Vetting donors: AI-content sites vs. human-written publishers

A newer wrinkle in donor quality got discussed.

— A thread flagged the flood of AI-spun donor sites — high publishing cadence, generic posts, thin authorship — and argued they're a near-term ranking liability as quality systems mature.
— Counterpoint from a blog: some AI-assisted sites still rank and pull traffic today, and refusing them shrinks your inventory hard in competitive niches.
— Also circulating: a practical screen — check for a real author bio, original images, and comments, not just word count.

Editor's note: the question isn't 'was AI used' but 'does a human stand behind it' — that's what survives a quality update.

Pick of the week: skip donors with no named author and stock-only imagery; that profile ages worst of all.