What Google’s latest spam update means for website content
Author: Dan Clark 9th Oct 2026 6 minutes read
Overview
Google finished rolling out its September 2026 spam update on 8 October, almost two weeks after it began. It affected search results worldwide, although Google hasn’t said exactly which types of spam it was targeting.
It’s the fourth confirmed spam update this year, following previous updates in March, June and August. For website owners, it’s another reminder that Google continues to invest in identifying content and practices designed to manipulate search rankings.
But what does that mean for organisations publishing genuine website content? And with AI now playing a part in how many businesses produce their content, is there anything to be concerned about?
What has Google actually changed?
Google rolls out spam updates to deal with content and tactics that break its search spam policies. They’re more targeted than core updates, with the focus on attempts to game search rankings.
These include copied content that adds little value, misleading pages, excessive keyword targeting and large volumes of content produced primarily to attract search traffic.
Importantly, Google hasn’t confirmed which of these practices the September update addressed. Any suggestion that it specifically targeted AI-generated content would therefore be speculation.
What we do know is that Google’s existing policies already address the misuse of automation and AI to produce content at scale.
Does using AI to write website content put you at risk?
Not simply because you’ve used AI. Google’s published guidance makes a distinction between using generative AI to help create useful content and using it to produce large quantities of pages without adding value.
It’s an important point because AI is becoming part of everyday content production, sometimes without us really thinking about it. Even tools like Grammarly now use AI to improve written content. Organisations also use it to research topics, organise information, develop drafts and improve existing material. We use it ourselves, particularly when exploring subjects, reviewing content and working through different ways of communicating technical information.
The important part is what goes into that process and what comes out of it.
For example, when we’re writing about university websites, the useful information comes from years of working with university teams, managing complex content and improving accessibility. AI can help us organise and communicate that experience, but it can’t replace the knowledge gained from doing the work.
There’s a considerable difference between that approach and asking an AI tool to generate hundreds of articles targeting search terms without adding any original knowledge or insight.
Google’s concern isn’t necessarily how quickly content can be produced. It’s whether the resulting pages exist primarily to manipulate rankings rather than help people.
More content doesn’t necessarily mean better search performance
AI has made content production much faster. An article or landing page that once took hours to prepare can now feasibly be created in minutes.
That creates opportunities, but it also makes it much easier to publish content without properly questioning whether it’s needed – or indeed if it’s factually correct (we sometimes think of AI as a hasty genius: impressive, but not always right).
We’ve seen websites accumulate large numbers of pages covering similar subjects, often because different teams have created content independently or because search opportunities have been identified over time. AI can make that problem considerably worse.
A website with 50 articles repeating much the same advice isn’t necessarily more useful than one with five genuinely informative guides. In some cases, overlapping content can make it harder for people to find the information they need and leave search engines with several competing pages covering similar topics.
Search data still has an important role. Understanding the terms people use and the questions they’re asking can help organisations identify genuine gaps in their content. But finding a keyword doesn’t automatically mean you need another page.
Sometimes the better option is to improve something you’ve already published.
What makes content genuinely useful?
Google’s guidance on helpful content encourages website owners to consider whether their pages provide original information, demonstrate relevant expertise and leave readers feeling they’ve learnt enough to achieve their goal.
That doesn’t mean every article needs original research or extensive technical detail (in fact, being overly technical may thoroughly bamboozle your target audience). A straightforward explanation of a common question can be extremely useful, especially when someone who understands the subject writes it.
Much of this knowledge already exists within organisations. It might come from specialist teams, questions customers or service users regularly ask, research, project experience or lessons learnt over many years. These are the things that can make your content genuinely useful and difficult to replicate.
AI can help turn that knowledge into accessible website content, but someone still needs to provide the information, check its accuracy and decide whether the finished result is worth publishing.
Simply rewriting existing online articles using different words doesn’t necessarily achieve that.
Should you review your website following the update?
If your website has experienced a noticeable change in organic search traffic, it’s worth investigating rather than immediately assuming the latest update is responsible.
Google Search Console is a good place to check what has actually changed. Compare performance before and after the rollout, looking at impressions, clicks and the individual pages or search queries affected. Remember that changes in search demand, competition and other ranking factors can also influence performance.
Because the update only completed on 8 October, it’s sensible to allow some time for performance data to settle before drawing firm conclusions.
Even if your traffic hasn’t changed, reviewing existing content is worthwhile. Look for outdated information, articles covering almost identical subjects, pages with little useful detail and content that no longer reflects what your organisation does.
It’s also worth reviewing how AI is being used within your content workflow. Who checks the information? Where does the subject knowledge come from? Is someone responsible for deciding what gets published?
These are useful questions regardless of whether Google has recently announced an update.
What should website owners take from this?
Google’s September spam update doesn’t introduce a new set of rules for using AI, and there’s no evidence that organisations using AI-assisted content are automatically being penalised.
The existing guidance is reasonably straightforward. The best rule of thumb: content should be created to help people, rather than manipulate search rankings, and using automation to produce large volumes of low-value material can violate Google’s policies.
For organisations already investing time in useful, accurate content, there’s no reason to abandon that approach. AI can make parts of the process quicker and help teams make better use of the knowledge they already have.
The challenge is making sure that easier content production doesn’t simply lead to more content being published without a good reason.
Ultimately, the question worth asking hasn’t really changed: does this page offer something useful to the people we’re trying to reach?
If the answer is yes, that’s a much better starting point than worrying about whether AI helped write it.
