Alert! The New AI Slop Is Just Old SEO Rules — the Real Culprit Behind Your Traffic Drop

Alert! The New AI Slop Is Just Old SEO Rules — the Real Culprit Behind Your Traffic Drop

16 old SEO tactics matched line by line against Google's current policies: which are dead, which are high-risk, and how to recover if you are hit — all with official source text.

1. You Didn't Change — the Rules Did

Traffic dropped? Don't rush to add keywords or buy links. The problem may not be that you are doing too little, but that the SEO playbook in your hands has expired wholesale — the "best practices" you learned back then, placed against the current policy text, turn out one by one to be exactly what Google now names as spam.

Over the past year Google has been rewriting the rules at a rapid clip: on May 15, 2026 it revised its spam policies to explicitly cover AI responses; AI Mode passed one billion monthly active users; Search Console launched generative AI performance reports. Our companion piece, "Your Site's Traffic Vanished — Was It Judged AI Slop?", offers a cross-platform ten-minute checkup (https://km.idaeo.ai/ai/ai-slop-selfcheck ); this article takes sixteen old SEO tactics and matches them one by one against the current rules, gives the verdict for each, then lays out what the new rules require — and what they don't. Everything comes with official source text and version labels, so you can check your own site line by line.

2. Where the Traffic Went: Google Says Stable, Third Parties Measure Another Story

Start with the waterline of the whole web. Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince predicted in March 2026 that "bot traffic will surpass humans in 2027"; in June, he announced it had happened ahead of schedule:

"Welp, that happened faster than I predicted. Thought it would be end of 2027, then early 2027, but agentic traffic growing so fast that bots have now passed human traffic online for the first time in the Internet's history."

(Source: Cloudflare CEO Prince on X, 2026-06-03, as reported by Search Engine Land https://searchengineland.com/cloudflare-bots-webpage-requests-479608 ; the measure is web page requests observed on Cloudflare's network, with bots including AI agents)

On the same quarter's earnings call he added: at current trends, non-human traffic could reach 1,000 times human traffic within five years (original: non-human traffic will be as much as 1,000 times as much as human traffic) (Source: Cloudflare 2026 Q2 earnings call transcript https://www.investing.com/news/transcripts/earnings-call-transcript-cloudflare-tops-estimates-in-q2-2026-shares-jump-17-93CH-4844728 ). More and more of what reads your website isn't human — that is the backdrop to the traffic reshuffle.

Back to Google. AI search is already the present tense. The official number:

"Just one year after its debut, AI Mode has surpassed one billion monthly users"

(Source: Google's official blog https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/search-io-2026/ )

The interface changed — what about clicks? Official and third-party numbers collide head-on. First the official side — Google's head of Search, Liz Reid, August 2025:

"Overall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year."

(Source: Google's official blog https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/ai-search-driving-more-queries-higher-quality-clicks/ )

Third parties measure a different world. Pew Research Center, July 2025:

"Users who encountered an AI summary clicked on a traditional search result link in 8% of all visits. Those who did not encounter an AI summary clicked on a search result nearly twice as often (15% of visits)."

(Source: Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/ )

Industry statistics point the same way. Ahrefs, February 2026: the presence of an AI Overview correlates with a 58% lower click-through rate for the top-ranked page — the operative word is "correlates" (original: correlates with), not causation (Source: Ahrefs blog https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks-update/ ).

The publishers' books look worse. Chegg's CEO named Google in the company's Q1 2025 earnings: AI summaries keep web traffic captive within the search experience (original: keep web traffic captive); the same quarter's revenue was $121.4 million, down 30% year over year — the filing does not attribute the decline solely to AI summaries, and neither do we (Source: Chegg earnings release https://investor.chegg.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2025/Chegg-Reports-2025-First-Quarter-Earnings/default.aspx ).

This article won't play referee: Google measures total volume across the whole web; third parties measure click rates on specific samples. Different yardsticks, colliding conclusions. What is certain: the demand side has already switched interfaces, and if the supply side keeps playing the old way, the results won't carry over on their own. The next section lays the playbook against the policy text.

3. Sixteen Old SEO Tactics, One by One Against the Current Rules

Three things before the main course. First, the three-tier verdict (explicit violation / high risk / depends on execution) is this article's risk classification, not Google's official one — Google publishes only policies and their elements. Our usage: explicit violation = the tactic itself is a named example in the policy text; high risk = the policy can cover it, but its elements (scale, manipulative purpose, lack of value) must compound to apply; depends on execution = the policy doesn't ban it, and life or death turns on added value and intent. Second, the common premise across all the policies is "the primary purpose is manipulating rankings, not helping users." Third, unless otherwise noted, official characterizations are taken from Google Search Central's spam policies (Source: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies , current version 2026-05-15); quotes preserving full sentences are verbatim, and lines marked "original:" are excerpts.

1. Keyword stuffing in titles and body copy — keyword stuffing, named in the policy; explicit violation
2. Buying and selling backlinks — link spam, named in the policy (ad links with proper markup are an explicit exception); explicit violation
3. Guest posts traded for links — paid placements carrying ranking links, listed among the link-spam examples; explicit violation
4. Mass-produced article spinning — scraping plus scaled content abuse, hit by two policies at once; explicit violation
5. Machine-translated multilingual mass production — automated transformation (translation) at scale is a named example; elements must compound, so it depends; high risk
6. Buying expired domains for their old authority — expired domain abuse, named in the policy; explicit violation
7. Renting subdirectories to third parties — site reputation abuse, named in the policy (with an explicit exception clause); explicit violation
8. Doorway-page factories — doorway abuse, named in the policy; explicit violation
9. Thin affiliate pages — thin affiliation, named in the policy; explicit violation
10. Hidden text and links — hidden text and links abuse, named in the policy; explicit violation
11. Programmatic long-tail page factories — coverable under the doorway examples plus the scaled-content examples; hinges on added value; high risk
12. Volume first, quality later — scaled abuse doesn't ask how content is made; mass production + no value + manipulative purpose compounding is enough; high risk
13. AI-rewriting other people's articles — lightly modified republishing is a scraping example; value-adding rewrites are judged separately; high risk
14. Outsourced ghostwriting with no editorial review — one of the official examples of site reputation abuse; high risk
15. Flooding content at AI summaries — manipulating generative AI responses is now inside the spam definition; high risk
16. Writing articles with AI at scale — the tool doesn't decide quality; the tests are added value and intent; depends on execution

Below we go through them one at a time; for each, three things: how it used to be done, how Google characterizes it now, and the verdict.

Tactics 1–10: The Named-in-Policy Zone

1. Keyword stuffing in titles and body copy. Cramming "Taipei movers best cheap moving company" into the title, subheads, and body — early algorithms weighed the literal share of words. Today it has a name, keyword stuffing, and the policy describes the practice directly:

"Keyword stuffing refers to the practice of filling a web page with keywords or numbers in an attempt to manipulate rankings in Google Search results. Often these keywords appear in a list or group, unnaturally, or out of context."

Verdict: explicit violation.

2. Buying and selling backlinks. Link packages, PBNs cross-linking each other — buying links once meant buying rankings. The current characterization: links created primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings are link spam (original: primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings), with "buying or selling links for ranking purposes" as a named example. The explicit exception: ads and sponsored links marked rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored" don't violate the policy (original: It's not a violation of our policies to have such links). Verdict: explicit violation; proper markup is an explicit exception.

3. Guest posts traded for links. Publishing bylined articles or press releases on other sites in exchange for anchor-text backlinks. The current policy lists this directly among the link-spam examples: paid placements or native advertising carrying ranking-passing links, and optimized anchor-text links in articles, guest posts, or press releases (original: optimized anchor text in articles, guest posts, or press releases). Verdict: explicit violation.

4. Mass-produced article spinning. Grabbing other sites' content, dressing it up, and publishing in batches to farm the long tail. Two policies now converge on it: one is scraping — republishing content from other sites without adding any original content or value, or even citing the original source (original: Republishing content from other sites without adding any original content or value, or even citing the original source); the other is scaled content abuse, which the back half of our comparison table rests entirely on:

"Scaled content abuse is when many pages are generated for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users."

Verdict: explicit violation.

5. Machine-translated multilingual mass production. One-click machine translation into a dozen language versions of the site — one production cost, many national markets. The current policy lists "translating" among the automated transformations of scaled abuse: mass-producing pages via synonymizing, translating, or other obfuscation techniques while providing little value to users (original: automated transformations like synonymizing, translating, or other obfuscation techniques). Verdict: high risk. Three elements must hold at once — mass production, little to no value, and ranking manipulation as the primary purpose. Human-reviewed localization that genuinely serves local readers is not in the crosshairs; "one-click machine translation nobody ever looked at" usually checks all three boxes.

6. Buying expired domains for their old authority. Acquiring expired high-authority domains and hanging your own content on them. Current policy: an expired domain bought and repurposed primarily to manipulate rankings with content of little to no value is expired domain abuse (original: repurposed primarily to manipulate search rankings); Google's own example: the domain of a former elementary school site hosting casino content. Verdict: explicit violation, with two elements that must both hold — ranking-manipulation purpose plus content of little to no value; Google states in plain text that an old domain used for a brand-new, original, people-first site is fine. Buying an old domain isn't the crime; selling low-value content under its old signboard is.

7. Renting subdirectories to third parties. Commonly called parasite SEO: the landlord collects rent, the tenant borrows authority. The current policy calls it site reputation abuse: third-party content published on a host site mainly because of that host's already-established ranking signals, gaining rankings it couldn't earn on its own (original: published on a host site mainly because of that host's already-established ranking signals). The exception clause is also official text: merely having third-party content doesn't violate this policy — riding the signals is what constitutes the violation (original: Having third-party content alone isn't a violation of the site reputation abuse policy). Verdict: explicit violation; the test is "why is this content hanging here."

8. Doorway-page factories. One page for every city, every query variant, all funneling to the same destination. Current policy: pages built to rank for specific, similar queries that lead users to intermediate pages less useful than the final destination are doorway abuse (original: They lead users to intermediate pages that are not as useful as the final destination). Verdict: explicit violation.

9. Thin affiliate pages. Pasting the merchant's product descriptions plus an affiliate link, and collecting commissions lying down. Current policy: publishing content with product affiliate links where the descriptions and reviews are copied directly from the original merchant without any original content or added value is thin affiliation (original: copied directly from the original merchant without any original content or added value). Verdict: explicit violation; the same policy makes clear that affiliate sites adding original testing, comparisons, and hands-on reviews are good affiliate sites.

10. Hidden text and links. White text on white, font size zero, CSS pushed off-screen. Current policy: placing content solely to manipulate search engines and not to be easily viewable by human visitors (original: solely to manipulate search engines and not to be easily viewable by human visitors). Verdict: explicit violation. The key element is "solely to manipulate" — the same policy lists legitimate exceptions: accordion menus, tabs, carousels, tooltips, and text for screen readers are all legitimate "hiding," outside the line of fire.

Tactics 11–15: The High-Risk Zone — Elements Must Compound

11. Programmatic long-tail page factories. Template times database, a hundred thousand long-tail question pages overnight — programmatic SEO. Two policies can cover it: the doorway example of "creating multiple sites or pages with slight URL variations to maximize reach for specific queries"; and the first scaled-abuse example, which names generative AI directly — using generative AI tools to produce many pages without adding value for users (original: Using generative AI tools or other similar tools to generate many pages without adding value for users). Verdict: high risk. The elements must compound — mass production, no added value, ranking-manipulation purpose, and (in the doorway case) intermediate pages less useful than the destination; functional pages with real data and real answers are not in this bucket, and the more hollow the template, the more dangerous.

12. Volume first, quality later. Lay down a few thousand low-quality articles to grab rankings first, planning to come back and fix them later. The policy shuts down the "how it was made" excuse outright — this is the signature sentence of the high-risk zone:

"This abusive practice is typically focused on creating large amounts of unoriginal content that provides little to no value to users, no matter how it's created."

Verdict: high risk. Mass production, no value, and manipulative purpose can all hold the moment the content ships; "we'll fix it later" is not a defense.

13. AI-rewriting other people's articles. The efficiency upgrade of pseudo-originality: feed someone else's article to AI, rewrite, republish. The scraping examples wrote this type up long ago: copying content from other sites, modifying it only slightly, and republishing — for example by synonym substitution or automated techniques (original: modify it only slightly (for example, by substituting synonyms or using automated techniques), and republish it). But rewriting is not an automatic death sentence: the rater guidelines explicitly acknowledge valuable paraphrasing — for example, an expert rewriting government policy into plain language (original: Paraphrasing may be valuable) (Source: Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines, official PDF https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf , current version 2025-09-11 = latest). Verdict: high risk. No-value machine rewriting plus ranking-manipulation purpose trips the scraping policy; the guidelines' acknowledgment of valuable paraphrasing is a quality-rating example, not a get-out-of-jail card under the spam policies — two independent rulebooks, and you have to pass both.

14. Outsourced ghostwriting with no editorial review. Content outsourced, unchecked and ungated, hung on an established site to milk its existing authority. This is precisely an official example of site reputation abuse: an established site branching out into a new area primarily using freelance content, riding the host site into rankings it couldn't otherwise earn (original: branches out into a new area primarily using freelance content). Verdict: high risk. Outsourcing itself isn't a violation; the single test is whether the content sits on this site to ride its established ranking signals. Google lists what doesn't count as abuse — columns, reviews, editorials, and other normal editorial operations. Editorial review isn't an element of the policy, but it is what lets you answer honestly: "why is this content on my site?"

15. Flooding content at AI summaries. The newest variant of the old trick: mass-produce content hoping to push your own version into AI Overviews and AI Mode responses. On May 15, 2026, the official changelog stated that the spam policies apply to generative AI responses in Google Search (official changelog, effective 2026-05-15, current version; full citation in the evidence compendium). The current policy's opening, verbatim:

"In the context of Google Search, spam refers to techniques used to deceive users or manipulate our Search systems into featuring content prominently, such as attempting to manipulate Search systems into ranking content highly or attempting to manipulate generative AI responses in Google Search."

Verdict: high risk. This is a clarification of scope, not "appearing in an AI summary is a violation"; what constitutes the violation is still the manipulation itself — but operations that aim to "flood" AI responses are now explicitly within range.

Tactic 16: Depends on Execution — Not Banned; Added Value and Intent Decide

16. Writing articles with AI at scale. The most misquoted item of all, and wrong in both directions: "using AI is a violation" is wrong, and "Google can't touch AI content" is wrong too.

The iron rule of rating, from the rater guidelines:

"Likewise, the use of Generative AI tools alone does not determine the level of effort or Page Quality rating. Generative AI tools may be used for high quality and low quality content creation."

(Source: Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines, official PDF, as above, current version 2025-09-11 = latest)

The tests are motive and added value. The motive side:

"Using automation—including AI—to generate content with the primary purpose of manipulating ranking in search results is a violation of our spam policies."

(Source: Google Search Central blog https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content , published 2023, position unchanged since; current official AI content guidance https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content , current version 2025-12-10)

The value side — the guidelines set out the capital sentence, with a threshold of "all or almost all" plus three "little to no"s, and it doesn't apply unless every part holds:

"The Lowest rating applies if all or almost all of the MC on the page (including text, images, audio, videos, etc) is copied, paraphrased, embedded, auto or AI generated, or reposted from other sources with little to no effort, little to no originality, and little to no added value for visitors to the website."

(Source: same PDF, current version 2025-09-11)

And raters rule even when the production method is uncertain: pages and sites produced at scale, with no originality and no added value for users, should be rated Lowest, no matter how they are created (original: should be rated Lowest, no matter how they are created) (Source: same PDF).

In the other direction, AI plus human-led verification and added value is explicitly allowed. In Google's own black and white:

"not all use of automation, including AI generation, is spam. Automation has long been used to generate helpful content, such as sports scores, weather forecasts, and transcripts."

(Source: same blog, published 2023, position unchanged since)

Should you write with AI? The official FAQ's answer can be copied straight into your content strategy:

"If you see AI as an essential way to help you produce content that is helpful and original, it might be useful to consider. If you see AI as an inexpensive, easy way to game search engine rankings, then no."

(Source: same blog)

Verdict: depends on execution. Same tool, two directions: a page that is almost entirely AI output, with little to no effort, no originality, and no added value, heads toward the Lowest rating; stack mass production and ranking-manipulation purpose on top and it heads toward scaled abuse — quality rating and spam policy are two separate rulebooks, and when things go bad they hit together. In the other direction, AI plus human-led verification, first-hand experience, and named accountability has never been banned — but that is "leaving death row," not a ranking guarantee. What the policies measure was never AI concentration; it is how much you added that nobody else can produce.

4. What the New Rules Ask of You Is Less Than You Think

On May 15, 2026, Google published the guide "Optimizing your website for generative AI features" (Source: Google Search Central AI optimization guide https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide , launched 2026-05-15, current version 2026-07-10). The core position in one line: SEO best practices still apply — generative AI features are rooted in core Search ranking and quality systems (original: rooted in our core Search ranking and quality systems).

The direction to work in: content differentiation — stop producing what everyone already has:

"Don't just recycle what others on the internet have already said, or could easily be produced by a generative AI model."

(Source: same guide, current version 2026-07-10)

The technical side is just fundamentals: content must be crawlable — generative AI models use publicly crawlable content (Source: same guide). Official documentation also states there are no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews and AI Mode — the page just needs to be indexable, meet Search's technical requirements, and be eligible for snippets (Source: Google Search Central, "AI features and your website" https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/ai-features ).

Even more of a relief is the official list of what you don't need to do. Item one, llms.txt:

"You don't need to create new machine readable files, AI text files, markup, or Markdown to appear in Google Search"

(Source: same guide, current version 2026-07-10)

The guide is blunter still: Google Search itself doesn't use these files (original: Google Search itself doesn't use them) (Source: same guide). Item two: no AI-specific markup or special schema needed. Item three: no need to chop content into AI-friendly chunks — chunking and "rewriting content just for AI" are both on the guide's don't-do list (Source: same guide).

Item four needs to be stated precisely, because the market has garbled it. Keep three layers of fact apart: the official advisory exists — the guide lists pursuing inauthentic mentions (original: pursuing inauthentic mentions) among the tactics to ignore (Source: same guide, current version 2026-07-10); it is not a violation category — the current spam policies' category list has no such entry (Source: spam policies, as above, current version 2026-05-15); the "new spam policy category" framing is third-party reporting embellishment (nature label: third-party reporting; full citation in the evidence compendium). In one line: Google is advising you not to waste money on fake buzz — it did not legislate a new rule for it.

The measurement tools are new too. On June 3, 2026, Search Console launched generative AI performance reports, showing your site's visibility inside generative AI features (Source: Google Search Central blog https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2026/06/gen-ai-performance-reports ). Three things: it measures your pages' impressions inside AI Overviews and AI Mode; for now it is impressions only — no separate clicks, click-through rate, query, or ranking breakdowns (Source: Search Console official documentation, full citation in the evidence compendium); and it is rolling out in stages — to a subset of websites first (original: rolling these reports out to a subset of websites) (Source: same blog post). Not seeing the report does not mean you have no exposure in AI features.

The other substantive new mechanism is Preferred Sources: from May 27, 2026, sources users choose for themselves appear clearly labeled inside AI Overviews and AI Mode responses (Source: Google's official blog https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/original-high-quality-content-search/ ). The operating logic shifts with it: rather than guessing at the algorithm, cultivate a base of readers willing to set your site as a preferred source.

5. A Year of Rule Changes on a Timeline: Spam Updates Cut From 26 Days to 2

Over the past twelve months, official actions directly touching content quality, spam policy, and AI features number at least nine, and two signals matter most. First, spam update rollouts have shortened dramatically: August 2025 took 26 days; March 2026 took just 19.5 hours (the fastest in this article's 2025–2026 tracking window); June, 2 days. Rollout duration is not detection speed — Google has not published its detection mechanics — but the whole system visibly runs faster and faster. Second, the same-day double release of May 15, 2026: the spam policy revision explicitly governing generative AI responses and the AI optimization guide landed on the same day — the rules of AI search were set in a single day.

The official text and status-page links for all nine updates are collected in the evidence compendium (https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/google-ai-policy-evidence-20260811.html ). Information boundary: as of August 11, 2026, no new official releases or ranking updates in August (status page history; see the evidence compendium).

6. How Verdicts Land: Aim Slowly, Fire Once

The rules are tightening — how does punishment land? The official machinery has two layers: automated systems detecting continuously, plus human-decided manual actions — taking effect after a Google human reviewer determines a spam policy violation, scoped to some pages or the whole site (original: some or all of that site will not be shown in Google search results), with the site owner notified in Search Console and able to request reconsideration (Source: Google Search Console help https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175 ). The division of labor, in one official sentence:

"Our algorithms are extremely good at detecting spam, and in most cases we automatically discover it and remove it from our search results. However, to protect the quality of our index, we're also willing to take manual action to remove spam from our search results."

(Source: same official help page)

On the algorithmic layer, Google discloses only half the rhythm: when initial detection happens and takes effect has no public documentation; what is in plain text is that "confirmation" is slow — discussing evaluation after site improvements, the original sentence reads:

"Some changes can take effect in a few days, but it could take several months for our systems to learn and confirm that the site as a whole is now producing helpful, reliable, people-first content."

(Source: Google Search Central, Helpful Content system official documentation; full citation in the evidence compendium)

The empirical record, though, is a cliff. On March 5, 2024, a core update shipped alongside the new spam policies (Source: Google Search Central blog https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2024/03/core-update-spam-policies ), and third-party tracking found: within 24 hours, more than 800 sites were deindexed entirely, with a combined roughly 21 million monthly organic visits evaporating (Originality.ai / Search Engine Journal statistics; third-party numbers, not official). Earlier still, the September 2023 Helpful Content Update: in a sample of 671 travel sites, 32% lost over 90% of their traffic, and individual site owners self-reported losing 95% of organic traffic (third-party sample statistics and self-reports, not official).

Put the two halves together and you get this section's title: aim slowly, fire once — a pattern shown by recorded cases, not an officially published mechanism. The official narrative says "the systems keep learning," while in the cases above, what site owners felt was an overnight cliff: enforcement concentrated in the few days of an update rollout, with no warning visible beforehand. The practical lesson to take from this pattern: "nothing has happened yet" is not proof of safety — stop the named tactics early, before the day the system fires.

Two roads back up. Manual actions go through reconsideration: fix, then submit; Google states plainly that most reconsideration reviews take several days or weeks (original: Most reconsideration reviews can take several days or weeks), some cases longer; on how fast rankings recover after passing, Google makes no promise (Source: same official help page). Algorithmic actions have no appeal window; the only official plain text is that "several months to learn and confirm" line. The common interpretation is that you wait for the systems to re-evaluate your site in subsequent updates — that is interpretation, not official verbatim (Source: same system documentation).

7. Self-Check: Ask One Question Per Item — "Am I Still Doing This?"

Take Section 3's sixteen items and ask, one by one, "am I still doing this?" If you land in the explicit-violation tier, stop the old tricks first — shut down the mass-production pipeline and the link-buying channels before talking recovery. If you land in the high-risk tier, check the elements to see whether they compound in your case. For item sixteen, interrogate yourself on added value and intent. When you're done, run the companion piece's ten-minute checkup (https://km.idaeo.ai/ai/ai-slop-selfcheck ); if you've received a manual action notice, take the reconsideration road from the previous section.

8. Closing

Every old SEO trick exploited an old weakness of search engines; the weaknesses are gone now. The new rules ask only one question: strip away the ranking incentive — does this page still deserve to exist? If it does, the page stands on the side that both old search and AI search rules let through — nobody can guarantee exposure or traffic, but at least no red line waits ahead. If it doesn't, no amount of tactic-tweaking will save it.

9. Get a Free Traffic Checkup for Your Site

Don't feel like matching all sixteen items by hand? We turned this audit into a service, in three tiers:

1. Free: enter your URL and email to claim a "traffic checkup invitation code"; a mechanical crawler scans observable signals, checks them item by item against this article's rules, and delivers a report.
2. Paid: the complete old-SEO audit — whole-site scan, all sixteen items individually flagged as violation or high risk.
3. Deep: what machines can't see (link deals, outsourcing quality, the repair roadmap) — human diagnosis and remediation on the IDAEO platform.

The free tier is live now — the entry point is here: https://check.washinmura.jp . Enter your URL and email, claim the invitation code, and the mechanical scan report comes straight back.

Methodology: Official quotes preserving full sentences are taken verbatim from official pages, blogs, PDFs, or status pages, not paraphrased (hyperlink markup on the source pages is stripped in conversion; visible text unchanged); the short English lines marked "original:" are likewise excerpts from the source pages; third-party research, statistics, earnings, and media reports are labeled as such before each statement; the three-tier verdict is this article's classification, not Google's; the yardsticks match the previous two articles. Quotes captured August 11, 2026; policies get revised — before citing, verify against the current version at each link. The complete verbatim compendium of every quote in this article and its companion pieces — 170 entries, with versions and capture dates — is in the evidence compendium: https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/google-ai-policy-evidence-20260811.html .