文章二證據輯：條文正本

The Google Search Essentials make up the core parts of what makes your web-based content (web pages, images, videos, or other publicly-available material that Google finds on the web) eligible to appear and perform well on Google Search:

Technical requirements: What Google needs from a web page to show it in Google Search.

Spam policies: The behaviors and tactics that can lead to lower ranking or being completely omitted from Google Search results.

Key best practices: The main things that can help improve how your site appears in Google Search results.

Google Search Essentials 由技術要求、垃圾內容政策、主要最佳做法三部分構成，說明網路內容能否在 Google 搜尋中顯示並有良好表現。

把架站與內容檢核分成技術要求、垃圾內容政策、主要最佳做法三欄。

It costs nothing to get your page in search results, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. As long as your page meets the minimum technical requirements, it's eligible to be indexed by Google Search:

Googlebot isn't blocked.

The page works, meaning that Google receives an HTTP 200 (success) status code.

The page has indexable content.

Just because a page meets these requirements doesn't mean that a page will be indexed; indexing isn't guaranteed.

頁面符合最低技術要求時具備被 Google Search 編入索引的資格；三項是 Googlebot 未遭封鎖、頁面回應 HTTP 200 成功狀態碼、頁面具有可索引內容；符合要求不保證一定收錄。

在上線檢核表逐項記錄 Googlebot、HTTP 200、可索引內容與非保證收錄。

A robots.txt file tells search engine crawlers which URLs the crawler can access on your site. This is used mainly to avoid overloading your site with requests; it is not a mechanism for keeping a web page out of Google. To keep a web page out of Google, block indexing with noindex or password-protect the page.

A robots.txt file lives at the root of your site.

The instructions in robots.txt files cannot enforce crawler behavior to your site; it's up to the crawler to obey them.

robots.txt 告訴搜尋引擎檢索器哪些網址可存取，主要用於避免請求使網站超載；它不是讓網頁離開 Google 的機制。robots.txt 位於網站根目錄，且其中指示不能強制檢索器遵守。

將 robots.txt 用途、位置與不能取代 noindex 的限制分開記錄。

User-Agent in HTTP requests\tGoogle-Extended doesn't have a separate HTTP request user agent string. Crawling is done with existing Google user agent strings; the robots.txt user-agent token is used in a control capacity.

Google-Extended is a standalone product token that web publishers can use to manage whether content Google crawls from their sites may be used for training future generations of Gemini models that power Gemini Apps and Vertex AI API for Gemini and for grounding (providing content from the Google Search index to the model at prompt time to improve factuality and relevancy) in Gemini Apps and Grounding with Google Search on Vertex AI.

Google-Extended does not impact a site's inclusion in Google Search nor is it used as a ranking signal in Google Search.

Google-Extended 是獨立的產品符記，可由網站發布者控制 Google 檢索內容是否用於未來 Gemini 模型訓練及 grounding；它沒有獨立 HTTP user agent，且不影響網站納入 Google Search，也不是 Google Search 排名信號。

把 robots.txt 的 Google-Extended 控制範圍與 Google Search 收錄／排名範圍分欄。

If your site's pages are properly linked, Google can usually discover most of your site. Proper linking means that all pages that you deem important can be reached through some form of navigation, be that your site's menu or links that you placed on pages. Even so, a sitemap can improve the crawling of larger or more complex sites, or more specialized files.

You might need a sitemap if:

Your site is large. Generally, on large sites it's more difficult to make sure that every page is linked by at least one other page on the site. As a result, it's more likely Googlebot might not discover some of your new pages.

Your site is new and has few external links to it.

Your site has a lot of rich media content (video, images) or is shown in Google News.

You might not need a sitemap if:

Your site is "small". By small, we mean about 500 pages or fewer on your site. Only pages that you think need to be in search results count toward this total.

Your site is comprehensively linked internally.

You don't have many media files (video, image) or news pages that you want to show in search results.

頁面適當互連時 Google 通常能發現大部分網站；大型、複雜、新站、外部連結少、含大量影音或出現在 Google News 的網站可能需要 sitemap；約 500 頁以下、內部連結完整、沒有許多要出現在搜尋結果的媒體或新聞頁時，可能不需要 sitemap。

按站點規模、內部連結、新舊程度與媒體／新聞內容記錄 sitemap 判定條件。

To be eligible for rich result appearance in Google Search results, structured data shouldn't violate the Content policies for Google Search (which include our spam policies). In addition, this page details the general guidelines that apply to all structured data: they must be followed in order to be eligible for appearance as a rich result in Google Search.

Don't mark up content that is not visible to readers of the page. For example, if the JSON-LD markup describes a performer, the HTML body must describe that same performer.

Don't mark up irrelevant or misleading content, such as fake reviews or content unrelated to the focus of a page.

Don't use structured data to deceive or mislead users. Don't impersonate any person or organization, or misrepresent your ownership, affiliation, or primary purpose.

Specify all required properties listed in the documentation for your specific rich result type. Items that are missing required properties are not eligible for rich results.

structured data 要符合 Google Search 內容政策（包含垃圾內容政策）才能具備 rich result 資格；標記內容須對讀者可見、不可不相關或誤導、不可欺騙或冒充，且須提供特定 rich result 類型要求的所有必要屬性。

將結構化資料與頁面可見內容、相關性、必要屬性及垃圾政策逐項對照。

Site reputation abuse is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site mainly because of that host's already-established ranking signals, which it has earned primarily from its first-party content. The goal of this tactic is for the content to rank better than it could otherwise on its own.

Third-party content is content that's created by an entity that's separate from the established host site. Examples of separate entities include users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, and content created by people not employed directly by the host site.

Having third-party content alone isn't a violation of the site reputation abuse policy; it's only a violation if the third-party content is published on a host site mainly because of that host site's already-established ranking signals.

Site reputation abuse 是第三方內容主要因主站既有、主要由第一方內容取得的排名信號而發布在主站上的手法，目標是讓內容比單獨發布時排名更好；僅有第三方內容本身不構成違反，關鍵在於發布主要是否因主站既有排名信號。

把第三方內容的發布主因與主站既有排名信號作為政策文字對照欄。

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Today, we're announcing three new spam policies against bad practices we've seen grow in popularity: expired domain abuse, scaled content abuse, and site reputation abuse.

To allow time for site owners to prepare for this change, this new policy will take effect starting May 5, 2024.

Tuesday, November 19, 2024

We're making it clear that using third-party content on a site in an attempt to exploit the site's ranking signals is a violation of this policy — regardless of whether there is first-party involvement or oversight of the content. Our updated policy language, effective today, is:

Site reputation abuse is the practice of publishing third-party pages on a site in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site's ranking signals.

Google 於 2024-03-05 公告三項新垃圾政策；Site reputation abuse 首次生效日為 2024-05-05。2024-11-19 Google 更新政策文字，並明示更新文字當日生效。

在引用中並列政策首次公告／首次生效與後續文字更新／生效日期。

Expired domain abuse is where an expired domain name is purchased and repurposed primarily to manipulate search rankings by hosting content that provides little to no value to users. Illustrative examples include, but are not limited to:

Affiliate content on a site previously used by a government agency

Commercial medical products being sold on a site previously used by a non-profit medical charity

Casino-related content on a former elementary school site

Expired domain abuse 是購買到期網域後重新利用，主要藉由放置對使用者幾乎沒有價值的內容操縱搜尋排名；官方列出的例子包括在政府機關舊站放聯盟內容、在非營利醫療慈善機構舊站販售商業醫療產品、在前小學網站放賭場相關內容。

將到期網域用途與內容價值及排名操縱文字逐項比對。

To specify a canonical URL for duplicate or very similar pages to Google Search, you can indicate your preference using a number of methods, in order of how strongly they can influence canonicalization:

Redirects: A strong signal that the target of the redirect should become canonical.

rel="canonical" link annotations: A strong signal that the specified URL should become canonical.

Sitemap inclusion: A weak signal that helps the URLs that are included in a sitemap become canonical.

While we encourage you to use these methods, none of them are required; your site will likely do just fine without specifying a canonical preference.

對重複或非常相似的頁面指定 canonical URL，可用重新導向、rel="canonical" 連結註解、sitemap 等方法；前兩者是強信號，sitemap 是弱信號，且這些方法都不是強制要求。

在重複或相似頁面的紀錄中標示 canonical 偏好與所用官方方法。

If you have multiple versions of a page for different languages or regions, tell Google about these different variations. Doing so will help Google Search point users to the most appropriate version of your page by language or region.

There are three ways to indicate multiple language/locale versions of a page to Google:

HTTP Headers

The three methods are equivalent from Google's perspective and you can choose the method that's the most convenient for your site.

Use hreflang to tell Google about the variations of your content, so that we can understand that these pages are localized variations of the same content. Google doesn't use hreflang or the HTML lang attribute to detect the language of a page; instead, we use algorithms to determine the language.

Each language version must list itself as well as all other language versions.

若頁面有不同語言或地區版本，應告知 Google 這些變體；可用 HTML、HTTP Headers 或 Sitemap，三種方法對 Google 等效。hreflang 用來告知內容變體是同一內容的在地化版本，但 Google 不用 hreflang 或 HTML lang 屬性偵測頁面語言；每個語言版本須列出自己及所有其他語言版本。

多語版本用 hreflang 互列。注意官方同段明講：Google 不靠 hreflang 或 HTML lang 屬性判斷頁面語言，而是用演算法判斷——hreflang 的作用是指出同一內容的在地化版本，不是宣告語言。

Google's core ranking systems look to reward content that provides a good page experience.

There is no single signal. Our core ranking systems look at a variety of signals that align with overall page experience.

Core Web Vitals are used by our ranking systems.

Beyond Core Web Vitals, other page experience aspects don't directly help your website rank higher in search results.

Keep in mind that getting good results in reports like Search Console's Core Web Vitals report or third-party tools doesn't guarantee that your pages will rank at the top of Google Search results.

Google 核心排名系統會獎勵提供良好頁面體驗的內容；不存在單一 page experience 信號，Core Web Vitals 會被排名系統使用，但其他頁面體驗面向不會直接讓網站排名更高，報告得分良好也不保證排名頂端。

在文章中把 Core Web Vitals 定位為排名系統使用的多信號之一，而非單一排名信號或排名保證。

AI is built into Search and integral to how Search functions, which is why robots.txt directives for Googlebot is the control for site owners to manage access to how their sites are crawled for Search. To limit the information shown from your pages in Search, use nosnippet, data-nosnippet, max-snippet, or noindex controls.

To limit AI training and grounding in some of Google's other systems, read more about Google-Extended.

You don't need to create new machine readable files, AI text files, or markup to appear in these features. There's also no special schema.org structured data that you need to add.

AI 已內建於 Search，對 Search 的檢索存取控制使用 Googlebot 的 robots.txt 指示；限制 Search 顯示資訊可用 nosnippet、data-nosnippet、max-snippet 或 noindex。Google 的其他系統中的部分 AI 訓練與 grounding 可參閱 Google-Extended；不需要建立新的機器可讀檔案、AI 文字檔或標記，也不需要新增特殊 schema.org structured data 才能出現在這些功能中。

把 Search AI 顯示控制、其他系統 AI 訓練／grounding 控制與不需新增 AI 檔案分開標記。

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

Using generative AI tools or other similar tools to generate many pages without adding value for users

規模化內容濫用，是指大量產生頁面，其主要目的是操縱搜尋排名而非幫助使用者。這種濫用通常聚焦於製造大量對使用者幾乎沒有價值的不原創內容——無論它是怎麼做出來的。官方例示第一條即為：使用生成式 AI 工具或其他類似工具產生大量頁面，卻未替使用者增加價值。

文章二的核心紅線。判定要件有三個且必須複合成立：規模（many pages）、主要目的（primary purpose 是操縱排名而非幫助使用者）、無價值（little to no value）。官方明講「no matter how it's created」——所以用不用 AI 不是要件，三個要件缺一就不成立。

Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis?

Does the content provide a substantial, complete, or comprehensive description of the topic?

Does the content provide insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond the obvious?

If the content draws on other sources, does it avoid simply copying or rewriting those sources, and instead provide substantial additional value and originality?

Does the main heading or page title provide a descriptive, helpful summary of the content?

Does the main heading or page title avoid exaggerating or being shocking in nature?

Is this the sort of page you'd want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

Would you expect to see this content in or referenced by a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book?

Does the content provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?

Does the content have any spelling or stylistic issues?

Is the content produced well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?

Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don't get as much attention or care?

Does the content present information in a way that makes you want to trust it, such as clear sourcing, evidence of the expertise involved, background about the author or the site that publishes it, such as through links to an author page or a site's About page?

If someone researched the site producing the content, would they come away with an impression that it is well-trusted or widely-recognized as an authority on its topic?

Is this content written or reviewed by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well?

Does the content have any easily-verified factual errors?

內容是否提供原創資訊、報導、研究或分析？內容是否對該主題提供實質、完整或全面的描述？內容是否提供超越顯而易見之處的洞察分析或有趣資訊？如果內容取材自其他來源，是否避免單純複製或改寫那些來源，而是提供實質的額外價值與原創性？主標題或頁面標題是否提供描述性且有幫助的內容摘要？主標題或頁面標題是否避免誇大或具有聳動性？這是否是你會想加入書籤、分享給朋友或推薦的頁面？你是否預期會在紙本雜誌、百科全書或書籍中看到這項內容或其引用？與搜尋結果中的其他頁面相比，內容是否提供實質價值？內容是否有拼字或風格問題？內容製作品質是否良好，還是看起來草率或倉促？內容是否由大量創作者量產或外包，或散布於大型網站網路，使個別頁面或網站沒有得到足夠的關注或照料？內容是否以讓人想要信任的方式呈現資訊，例如清楚的來源、專業能力的證據、作者或發布網站的背景資訊，例如連往作者頁面或網站 About 頁面的連結？如果有人研究製作該內容的網站，他們是否會認為該網站在其主題上受到充分信任或廣泛認可為權威？這項內容是否由一位明確熟悉該主題的專家或愛好者撰寫或審閱？內容是否有任何容易驗證的事實錯誤？

支撐文章二的內容品質與專業性自評問句對照做法。

People-first content means content that's created primarily for people, and not to manipulate search engine rankings. How can you evaluate if you're creating people-first content? Answering yes to the questions below means you're probably on the right track with a people-first approach:

Do you have an existing or intended audience for your business or site that would find the content useful if they came directly to you?

Does your content clearly demonstrate first-hand expertise and a depth of knowledge (for example, expertise that comes from having actually used a product or service, or visiting a place)?

Does your site have a primary purpose or focus?

After reading your content, will someone leave feeling they've learned enough about a topic to help achieve their goal?

Will someone reading your content leave feeling like they've had a satisfying experience?

以人為先的內容，是主要為人而製作，而不是為操縱搜尋引擎排名而製作的內容。如何評估自己是否正在製作以人為先的內容？對下列問題回答「是」，表示你可能正走在以人為先的方向上：你的業務或網站是否有現有或預定的受眾，而這些受眾若直接來到你這裡會覺得內容有用？你的內容是否清楚展現第一手專業經驗與深度知識，例如實際使用過產品或服務，或造訪過某個地方所形成的經驗？你的網站是否有主要目的或焦點？讀完你的內容後，讀者是否會覺得已經學到足夠的主題資訊以協助達成目標？閱讀你內容的人是否會覺得自己獲得了令人滿意的體驗？

支撐文章二的受眾、目的、第一手經驗與讀者完成度欄位。

We recommend that you focus on creating people-first content to be successful with Google Search, rather than search engine-first content made primarily to gain search engine rankings. Answering yes to some or all of the questions below is a warning sign that you should reevaluate how you're creating content:

Is the content primarily made to attract visits from search engines?

Are you producing lots of content on many different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results?

Are you using extensive automation to produce content on many topics?

Are you mainly summarizing what others have to say without adding much value?

Are you writing about things simply because they seem trending and not because you'd write about them otherwise for your existing audience?

Does your content leave readers feeling like they need to search again to get better information from other sources?

Are you writing to a particular word count because you've heard or read that Google has a preferred word count? (No, we don't.)

Did you decide to enter some niche topic area without any real expertise, but instead mainly because you thought you'd get search traffic?

Does your content promise to answer a question that actually has no answer, such as suggesting there's a release date for a product, movie, or TV show when one isn't confirmed?

Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?

Are you adding a lot of new content or removing a lot of older content primarily because you believe it will help your search rankings overall by somehow making your site seem "fresh?" (No, it won't)

Google 建議要在 Google 搜尋中成功，應專注於製作以人為先的內容，而不是主要為取得搜尋引擎排名而製作的搜尋引擎優先內容。對下列部分或全部問題回答「是」，是應重新評估內容製作方式的警訊：內容是否主要為吸引搜尋引擎造訪而製作？你是否大量製作許多不同主題的內容，希望其中一些能在搜尋結果中表現良好？你是否使用大量自動化在許多主題上製作內容？你是否主要總結他人的說法，卻沒有增加太多價值？你是否只是因為某些事看起來正在流行而寫它，而不是因為即使沒有流量你也會為現有受眾寫它？你的內容是否讓讀者覺得需要再次搜尋其他來源以取得更好的資訊？你是否因為聽說或讀到 Google 偏好某個字數，而按照特定字數寫作？（不，我們沒有。）你是否沒有真正的專業能力，卻主要因為認為能取得搜尋流量而決定進入某個小眾主題領域？你的內容是否承諾回答一個實際上沒有答案的問題，例如在產品、電影或電視節目的上映日期尚未確認時暗示有一個日期？你是否在內容沒有實質變更時更改頁面日期，讓頁面看起來是新的？你是否主要因為相信大量新增內容或刪除大量舊內容會讓網站看起來「新鮮」並整體幫助搜尋排名，而這樣做？（不會。）

支撐文章二的搜尋引擎優先風險自評欄位。

Something that helps people intuitively understand the E-E-A-T of content is when it's clear who created it. That's the "Who" to consider. When creating content, here are some who-related questions to ask yourself:

Is it self-evident to your visitors who authored your content?

Do pages carry a byline, where one might be expected?

Do bylines lead to further information about the author or authors involved, giving background about them and the areas they write about?

當內容清楚表明由誰製作時，能幫助人們直觀理解內容的 E-E-A-T。這就是要考慮的「Who」。製作內容時，可問自己以下與 Who 有關的問題：訪客是否一看就知道誰撰寫了內容？在可能需要署名的地方，頁面是否有作者署名？作者署名是否連往有關作者的進一步資訊，提供他們的背景以及他們撰寫的領域？

支撐文章二的作者署名與作者背景呈現欄位。

It's helpful to readers to know how a piece of content was produced: this is the "How" to consider including in your content.

Many types of content may have a "How" component to them. That can include automated, AI-generated, and AI-assisted content. Sharing details about the processes involved can help readers and visitors better understand any unique and useful role automation may have served.

If automation is used to substantially generate content, here are some questions to ask yourself:

Is the use of automation, including AI-generation, self-evident to visitors through disclosures or in other ways?

Are you providing background about how automation or AI-generation was used to create content?

Are you explaining why automation or AI was seen as useful to produce content?

讓讀者知道一段內容是如何製作的很有幫助，這就是要考慮納入內容的「How」。許多類型的內容都可能有「How」成分，包括自動化、AI 生成及 AI 輔助內容。分享涉及的流程細節，可以幫助讀者與訪客更了解自動化所發揮的任何獨特且有用的作用。如果自動化被用來大量生成內容，可問自己以下問題：包括 AI 生成在內的自動化使用，是否透過揭露或其他方式讓訪客一看就明白？你是否提供了自動化或 AI 生成如何被用於製作內容的背景？你是否解釋了為何認為自動化或 AI 對製作內容有用？

支撐文章二的內容產製流程與 AI 使用說明欄位。

"Why" is perhaps the most important question to answer about your content. Why is it being created in the first place?

The "why" should be that you're creating content primarily to help people, content that is useful to visitors if they come to your site directly. If you're doing this, you're aligning with E-E-A-T generally and what our core ranking systems seek to reward.

If the "why" is that you're primarily making content to attract search engine visits, that's not aligned with what our systems seek to reward. If you use automation, including AI-generation, to produce content for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings, that's a violation of our spam policies.

「Why」也許是內容最重要、需要回答的問題。內容一開始為什麼要被製作？「why」應該是你主要為了幫助人們而製作內容；如果訪客直接來到你的網站，這些內容對他們有用。如果你這樣做，通常就與 E-E-A-T 以及 Google 核心排名系統尋求獎勵的內容一致。如果「why」是你主要為了吸引搜尋引擎造訪而製作內容，那就不符合 Google 系統尋求獎勵的方向。如果你使用包括 AI 生成在內的自動化，主要目的是操縱搜尋排名，那是違反垃圾內容政策的行為。

支撐文章二的內容創作目的記錄欄位。

Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trust (E-E-A-T) are all important considerations in PQ rating. The most important member at the center of the E-E-A-T family is Trust.

Trust: Consider the extent to which the page is accurate, honest, safe, and reliable.

Experience: Consider the extent to which the content creator has the necessary first-hand or life experience for the topic. Many types of pages are trustworthy and achieve their purpose well when created by people with a wealth of personal experience. For example, which would you trust: a product review from someone who has personally used the product or a "review" by someone who has not?

Expertise: Consider the extent to which the content creator has the necessary knowledge or skill for the topic. Different topics require different levels and types of expertise to be trustworthy.

Authoritativeness: Consider the extent to which the content creator or the website is known as a go-to source for the topic. While most topics do not have one official, Authoritative website or content creator, when they do, that website or content creator is often among the most reliable and trustworthy sources.

經驗、專業能力、權威性與信任（E-E-A-T）都是頁面品質評估的重要考量。E-E-A-T 家族中心最重要的成員是信任。信任：考量頁面在多大程度上準確、誠實、安全且可靠。經驗：考量內容創作者在該主題上是否具備必要的第一手或生活經驗。許多頁面由具備豐富個人經驗的人製作時，能值得信任並良好達成目的。專業能力：考量內容創作者在該主題上是否具備必要的知識或技能。不同主題需要不同程度與類型的專業能力才值得信任。權威性：考量內容創作者或網站在該主題上是否被認為是首選來源。多數主題沒有單一官方權威網站或創作者，但若有，該網站或創作者通常是最可靠且值得信任的來源之一。

支撐文章二的 E-E-A-T 四要素與第一手經驗辨識欄位。

Highest quality pages serve a beneficial purpose and achieve that purpose very well. The distinction between High and Highest is based on the quality of MC, the reputation of the website and content creator, and/or E-E-A-T.

Highest quality pages have a beneficial purpose.

Highest quality pages are not expected to cause harm.

A page on any topic or any type of website may qualify for Highest.

Give special scrutiny to pages on YMYL topics or websites needing a high level of trust, such as online stores.

Highest quality pages have titles that summarize the page.

The Ads and SC do not block or significantly interfere with the MC on Highest quality pages.

Highest quality pages have adequate information about the website and content creator for the purpose of the page. For stores or websites that process financial transactions, examine the customer service information.

Highest Quality Pages must demonstrate at least one of the following

MC created with a very high level of effort, originality, talent, or skill such that the page achieves its purpose very well.

Very positive reputation of the website for the topic of the page.

Very positive reputation of the content creator for the topic of the MC.

Very high level of E-E-A-T for the purpose of the page.

最高品質頁面具有有益目的，並且非常良好地達成該目的。High 與 Highest 的區別取決於主要內容品質、網站與內容創作者的聲譽，及／或 E-E-A-T。最高品質頁面具有有益目的；預期不會造成傷害；任何主題或任何類型網站的頁面都可能符合 Highest；應特別仔細檢查 YMYL 主題頁面或需要高度信任的網站，例如網路商店；標題會概括頁面；廣告與補充內容不會阻擋或嚴重干擾主要內容；對頁面目的而言，網站與內容創作者有足夠資訊。最高品質頁面必須至少展現以下一項：主要內容以非常高程度的投入、原創性、天賦或技能製作，使頁面非常良好地達成目的；該主題網站具有非常正面的聲譽；主要內容主題的內容創作者具有非常正面的聲譽；或頁面目的具有非常高程度的 E-E-A-T。

支撐文章二的高品質頁面條件對照欄位。

If any of the following are true, the page should be rated Lowest:

The MC is created with little to no effort, has no originality and the MC adds no value compared to similar pages on the web

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. Such pages should be rated Lowest, even if the page assigns credit for the content to another source.

As a reminder, there are many types of effort that people put into content creation, from directly creating the content on the page to building custom page functionality. The criteria "little to no effort" means little to no effort of any type.

The word “copied” refers to the practice of “scraping” content, or copying content from other non-affiliated websites without adding any original content or value to users.

Content on a webpage may be "paraphrased" from another source. We will consider MC to be paraphrased if it contains content that is unoriginal and exists on other pages, with different wording, organization or phrasing. People can paraphrase content manually by rewriting the content from other sources using different words. Automated tools can also be used to create paraphrased content by restating or summarizing the content on other pages.

The Lowest rating applies if there is no significant original content or added value on the page.

若符合以下任一情況，頁面應評為 Lowest：主要內容以極少或沒有投入製作，沒有原創性，且相較網路上的類似頁面沒有增加價值。若頁面全部或幾乎全部主要內容（包括文字、圖片、音訊、影片等）是從其他來源複製、改寫、嵌入、由自動化或 AI 生成，或重新發布，且幾乎沒有投入、原創性與對網站訪客的額外價值，則適用 Lowest；即使頁面將內容歸功於其他來源，也應評為 Lowest。「幾乎沒有投入」包括任何類型的投入都很少或沒有。「copied」指抓取內容，或從非關聯網站複製內容，卻沒有增加任何原創內容或使用者價值。「paraphrased」指內容不具原創性、存在於其他頁面，但用不同文字、組織或措辭呈現；人工改寫或自動化工具重新陳述、總結其他頁面都可能形成改寫；若頁面沒有重大原創內容或額外價值，適用 Lowest。

支撐文章二的複製、改寫、低投入與 AI 生成內容辨識欄位。

The unifying theme for evaluating the quality of the MC is the extent to which the MC allows the page to achieve its purpose and offers a satisfying user experience. For most pages, the quality of the MC can be determined by the amount of effort, originality, and talent or skill that went into the creation of the content. For informational pages and pages on YMYL topics, accuracy and consistency with well established expert consensus is important.

Effort: Consider the extent to which a human being actively worked to create satisfying content. Effort may be direct, such as a person translating a poem from one language to another. Effort may go into designing page functionality or building systems that power a webpage, such as the creation of a page that offers machine translation as a service to users. On the other hand, the automatic creation of thousands of pages by running existing freely available content through existing translation software without any oversight, manual curation, etc., would not be considered to have effort.

Originality: Consider the extent to which the content offers unique, original content that is not available on other websites. If other websites have similar content, consider whether the page is the original source.

Talent or Skill: Consider the extent to which the content is created with enough talent and skill to provide a satisfying experience for people who visit the page.

評估主要內容品質的統一主題，是主要內容在多大程度上讓頁面達成目的並提供令人滿意的使用者體驗。對多數頁面，主要內容品質可由製作內容時投入的程度、原創性及天賦或技能決定。投入：考量人類在多大程度上主動投入製作令人滿意的內容。投入可以是直接投入，例如人把詩從一種語言翻譯成另一種語言，也可以投入於設計頁面功能或建立驅動網頁的系統；相反地，在沒有監督、人工策展等情況下，將現有免費內容透過現有翻譯軟體處理而自動產生數千頁，不算投入。原創性：考量內容在多大程度上提供其他網站沒有的獨特原創內容；若其他網站有相似內容，考量該頁面是否為原始來源。天賦或技能：考量內容是否以足夠的天賦與技能製作，為造訪頁面的人提供令人滿意的體驗。

支撐文章二的投入、原創來源與人工製作痕跡欄位。

Some topics have a high risk of harm because content about these topics could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society. We call these topics “Your Money or Your Life” or YMYL.

YMYL topics may significantly impact or harm one or more of the following:

the person who is directly viewing or using the content

other people who are affected by the person who viewed the content

groups of people or society affected by the actions of people who viewed the content

有些主題具有較高傷害風險，因為關於這些主題的內容可能重大影響人們的健康、財務穩定或安全，或社會的福利或福祉。這些主題稱為「Your Money or Your Life」，或簡稱 YMYL。YMYL 主題可能重大影響或傷害以下一項或多項對象：直接查看或使用內容的人；受查看內容者影響的其他人；受查看內容者行為影響的人群或社會。

支撐文章二的 YMYL 主題辨識與原文對照欄位。

Google's ranking systems aim to reward original, high-quality content that demonstrates qualities of what we call E-E-A-T: expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness.

Our focus on the quality of content, rather than how content is produced, is a useful guide that has helped us deliver reliable, high quality results to users for years.

Focusing on rewarding quality content has been core to Google since we began. It continues today, including through our ranking systems designed to surface reliable information and our helpful content system. The helpful content system was introduced last year to better ensure those searching get content created primarily for people, rather than for search ranking purposes.

When it comes to automatically generated content, our guidance has been consistent for years. Using automation—including AI—to generate content with the primary purpose of manipulating ranking in search results is a violation of our spam policies.

This said, it's important to recognize that 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. AI has the ability to power new levels of expression and creativity, and to serve as a critical tool to help people create great content for the web.

As explained, however content is produced, those seeking success in Google Search should be looking to produce original, high-quality, people-first content demonstrating qualities E-E-A-T.

Google 的排名系統旨在獎勵展現 E-E-A-T 特質的原創、高品質內容；E-E-A-T 是專業能力、經驗、權威性與可信度。Google 關注內容品質而非內容如何製作。獎勵高品質內容自 Google 創立以來一直是核心，包含旨在呈現可靠資訊的排名系統與以人為先的有用內容系統。自動化包括 AI 生成若以操縱搜尋結果排名為主要目的來生成內容，違反垃圾內容政策；但並非所有自動化或 AI 生成都是垃圾內容。無論內容如何製作，想在 Google 搜尋取得成功者都應製作原創、高品質、以人為先並展現 E-E-A-T 特質的內容。

支撐文章二的 AI 產製與內容品質分開記錄做法。

Appropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines. This means that it is not used to generate content primarily to manipulate search rankings, which is against our spam policies.

Automation has long been used in publishing to create useful content. AI can assist with and generate useful content in exciting new ways.

Other systems work to elevate original news reporting. Our systems continue to be regularly improved.

Using AI doesn't give content any special gains. It's just content. If it is useful, helpful, original, and satisfies aspects of E-E-A-T, it might do well in Search. If it doesn't, it might not.

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.

You should consider having accurate author bylines when readers would reasonably expect it, such as to any content where someone might think, "Who wrote this?"

AI or automation disclosures are useful for content where someone might think "How was this created?" Consider adding these when it would be reasonably expected.

適當使用 AI 或自動化不違反 Google 指南；前提不是主要為操縱搜尋排名而生成內容。出版業長期使用自動化製作有用內容，AI 也能以新的方式協助與生成有用內容。其他系統會提升原創新聞報導，Google 系統持續定期改進。使用 AI 不會讓內容獲得特殊優勢；它就是內容。如果有用、有幫助、有原創性並符合 E-E-A-T 的部分特質，可能在 Search 表現良好，否則可能不會。若 AI 是協助製作有用且原創內容的必要方式，可以考慮；若 AI 是便宜、容易的搜尋排名操縱方式，則不應如此使用。讀者合理預期時，應考慮提供準確作者署名；讀者可能想知道「誰寫的？」的內容即屬此類。當讀者可能想知道「這是如何製作的？」時，AI 或自動化揭露有用，在合理預期時可加入。

支撐文章二的 AI 內容、作者署名與產製揭露欄位。

Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?

Are you adding a lot of new content or removing a lot of older content primarily because you believe it will help your search rankings overall by somehow making your site seem "fresh?" (No, it won't)

你是否在內容沒有實質變更時更改頁面日期，讓頁面看起來是新的？你是否主要因為相信大量新增內容或刪除大量舊內容會讓網站看起來「新鮮」並整體幫助搜尋排名，而這樣做？（不會。）

支撐文章二的更新日期與內容實質變更對照欄位。

If an article has been substantially changed, it can make sense to give it a fresh date and time. However, don't artificially freshen a story without adding significant information or some other compelling reason for the freshening. Also, do not create a very slightly updated story from one previously published, then delete the old story and redirect to the new one. That's against our article URLs guidelines.

Show when a page has been updated: If you update a page significantly, also update the visible date (and time, if you display that). If desired, you can show two dates: when a page was originally published and when it was updated.

如果文章有實質變更，給它新的日期與時間可能合理。然而，不要在沒有增加重要資訊或其他令人信服的更新理由時，人為地讓故事看起來更新鮮。也不要從先前發布的文章製作只略微更新的故事，然後刪除舊故事並重新導向到新故事；這違反文章 URL 指南。頁面更新時應顯示更新時間：如果大幅更新頁面，也要更新可見日期與時間；若需要，可以同時顯示頁面原始發布日期與更新日期。

支撐文章二的日期與顯著更新記錄欄位。

Provide evidence such as visuals, audio, or other links of your own experience with what you are reviewing, to support your expertise and reinforce the authenticity of your review.

Discuss the benefits and drawbacks of something, based on your own original research.

Focus on the most important decision-making factors, based on your experience or expertise (for example, a car review might determine that fuel economy and safety are key decision-making factors and rate performance in those areas).

When recommending something as the best overall or the best for a certain purpose, include why you consider it the best, with first-hand supporting evidence.

提供你對所評測事物的自身經驗之視覺、音訊或其他連結等證據，以支持專業能力並加強評測的真實性。根據你自己的原創研究討論某事物的優點與缺點。根據你的經驗或專業能力聚焦最重要的決策因素，例如汽車評測可能判定燃油經濟性與安全性是關鍵決策因素，並在這些方面評分。如果推薦某事物為整體最佳或某一目的最佳，應附上你認為它最佳的理由，以及第一手支持證據。

限評測與推薦類內容。原文限定情境為 what you are reviewing 與 When recommending something，不是所有文章的通則。文章二用法：寫商品評測、服務推薦時的第一手證據欄位。

Google News seeks to reward independent, original journalistic content by giving credit to the originating publisher, as both users and publishers would prefer.

Block or consider canonical for republished content: Republishing refers to when a publisher has permission from another publisher or author to republish an original work, such as material from wire services or in partnership with other publications.

Publishers that allow others to republish content can help ensure that their original versions perform better in Google News by asking those republishing to block or make use of canonical.

Google News also encourages those that republish material to consider proactively blocking such content or making use of the canonical, so that we can better identify the original content and credit it appropriately.

Google News 旨在透過將功勞歸給原始發布者來獎勵獨立、原創的新聞內容，因為使用者與發布者都希望如此。對重新發布的內容，發布者可封鎖或考慮使用 canonical；重新發布是指發布者獲得另一發布者或作者許可，重新發布原創作品，例如通訊社材料或與其他出版物合作的材料。允許他人重新發布內容的發布者，可要求重新發布者封鎖或使用 canonical，協助原始版本在 Google News 中表現更好。Google News 也鼓勵重新發布材料的人考慮主動封鎖這類內容或使用 canonical，以便更好辨識原創內容並適當歸功。

支撐文章二的原創報導歸屬與重新發布標記欄位。

While E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor, using a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T is useful.

E-E-A-T 本身不是一個特定的排名因子，但使用一組能辨識出具備良好 E-E-A-T 內容的因子，是有用的。

破除「E-E-A-T 是排名分數」的流傳說法。文章二用法：不追分數，改為讓經驗、專業、權威、可信在頁面上看得出來（署名、作者背景、第一手證據、引用）。

Generative AI tools may be used for high quality and low quality content creation. For example, a high level of effort may be involved in creating high quality original artwork using Generative AI tools. However, it's also possible to use Generative AI tools to create Lowest quality content with little to no effort, little to no originality, and little to no added value for website vis

生成式 AI 工具可以用於高品質、也可以用於低品質的內容創作。例如，用生成式 AI 工具創作高品質的原創藝術作品，可能投入了高度的努力。然而，同樣也可能出現相反的情形。

文章二最核心的一句：判的是投入與原創性，不是工具。須與最低評級條款（E-B09）併陳，單引前半句即為斷章取義。

Our core ranking systems focus on high-quality content while other systems block spam; our generative AI features depend on both.

我們的核心排名系統聚焦於高品質內容，另有其他系統負責阻擋垃圾內容；我們的生成式 AI 功能兩者都依賴。

文章二整篇主張的官方靠山：被 AI 引用與不被判成垃圾不是兩件事——官方明講生成式 AI 功能同時依賴品質系統與反垃圾系統。所以做對一次，兩邊都拿到。

There's no requirement to break your content into tiny pieces for AI to better understand it.

There's no ideal page length, and in the end, make pages for your audience, not just for generative AI search.

Create non-commodity content that's helpful, reliable, and people-first: Focus on developing unique, expert-led content that provides value beyond common knowledge.

沒有規定要把內容切成小塊讓 AI 更好理解。也沒有理想的頁面長度——說到底，做頁面是為了你的讀者，不是只為了生成式 AI 搜尋。要做的是非通貨式（non-commodity）的內容：有幫助、可靠、以人為本，聚焦在超越常識、由專業帶動的獨特內容。

打掉兩個流傳很廣的 AEO 迷思（為 AI 切塊、追求特定頁長），並給出官方真正要求：非通貨式、專業帶動、超越常識的內容。

To help keep viewers informed about the content they're viewing, we require creators to disclose when they use AI to meaningfully alter or generate photorealistic content.

Creators must disclose GenAI content that:

Makes a real person appear to say or do something they didn’t do.

Alters footage of a real event or place.

Generates a realistic scene that didn’t actually occur.

This could include content that is fully or partially altered or created using AI tools.

To help keep viewers informed about the content they're viewing, we require creators to disclose content that is generated or meaningfully altered with AI when it appears realistic.

YouTube 要求創作者在使用 AI 大幅改變或生成逼真內容時揭露；必須揭露的情形包括讓真人看似說／做了未做的事、改變真實事件或地點的影像、以及生成實際未發生的逼真場景；內容可為全部或部分由 AI 改變或建立。

文章二的做法：在逼真 AI 內容的發布流程保留揭露判斷。

Creators don’t need to disclose non-realistic content that’s made with AI, or edits to realistic content that are minor. Minor edits are ones that are primarily aesthetic, and don't alter the content in a way that could mislead the viewer about what actually happened.

Examples of content, edits, or video assistance that creators don’t need to disclose:

Not realistic

Someone riding a unicorn through a fantastical world

Green screen used to depict someone floating in space

Using an AI-generated or altered animation of a missile in a fully animated video

Applying beauty filters

Color adjustment or lighting filters

Special effects filters, like adding background blur or vintage effects

Production assistance, like using generative AI tools to create or improve a video outline, script, thumbnail, title, or infographic

Caption creation

Video sharpening, upscaling or repair and voice or audio repair

Idea generation

Cloning one’s own voice to create voice overs or dubs

Gameplay footage from video games

AI generating or extending a backdrop to simulate a moving car

Using effects to enhance previously recorded audio

Keep in mind, the above list is not exhaustive.

YouTube 說，以 AI 製作的非逼真內容，以及主要是美學層面的輕微修改，不需要揭露；頁面列出濾鏡、製作輔助、字幕、修復、構想生成、自聲複製、遊戲畫面、背景延伸與既有音訊效果等例子，並說明清單不完整。

文章二的做法：區分非逼真內容／輕微美學修改與逼真重大改變。

Note: Creators who make a post or YouTube Short using YouTube's generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools don't need to take extra steps to disclose the use of altered or synthetic content. The tool will automatically disclose the use of AI for creators. Learn more about disclosing use of altered or synthetic content.

使用 YouTube 生成式 AI 工具製作貼文或 Shorts 的創作者，不必另行採取揭露變造或合成內容的步驟；工具會替創作者自動揭露 AI 的使用。

文章二的做法：把平台工具的自動揭露與人工揭露分開記錄。

We will begin adding “AI info” labels to a wider range of video, audio and image content when we detect industry standard AI image indicators or when people disclose that they’re uploading AI-generated content. (Updated on July 1, 2024 to reflect the revised label)

For content that we detect was only modified or edited by AI tools, we are moving the “AI info” label to the post’s menu. We will still display the “AI info” label for content we detect was generated by an AI tool and share whether the content is labeled because of industry-shared signals or because someone self-disclosed.

Our “Made with AI” labels on AI-generated video, audio and images will be based on our detection of industry-shared signals of AI images or people self-disclosing that they’re uploading AI-generated content.

We agree that providing transparency and additional context is now the better way to address this content. The labels will cover a broader range of content in addition to the manipulated content that the Oversight Board recommended labeling.

We will keep this content on our platforms so we can add informational labels and context, unless the content otherwise violates our policies.

When fact-checkers rate content as False or Altered, we show it lower in Feed so fewer people see it, and add an overlay label with additional information.

Meta 說會依產業標準訊號或使用者自我揭露，對更廣泛的影音內容加上「AI info」標籤；僅由 AI 修改的內容標籤移至貼文選單，AI 生成內容仍顯示標籤並說明標籤來源。Meta 表示除非違反政策，會保留內容以加入資訊標籤與脈絡；但被查證為不實或變造的內容會在動態消息中降低顯示，並加上覆蓋標籤。

文章二的做法：把「AI 標示」與「查證後分發處置」分成不同欄位。

TikTok is starting to automatically label AI-generated content (AIGC) when it's uploaded from certain other platforms. To do this, we're partnering with the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) and becoming the first video sharing platform to implement their Content Credentials technology.

Labeling helps make that context clear—which is why we label AIGC made with TikTok AI effects, and have required creators to label realistic AIGC for over a year.

Starting today, we're expanding auto-labeling to AIGC created on some other platforms by launching the ability to read Content Credentials, a technology from the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). Content Credentials attach metadata to content, which we can use to instantly recognize and label AIGC.

Other platforms that adopt Content Credentials will be able to automatically label it.

We're vigilant against those risks, which is why our policies firmly prohibit harmfully misleading AI-generated content—whether it's labeled or not—and signed an industry pact this year to combat the use of deceptive AI in elections.

TikTok 開始在特定其他平台上傳的 AIGC 上自動加標籤，並以 C2PA Content Credentials 的中繼資料識別與標示；TikTok AI 特效製作的 AIGC 會標示，創作者也被要求標示逼真 AIGC。政策禁止有害誤導的 AI 生成內容，不論是否有標籤。

文章二的做法：同時保留創作者標籤與 C2PA 自動標籤來源。

Synthetic and Manipulated Media: You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label posts containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context. Learn more.

X 規定不得欺騙性分享可能造成傷害的合成或操縱媒體；X 也可能為含有合成與操縱媒體的貼文加標籤，協助使用者理解真實性並提供額外脈絡。

文章二的做法：把媒體是否合成／操縱及其標示脈絡留在內容紀錄中。

For the past several months, we have experimented with displaying a label on image Pins that we detect may have been generated or modified using Gen AI. We’re also testing tools to help users manage their experience with Gen AI content on the platform. Now, Pinterest is rolling out these features globally.

Adding a label on AI-modified or generated images is one of the ways Pinterest is helping users more clearly identify this type of content. Now, when users click on an image Pin in closeup, they will see an “AI modified” label at the bottom left corner. To do this, we not only analyze an image’s metadata, but also developed classifiers that automatically detect Gen AI content, even if the content doesn’t have obvious markers.

As we refine these classifiers, our labels will become even more helpful and accurate. However, we know these systems aren’t perfect. This is why we set up an appeals system for creators and users who believe that their content may be mislabeled.

Pinterest 說會對偵測為可能由 GenAI 生成或修改的圖片 Pin 顯示標籤，並全球推出；圖片近看時會顯示「AI modified」，判定同時使用中繼資料與自動偵測分類器。由於系統不完美，Pinterest 為認為內容可能被誤標的創作者與使用者設置申訴制度。

文章二的做法：在圖片出處資料旁保留標籤判定與誤標申訴紀錄。

We require you to inform us of AI-generated content (text, images, or translations) when you publish a new book or make edits to and republish an existing book through KDP. AI-generated images include cover and interior images and artwork. You are not required to disclose AI-assisted content. We distinguish between AI-generated and AI-assisted content as follows:

AI-generated: We define AI-generated content as text, images, or translations created by an AI-based tool. If you used an AI-based tool to create the actual content (whether text, images, or translations), it is considered "AI-generated," even if you applied substantial edits afterwards.

AI-assisted: If you created the content yourself, and used AI-based tools to edit, refine, error-check, or otherwise improve that content (whether text or images), then it is considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” Similarly, if you used an AI-based tool to brainstorm and generate ideas, but ultimately created the text or images yourself, this is also considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” It is not necessary to inform us of the use of such tools or processes.

You are responsible for verifying that all AI-generated and/or AI-assisted content adheres to all content guidelines, including by complying with all applicable intellectual property rights.

KDP 要求新書出版或編輯後重新出版時申報 AI 生成的文字、圖片或翻譯；封面、內頁圖片與美術作品也包含在 AI 生成圖片內。若作者自己創作內容，再用 AI 編輯、潤飾、檢錯、改進或腦力激盪，KDP 定義為 AI-assisted，不要求申報；以 AI 產生實際內容，即使事後大量修改，仍是 AI-generated。所有 AI-generated／AI-assisted 內容仍須符合內容指南與適用的智慧財產權要求。

文章二的做法：在出版資料中分開記錄 AI-generated 與 AI-assisted。

We allow the responsible use of AI-assistive technology on Medium. AI assistance empowers an author to level up—to make their ideas clearer, for example, or help them express themselves in a second language.

We require that any story incorporating AI assistance be clearly labeled as such. AI-assisted text without a disclosure will similarly be restricted to distribution on the author’s personal network.

AI-generated images must include captioning identifying them as such.

Do I need to disclose the use of AI-assistance such as grammar or spell checkers, outline assistance, or fact verification?

No, you do not need to disclose this use. You must disclose if you are using text or images generated by AI

If you have used AI-generated written content in your story, you can just include a simple sentence within the first two paragraphs. For example, “This story was written with the assistance of an AI writing program.”

Medium 允許負責任地使用 AI 輔助工具，但要求含有 AI 輔助的故事清楚標示；未揭露的 AI 輔助文字會限制在作者個人網絡分發。AI 生成圖片須以圖說標明。語法／拼字檢查、綱要輔助、事實核查等 AI 輔助不用揭露，但使用 AI 生成的文字或圖片必須揭露。

文章二的做法：把 AI 輔助工具與 AI 生成素材的揭露條件分開。

AI disclosures for music with industry-standard credits

Many listeners want more information about what they’re listening to and the role of AI technology in the music they stream. And, for artists who are responsibly using AI tools in their creation processes, there’s no way on streaming services for them to share if and how they’re using AI. We know the use of AI tools is increasingly a spectrum, not a binary, where artists and producers may choose to use AI to help with some parts of their productions and not others.

What we’re announcing: We’re helping develop and will support the new industry standard for AI disclosures in music credits, developed through DDEX. As this information is submitted through labels, distributors, and music partners, we’ll begin displaying it across the app. This standard gives artists and rights holders a way to clearly indicate where and how AI played a role in the creation of a track—whether that’s AI-generated vocals, instrumentation, or post-production.

This change is about strengthening trust across the platform. It’s not about punishing artists who use AI responsibly or down-ranking tracks for disclosing information about how they were made.

Because we depend on artist disclosure, the absence of a credit doesn’t mean AI wasn’t used.

Spotify 支持由 DDEX 發展的音樂 credits AI 揭露業界標準，當唱片公司、發行商與音樂夥伴提交資料後，會在 App 顯示；標準可指出 AI 在人聲、樂器或後製中的角色。Spotify 說這不是懲罰負責任使用 AI 的藝人，也不是因揭露製作方式而降低曲目排名；沒有 credit 不代表沒有使用 AI。

文章二的做法：在音樂 credits 留存 AI 參與位置與揭露狀態。

Some voices in the tech industry believe copyright should be abolished. We don’t. Musicians’ rights matter. Copyright is essential. If the music industry doesn’t lead in this moment, AI-powered innovation will happen elsewhere, without rights, consent, or compensation.

All products forged through this collaboration will put artists and songwriters first, through these four principles:

Partnerships with record labels, distributors, and music publishers: We’ll develop new products for artists and fans through upfront agreements, not by asking for forgiveness later.

Choice in participation: We recognize there’s a wide range of views on use of generative music tools within the artistic community. Therefore, artists and rightsholders will choose if and how to participate to ensure the use of AI tools aligns with the values of the people behind the music.

Fair compensation and new revenue: We will build products that create wholly new revenue streams for rightsholders, artists, and songwriters, ensuring they are properly compensated for uses of their work and transparently credited for their contributions.

Spotify 表示版權重要，AI 創新不應在沒有權利、同意或補償的情況下進行；合作產品原則包括事前與唱片公司／發行商／音樂出版商協議、由藝人與權利人選擇是否及如何參與、以及對作品使用提供適當補償並透明標示貢獻。

文章二的做法：在音樂 AI 使用紀錄旁保留權利、同意、補償與 credits 欄位。

5.3.1. 2.4 - April 2026

This version introduces new asset format support, new assertions, and a new JSON-based serialization for Content Credentials, alongside clarifications and improvements to actions, ingredients, live video, and cryptography.

The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) addresses the prevalence of misleading information online through the development of technical standards for certifying the source and history (or provenance) of media content.

C2PA 官方規格頁的版本歷史標示目前頁面版本為 2.4，發布月份為 2026 年 4 月；此版本加入新的資產格式支援、新 assertions，以及 Content Credentials 的 JSON 序列化，並釐清／改進 actions、ingredients、live video 與 cryptography。

文章二的做法：在出處欄記錄 C2PA 規格版本 2.4 與 2026 年 4 月版本日期。

Name(en-GB): Digital Source Type

Definition(en-GB): Indicates from which source a digital image was created.

Name(en-GB): Edited using Generative AI

Definition(en-GB): Augmentation, correction or enhancement using a Generative AI model, such as with inpainting or outpainting operations

Name(en-GB): Created using Generative AI

Definition(en-GB): Digital media created algorithmically using an Artificial Intelligence model trained on captured content

Name(en-GB): Composite including generative AI elements

Definition(en-GB): Mix or composite of several elements, at least one of which is Generative AI

IPTC Digital Source Type 詞彙表定義數位圖片的建立來源，並列有「使用生成式 AI 編輯」、「使用生成式 AI 建立」及「包含生成式 AI 元素的合成」等詞彙。

文章二的做法：在圖片中繼資料使用 IPTC Digital Source Type 詞彙。

You can find image details on Google Search when the image owner provides it or if there’s data about the image’s origin attached to the content. Image details might include image credits, copyrights, and license details.

Digital Source, credit, creator, and copyright info: Come from an image file, through a standard called the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC). For more details on Digital Source field,refer to The Newscode Schema from IPTC.

Some images may contain data that shows if they were generated with AI or captured with a camera. This info can come from either:

C2PA: A technical standard that traces the origin of content.

SynthID: A digital watermark embedded on some AI-generated images.

Tip: You can find this info in Learn more about an image when it exists.

Google 說，圖片擁有者提供資料或內容附有出處資料時，Google Search 可顯示圖片細節；Digital Source、credit、creator 與 copyright 資訊可來自 IPTC。圖片是否由 AI 生成或由相機拍攝的資料，可能來自 C2PA 或 SynthID。

文章二的做法：在圖片頁面保留可讀的出處資訊與機器可讀中繼資料。

More and more Shopping data is created using generative AI tools, and we now require some types of product data to be identified as being AI-generated.

All images created using generative AI must contain meta data indicating that the image was AI-generated by using the IPTC DigitalSourceTypeTrainedAlgorithmicMedia metadata tag.

Important: Don't remove embedded metadata tags such as the IPTC DigitalSourceType property from images created using generative AI tools, for example Product Studio. The following IPTC NewsCodes specify the type of digital source that was used to create the image, and should be preserved:

TrainedAlgorithmicMedia: The image was created using a model derived from sampled content.

CompositeSynthetic: The image is a composite that includes synthetic elements.

AlgorithmicMedia: The image was created purely by an algorithm not based on any sampled training data (for example, an image created by software using a mathematical formula).

When using AI-generated content for the title and description text attributes, an alternative attribute must be used instead of, or in addition to, the existing title [title] or description [description] attribute.

Merchant Center 表示愈來愈多購物資料是用生成式 AI 工具建立，因此現在要求某些類型的商品資料須標明為 AI 生成。所有以生成式 AI 建立的圖片，必須以 IPTC DigitalSourceTypeTrainedAlgorithmicMedia 中繼資料標籤標示該圖為 AI 生成，且不得移除這類嵌入的中繼資料標籤。以 AI 生成的標題與描述文字，必須改用或併用一個替代屬性（an alternative attribute），而非沿用原本的 title 或 description 屬性。

限 Merchant Center 商品資料。AI 生成的商品標題與描述須改用替代屬性；圖片須保留 IPTC 中繼資料標記。

AI regulations in certain regions require that certain AI-generated or edited assets include disclosures and/or labels that inform consumers that content was made with AI.

The AI label setting allows you to disclose assets as AI generated or edited. Ads that contain assets that you designate as AI-generated or edited will then include a disclosure in the “How this ad was made” section in the My Ad Center panel.

In some geographies AI labels will also show on the ad itself. Content using these assets will be labeled when shown in regions requiring visible labels. Disclosures will note that this content was created or edited with AI wherever the content shows.

Google may label your assets in some cases, such as in regions where Google itself is legally required to do so, or when we get signals to do so from other platforms.

Labeling with this feature might impact whether this content appears on some experiences.

When you use Google’s fully-automated features to create and serve creatives, assets may be labeled as AI created or edited on your behalf to assist with your compliance.

In any of these cases, labels cannot be overwritten.

Google 說，部分地區的 AI 規範要求 AI 生成或編輯資產有揭露／標籤；AI label 設定可將資產揭露為 AI 生成或編輯，廣告會在「How this ad was made」中顯示。某些地區會在廣告本身顯示標籤；Google 也可能依法律要求或其他平台訊號自動標籤，且此功能可能影響內容在部分體驗中的顯示，標籤不能覆寫。

文章二的做法：在商品廣告資產記錄揭露位置與平台自動標籤狀態。

2. Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated. Providers shall ensure their technical solutions are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as this is technically feasible, taking into account the specificities and limitations of various types of content, the costs of implementation and the generally acknowledged state of the art, as may be reflected in relevant technical standards. This obligation shall not apply to the extent the AI systems perform an assistive function for standard editing or do not substantially alter the input data provided by the deployer or the semantics thereof, or where authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences.

第 2 款：包括通用人工智能系統在內、生成合成音訊、影像、影片或文字內容的人工智能系統提供者，應確保人工智能系統的輸出以機器可讀格式標記，並可被辨識為人工生成或操縱。提供者應在技術可行範圍內，考量各類內容的特性與限制、實施成本及一般公認的技術現狀，確保其技術方案有效、可互操作、穩健且可靠；相關技術標準可能反映該技術現狀。本義務不適用於人工智能系統對標準編輯執行輔助功能、未實質改變部署者提供的輸入資料或其語義的範圍，或法律授權其用於偵測、預防、調查或起訴刑事犯罪的情形。

限 AI 系統提供者（Providers of AI systems）。原文義務主體是產出合成內容的 AI 系統提供者，不是一般網站經營者——一般網站對應的是 Article 50(4) 的揭露義務（見 E-D02）。文章二用法：說明你用的 AI 工具是否已內建機器可讀標記，屬於選工具的判準，不是你自己要開發標記。

4. Deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content constituting a deep fake, shall disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offence. Where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous work or programme, the transparency obligations set out in this paragraph are limited to disclosure of the existence of such generated or manipulated content in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work.

Deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates text which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest shall disclose that the text has been artificially generated or manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences or where the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content.

5. The information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be provided to the natural persons concerned in a clear and distinguishable manner at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure. The information shall conform to the applicable accessibility requirements.

第 4 款：生成或操縱構成深度偽造之影像、音訊或影片內容的人工智能系統部署者，應揭露該內容係人工生成或操縱。若內容屬明顯的藝術、創意、諷刺、虛構或類似作品或節目，本款透明度義務限於以不妨礙作品展示或欣賞的適當方式揭露存在此類生成或操縱內容。以告知公眾公共利益事項為目的而發布、由人工智能系統生成或操縱的文字，其部署者應揭露該文字係人工生成或操縱；但法律授權偵測、預防、調查或起訴刑事犯罪，或內容經人工審查／編輯控制且由自然人或法人對發布負編輯責任時，不適用。第 5 款：第 1 至第 4 款所述資訊，最遲應在首次互動或接觸時，以清楚且可區分的方式提供給相關自然人，並符合適用的無障礙要求。

文章二：把深度偽造與公共利益文字的人工生成／操縱揭露，放在首次接觸可辨識的內容資訊中。

Document 32024R1689

OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

文件 32024R1689。2024/1689 號《官方公報》L 輯，2024 年 7 月 12 日，ELI：http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj。

文章二：在引文旁保留 CELEX、OJ 與 ELI 文件識別資訊。

PART 465—RULE ON THE USE OF CONSUMER REVIEWS AND TESTIMONIALS

This rule is effective October 21, 2024.

第 465 部分——消費者評論與證言使用規則。日期：本規則於 2024 年 10 月 21 日生效。

文章二：在評論與證言欄位旁保留規則正式名稱、法規部別與生效日。

§ 465.2 Fake or false consumer reviews, consumer testimonials, or celebrity testimonials.

(a) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to write, create, or sell a consumer review, consumer testimonial, or celebrity testimonial that materially misrepresents, expressly or by implication:

(1) That the reviewer or testimonialist exists;

(2) That the reviewer or testimonialist used or otherwise had experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial; or

(3) The reviewer's or testimonialist's experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial.

第 465.2 條 假或虛假的消費者評論、消費者證言或名人證言。第 (a) 款：企業書寫、創作或銷售在明示或暗示上重大失實陳述下列事項的消費者評論、消費者證言或名人證言，屬不公平或欺騙性行為並違反本部分：(1) 評論者或證言者存在；(2) 評論者或證言者使用過評論或證言所涉產品、服務或企業，或有其他相關經驗；或 (3) 評論者或證言者對所涉產品、服務或企業的經驗。

文章二：評論資料保留評論者存在性與實際使用經驗的可核對欄位。

(a) A covered provider shall offer the user the option to include a manifest disclosure in image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created or altered by the covered provider’s GenAI system that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The disclosure identifies content as AI-generated content.

(2) The disclosure is clear, conspicuous, appropriate for the medium of the content, and understandable to a reasonable person.

(3) The disclosure is permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove, to the extent it is technically feasible.

(b) A covered provider shall include a latent disclosure in AI-generated image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created by the covered provider’s GenAI system that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) To the extent that it is technically feasible and reasonable, the disclosure conveys all of the following information, either directly or through a link to a permanent internet website:

(A) The name of the covered provider.

(B) The name and version number of the GenAI system that created or altered the content.

(C) The time and date of the content’s creation or alteration.

(D) A unique identifier.

(2) The disclosure is detectable by the covered provider’s AI detection tool.

(3) The disclosure is consistent with widely accepted industry standards.

(4) The disclosure is permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove, to the extent it is technically feasible.

第 (a) 款：涵蓋提供者應提供使用者選項，讓使用者在其 GenAI 系統建立或改動的影像、影片、音訊或其組合內容中加入明示揭露，且揭露須辨識內容為 AI 生成、清楚醒目、適合內容媒介並讓合理人可理解，並在技術可行範圍內永久存在或極難移除。第 (b) 款：涵蓋提供者應在其 GenAI 系統建立的 AI 生成影像、影片、音訊或其組合內容中加入潛在揭露；在技術可行且合理範圍內，直接或經永久網站連結傳達提供者名稱、建立或改動內容的 GenAI 系統名稱與版本號、內容建立或改動的時間與日期、唯一識別碼；揭露須可由提供者的 AI 偵測工具偵測、符合廣泛接受的業界標準，並在技術可行範圍內永久存在或極難移除。

文章二：把 manifest 與 latent disclosure 分成可見欄位和內容／中繼資料欄位記錄。

This chapter shall become operative on January 1, 2026.

This chapter shall become operative on August 2, 2026.

(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 674, Sec. 6. (AB 853) Effective January 1, 2026.)

本章原章法文字為「本章應於 2026 年 1 月 1 日開始施行」；現行法典文字為「本章應於 2026 年 8 月 2 日開始施行」；修正註記為「由 2025 年法規第 674 章第 6 節（AB 853）修正，2026 年 1 月 1 日生效」。

文章二：在 SB 942 日期欄並列原章法文字、現行法典文字與 AB 853 修正註記。

3111. On or before January 1, 2026, and before each time thereafter that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made publicly available to Californians for use, regardless of whether the terms of that use include compensation, the developer of the system or service shall post on the developer’s internet website documentation regarding the data used by the developer to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(a) A high-level summary of the datasets used in the development of the generative artificial intelligence system or service, including, but not limited to:

(1) The sources or owners of the datasets.

(2) A description of how the datasets further the intended purpose of the artificial intelligence system or service.

(3) The number of data points included in the datasets, which may be in general ranges, and with estimated figures for dynamic datasets.

第 3111 條：在 2026 年 1 月 1 日或之前，並在其後每次將 2022 年 1 月 1 日或之後發布的生成式人工智能系統或服務，或其重大修改版本，公開提供加州居民使用之前，不論使用條件是否包含報酬，該系統或服務的開發者應在其網站發布關於開發者用於訓練該系統或服務之資料的文件，包括但不限於以下內容：(a) 用於開發該系統或服務的資料集高層摘要，包括：(1) 資料集來源或所有者；(2) 資料集如何服務人工智能系統或服務預定目的的說明；(3) 資料集所含資料點數量，可使用一般範圍，動態資料集則附估算數字。

限自行開發或提供該生成式 AI 系統／服務者。原文義務主體是 developer of the system or service，且要求張貼在 developer 自己的網站。一般網站經營者引用第三方 AI 工具寫作，無此法定義務。文章二用法：只有自建或微調模型的網站才需要這一頁。

第三条 人工智能生成合成内容是指利用人工智能技术生成、合成的文本、图片、音频、视频、虚拟场景等信息。

人工智能生成合成内容标识包括显式标识和隐式标识。

显式标识是指在生成合成内容或者交互场景界面中添加的，以文字、声音、图形等方式呈现并可以被用户明显感知到的标识。

隐式标识是指采取技术措施在生成合成内容文件数据中添加的，不易被用户明显感知到的标识。

第十四条 本办法自2025年9月1日起施行。

發布單位為國家互聯網信息辦公室、工業和信息化部、公安部、國家廣播電視總局。人工智能生成合成內容是利用人工智能技術生成、合成的文字、圖片、音訊、影片、虛擬場景等資訊；標識包括顯式標識與隱式標識。顯式標識是在內容或互動場景介面中以文字、聲音、圖形等方式加入、可被使用者明顯感知的標識；隱式標識是以技術措施加入生成合成內容檔案資料、不易被使用者明顯感知的標識。本辦法自 2025 年 9 月 1 日施行。

文章二：把顯式標識與隱式標識分列為內容標識欄位。

第四条 服务提供者提供的生成合成服务属于《互联网信息服务深度合成管理规定》第十七条第一款情形的，应当按照下列要求对生成合成内容添加显式标识：

（一）在文本的起始、末尾或者中间适当位置添加文字提示或者通用符号提示等标识，或者在交互场景界面、文字周边添加显著的提示标识；

（二）在音频的起始、末尾或者中间适当位置添加语音提示或者音频节奏提示等标识，或者在交互场景界面中添加显著的提示标识；

（三）在图片的适当位置添加显著的提示标识；

（四）在视频起始画面和视频播放周边的适当位置添加显著的提示标识，可以在视频末尾和中间适当位置添加显著的提示标识；

（五）呈现虚拟场景时，在起始画面的适当位置添加显著的提示标识，可以在虚拟场景持续服务过程中的适当位置添加显著的提示标识；

（六）其他生成合成服务场景根据自身应用特点添加显著的提示标识。

服务提供者提供生成合成内容下载、复制、导出等功能时，应当确保文件中含有满足要求的显式标识。

第五条 服务提供者应当按照《互联网信息服务深度合成管理规定》第十六条的规定，在生成合成内容的文件元数据中添加隐式标识，隐式标识包含生成合成内容属性信息、服务提供者名称或者编码、内容编号等制作要素信息。

鼓励服务提供者在生成合成内容中添加数字水印等形式的隐式标识。

第 4 條：在指定情形下，服務提供者應按文字、音訊、圖片、影片、虛擬場景及其他服務場景的規定位置或介面周邊加入顯式提示；提供下載、複製、導出功能時，應確保檔案含有符合要求的顯式標識。第 5 條：服務提供者應依《互聯網信息服務深度合成管理規定》第 16 條，在生成合成內容檔案中繼資料加入隱式標識，包含內容屬性、服務提供者名稱或編碼、內容編號等製作要素；鼓勵加入數字水印等形式的隱式標識。

文章二：把文字、音訊、圖片、影片與虛擬場景的顯式標識位置，以及檔案中繼資料的隱式標識，分開記錄。

网络安全技术 人工智能生成合成内容标识方法

Cybersecurity technology—Labeling method for content generated by artificial intelligence

GB 45438-2025

发布 于 2025-02-28

实施 于 2025-09-01

網絡安全技術——人工智能生成合成內容標識方法；英文名為「網絡安全技術——人工智能生成內容的標識方法」；標準號 GB 45438-2025；發布於 2025 年 2 月 28 日，實施於 2025 年 9 月 1 日。

文章二：在標準索引欄保留 GB 標準號、正式名稱、發布日與實施日。

인공지능 발전과 신뢰 기반 조성 등에 관한 기본법

[시행 2026. 1. 22.] [법률 제20676호, 2025. 1. 21., 제정]

부칙 <법률 제20676호, 2025. 1. 21.>

제1조(시행일) 이 법은 공포 후 1년이 경과한 날부터 시행한다. 다만, 제2조제4호라목 중 디지털의료기기에 관한 부분은 2026년 1월 24일부터 시행한다.

〈人工智能發展與信賴基礎建立等基本法〉；[施行 2026 年 1 月 22 日] [法律第 20676 號，2025 年 1 月 21 日制定]。附則第 1 條：本法自公布後滿一年之日起施行；但第 2 條第 4 款 d 目中關於數位醫療器材的部分，自 2026 年 1 月 24 日施行。

文章二：在韓國法規索引欄保留韓文正式名稱、法律號與施行日。

제31조(인공지능 투명성 확보 의무) ① 인공지능사업자는 고영향 인공지능이나 생성형 인공지능을 이용한 제품 또는 서비스를 제공하려는 경우 제품 또는 서비스가 해당 인공지능에 기반하여 운용된다는 사실을 이용자에게 사전에 고지하여야 한다.

② 인공지능사업자는 생성형 인공지능 또는 이를 이용한 제품 또는 서비스를 제공하는 경우 그 결과물이 생성형 인공지능에 의하여 생성되었다는 사실을 표시하여야 한다.

③ 인공지능사업자는 인공지능시스템을 이용하여 실제와 구분하기 어려운 가상의 음향, 이미지 또는 영상 등의 결과물을 제공하는 경우 해당 결과물이 인공지능시스템에 의하여 생성되었다는 사실을 이용자가 명확하게 인식할 수 있는 방식으로 고지 또는 표시하여야 한다. 이 경우 해당 결과물이 예술적ㆍ창의적 표현물에 해당하거나 그 일부를 구성하는 경우에는 전시 또는 향유 등을 저해하지 아니하는 방식으로 고지 또는 표시할 수 있다.

④ 그 밖에 제1항에 따른 사전고지, 제2항에 따른 표시, 제3항에 따른 고지 또는 표시의 방법 및 그 예외 등에 관하여 필요한 사항은 대통령령으로 정한다.

第 31 條（確保人工智能透明度義務）：(一) AI 業者欲提供使用高影響人工智能或生成式人工智能的產品或服務時，應事先告知使用者產品或服務係基於該人工智能運作。(二) 提供生成式人工智能或利用其的產品／服務時，應標示其結果係由生成式人工智能生成。(三) 利用人工智能系統提供難以與真實區分的虛擬聲音、影像或影片等結果時，應以使用者能明確認知該結果由人工智能系統生成的方式告知或標示；若結果屬藝術或創意表現物或其一部分，可用不妨礙展示或欣賞的方式告知或標示。(四) 事先告知、標示、告知或標示的方法及例外等必要事項，由總統令規定。

生成式 AI 標示義務。但同條第 4 款明訂：事前告知、標示的方法及其例外，由總統令另定——引用時須附此但書，不可講成已經確定的絕對義務。

See if your site has any manual actions issued against it and view the site's manual action history.

If a site has a manual action, some or all of that site will not be shown in Google search results.

To fix a manual action on your site:

Expand the manual action description panel on the report for more information.

See which pages are affected.

See the type and short description of the issue, and follow the "Learn more" link to see detailed information and steps to fix the issue. (You can find the detailed information for each action below on this page).

Fix the issue on all affected pages. Fixing the issue on just some pages will not earn you a partial return to search results. If you have multiple manual actions on your site, read about and fix all of them.

Here are the manual actions that can be applied by Google and how to fix them.

處置類型逐項原文：`Back button hijacking`; `Site abused with third-party spam`; `User-generated spam`; `Spammy free host`; `Structured data issue`; `Unnatural links to your site`; `Unnatural links from your site`; `Thin content with little or no added value`; `Cloaking and/or sneaky redirects`; `Major spam problems`; `Cloaked images`; `Hidden text and/or keyword stuffing`; `AMP content mismatch`; `Sneaky mobile redirects`; `News and Discover policy violations`; `Site reputation abuse`。

查看網站收到的人工處置及人工處置歷史；若有人工處置，網站全部或部分內容可能不會顯示在 Google 搜尋結果中。報告可查看受影響頁面、問題類型與簡短說明，以及各項處置類型。

文章二可引用為「以 Search Console 手動處置報告核對受影響頁面與處置類型」的做法。

A reconsideration request is a request to have Google review your site after you fix problems identified in a manual action or security issues notification.

When all issues listed in the report are fixed in all pages, select Request Review in this report. In your reconsideration request, describe your fixes. A good request does three things:

Explains the exact quality issue on your site.

Describes the steps you've taken to fix the issue.

Documents the outcome of your efforts.

Most reconsideration reviews can take several days or weeks, although in some cases, such as link-related reconsideration requests, it may take longer than usual to review your request.

You will be informed by email when we receive your request, so you'll know it is active. You will also receive an email when the review is complete. Please don't resubmit your request before you get a decision on any outstanding requests.

重審請求是在修正人工處置或安全問題通知所指出的問題後，請 Google 重新審查網站。所有頁面的所有問題修正後，請在報告中選取 Request Review；請說明確切品質問題、已採取的修正步驟及修正結果。多數審查需數日或數週，連結相關請求有時更久；Google 會以電子郵件通知收件與完成，不要在未有決定前重送。

文章二可引用為「修正後以重審請求記錄問題、修正步驟與結果」的做法。

The generative AI performance report shows data about how your site performs in generative AI features on Google Search.

See how your organic impressions from Search generative AI features changes over time

See what pages are getting the highest (or lowest) impressions in generative AI features

Understand where your generative AI impressions are originating (for example, by device or country)

The generative AI performance report includes impressions for the following generative AI capabilities on Google Search:

AI Overviews

Not all properties have access to the report, as we're rolling out over time.

Your site hasn't received enough impressions in generative AI features on Google Search.

生成式 AI 成效報表顯示網站在 Google 搜尋生成式 AI 功能中的成效資料，可查看曝光次數隨時間變化、哪些頁面曝光最高或最低，以及曝光來源（例如裝置或國家／地區）。報表包含 AI Overviews 與 AI Mode；Google 表示仍在逐步推出，並非所有資源都能使用，網站也可能因生成式 AI 功能曝光不足而看不到報表。

文章二可引用為「以 Search Console 生成式 AI 報表記錄頁面與曝光資料」的做法。

Today, we're excited to announce the launch of new Search Generative AI performance reports in Search Console, including dedicated reports for Search and Discover, to help you understand your site's visibility within generative AI features on Search.

The new Search Console reports are designed to give you dedicated views of your impressions within generative AI features on Search, such as AI Overviews and AI Mode, as well as generative AI features in Discover.

We are rolling these reports out to a subset of websites, allowing us to thoroughly test them and receive feedback before making them widely available.

Dates: Monitor your performance over time with hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly granularity.

Google 宣布在 Search Console 推出新的搜尋生成式 AI 成效報表，包括 Search 與 Discover 的專屬報表；報表可查看 AI Overviews、AI Mode 等生成式 AI 功能的曝光。Google 表示先向部分網站推出，以測試並收集意見，再廣泛提供；日期資料可按每小時、每日、每週與每月粒度查看。

文章二可引用為「把生成式 AI 曝光按日期粒度留存作為監測資料」的做法。

Google issues a manual action against a site when a human reviewer at Google has determined that pages on the site are not compliant with Google's spam policies.

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.

Most manual actions address attempts to manipulate our search index. Most issues reported here will result in pages or sites being ranked lower or omitted from search results without any visual indication to the user.

Google 表述，人工處置是在 Google 的人工審查員判定網站頁面不符合垃圾內容政策時發出；演算法在多數情況下會自動發現垃圾內容並從搜尋結果移除，但 Google 也會採取人工處置。多數人工處置涉及操縱搜尋索引，可能使頁面或網站排名降低或不出現在搜尋結果中，而且使用者介面不一定有明顯提示。

文章二可引用為「分開記錄演算法偵測與人工處置」的做法。

YouTube Partner Program participation was suspended

You can appeal this decision within 21 days or re-apply to the program 90 days after suspension. Follow these general guidelines:

Start by going to the Earn section of YouTube Studio to read more about the policy your channel violated.

Then, review your videos against our YouTube channel monetization policies, advertiser-friendly content guidelines, and our Community Guidelines.

The next step is to edit or delete any videos that violate our policies

If you re-apply, our review team will carefully look over your content again. We'll email you to let you know when the process is complete (it takes about a month). You can also check the status of your application in the Earn section of YouTube Studio.

YouTube Partner Program 參與資格被停用時，可在 21 天內申訴，或在停用 90 天後重新申請。官方頁要求前往 YouTube Studio 的 Earn 區查看違反的政策，按營利政策、廣告友善內容指南與社群規範檢查影片，並編輯或刪除違規影片；重新申請時，審查約一個月，結果以電子郵件通知，也可在 Earn 區查看狀態。

文章二可引用為「以 YouTube Studio Earn 區與申訴期限記錄營利資格狀態」的做法。

For warnings and strikes, you can appeal for 6 months after the warning or strike was issued. For content removals, you have up to 1 year after your content was removed to submit an appeal.

Sign in to YouTube Studio.

On the left Menu, click Content.

Go to the video that you want to appeal.

Hover over the Notice, and click the provided link.

Enter your reason for appealing and click Submit.

Note: Deleting the video will not resolve the strike. If you delete your video, the strike will remain on your channel and you won't be able to appeal again.

Note: Creators have up to 1 year from the date their channel was terminated to submit an appeal. There is also a limit on how many times you can appeal a single channel termination.

警告與 Strike 可在發出後 6 個月內申訴；內容移除可在移除後 1 年內申訴。影片申訴流程包括登入 YouTube Studio、進入 Content、選取影片、在 Notice 上使用申訴連結並提交理由。刪除影片不會消除 Strike，且刪除後不能再次申訴。頻道終止可在終止日起 1 年內申訴，單一頻道終止的申訴次數也有限制。

文章二可引用為「分別保存 YouTube 警告、Strike、內容移除及頻道終止的申訴期限」的做法。

To appeal Content Monetization Policies for an individual piece of content, you can submit an appeal using the Monetization Policies Appeal form.

To appeal Partner and Content Monetization Policy issues from your phone using the Facebook app:

Tap the Facebook monetization violation notification you received. On the Policy issues page, you will have a Restricted monetization alert with the option to Request review.

Tap Request review.

You will be taken to an Appeals page. On this screen, you can submit an appeal for the violations currently restricting your monetization.

You can view violations by tapping each policy under Current policy violations. If you think we made a mistake and wish to appeal, you can tap Request a review to appeal all the listed violations at once, or tap on each individual violation to learn more and request a review one at a time.

針對單一內容的 Content Monetization Policies，可使用 Monetization Policies Appeal form 申訴。Meta 的手機流程是點選營利違規通知，在 Policy issues 頁的 Restricted monetization 警示選 Request review，再於 Appeals 頁提交申訴。Instagram 頁面則說明可在 Current policy violations 下點選政策；若認為判定錯誤，可選 Request a review 一次申訴全部列出的違規，或逐項申請審查。

文章二可引用為「保存 Meta／Instagram 營利違規頁面與 Request a review 入口」的做法。

查無可逐字核對的官方正文。

查無可逐字核對原文，未形成可引用做法。

查無可逐字核對的官方正文。

查無可逐字核對原文，未形成可引用做法。

Having third-party content alone isn't a violation of the site reputation abuse policy; it's only a violation if the third-party content is published on a host site mainly because of that host site's already-established ranking signals.

單純使用第三方內容本身不違反網站信譽濫用政策；只有當第三方內容之所以被發布在寄主網站上，主要是為了利用該寄主網站既有的排名信號時，才構成違規。

外包、代筆、客座內容的責任判準。官方明講「有第三方內容」本身不違規，違規要件是「發布動機主要在於借用寄主站既有排名信號」。文章二用法：外包內容的收稿與掛載準則。

Google 官方查無任何量化發文頻率門檻。已查過的官方頁面沒有「每日／每週發文數量上限」，也沒有「每天超過 50 篇即自動判定」的表述。與陷阱題最接近且實際命中的官方原文是 LAB-FALSE 所列的 scaled content abuse 段落：判定以「many pages」「primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users」「large amounts of unoriginal content」「little to no value」及列舉要件表述，未列出發文數字。

官方查無任何量化發文頻率門檻。已核對的官方頁沒有每日或每週文章數量上限，也沒有每天超過 50 篇即自動判定的規則；官方以目的、原創性、對使用者的價值及列舉的內容生成方式表述 scaled content abuse。

文章二可引用為「不把未见於官方页面的发文数字门槛写成 Google 规则」的做法。