Anyone else feel like human edited AI content is just... still AI content?
Everyone's talking about using AI for content with a human review layer. Cool. But I think most teams are fundamentally misunderstanding what "human review" should mean post 2026 updates.
I keep seeing teams use AI to draft → human just proofreads for typos → publish. That's not refinement, that's cosmetic editing.2
What Google's E-E-A-T signals are actually rewarding now is content where a human adds:
- Original observations from real experience
- Specific data or case studies that can't be scraped
- A genuine perspective that changes the argument, not just cleans the prose
If your "human layer" isn't adding new information, you're still publishing AI slop with better grammar.
Anyone else seeing this pattern? What does your actual content QA process look like post-update?