial freshness boost, the URL (and content) is justified in remaining in the index and being served.
This concept ties directly into crawl budget and Google’s Quality Threshold. If the sample URLs perform poorly or fail to meet a certain quality bar after the initial novelty wears off, the remainder of the scaled content often struggles to gain traction.
It’s also worth noting that the threshold is not static, and changes over time as better quality content is published, as noted by Adam Gent, and will vary by topic, as not all queries deserve freshness.
AI-generated content leading to an initial traffic surge, quickly followed by a plateau or decline, makes for a good social post, but it also highlights a key understanding that the problem is not AI itself, but a fundamental failure in content strategy and quality control at scale.
AI simply amplifies existing weaknesses. The “freshness boost” that new URLs receive masks these underlying issues, creating a temporary illusion of success.
The real hurdle is Google’s Quality Threshold, as Google needs to manage resources and become stricter with what it crawls (and how frequently), and what is retained in the index ready to serve.
By assessing a sample of new URLs to see if they genuinely engage users and maintain relevance, it avoids wasting resources. If this sample, or the wider-scaled content, falls short of the current quality threshold, then resources will be retracted, and we will witness more “Mt. AI” scenarios.
Shift From Production Scale To Quality Maintenance At Scale
This matters because relying solely on AI for volume is a vanity metric that guarantees long-term resource waste.
The focus must shift from production scale to quality maintenance at scale.
Brands must invest in robust editorial processes, human-led strategy, and meticulous quality assurance (including internal linking and distribution) to ensure that every piece of content, whether AI-assisted or not, consistently surpasses Google’s evolving threshold. This has most recently been described by Google in Toronto as non-commodity content.
Not doing so means constantly chasing fleeting traffic boosts instead of building durable, authoritative organic performance.
More Resources:
Featured Image: Prostock-studio/Shutterstock
