My rebuttal to “content must be human” is that the sentence doesn’t even make sense. fail copywriting.
I would have perhaps phrased it as ” content should be written for humans in the first instance, and with search engines and conversion in mind.” – which actually makes sense.
If your copywriters [let’s be honest – they ain’t SEOs by a long shot] decide to make sweeping statements such as “ if your content does contain too many keywords, bold letters and underlines, the engines can pick up that it may be spam and it can actually have an adverse effect” –
where’s the proof / evidence / reference for this? Citations? studies? statistical proof?
SEO is a science – and should be treated as such.
Leave the SEO writing to the SEOs imo, they have a holistic first hand view of the IM landscape, something your copywriters can never dream of. You can’t get someone else to go on a date for you… It’s artificial and fake… And so is this crap.
my 0.10c