Pre-publish scan for blog posts, topic clusters, and programmatic SEO pages before they hit Google's helpful-content classifier. Sentence-level highlights show the lines that read templated, with perplexity and burstiness signals so you can fix the prose instead of guessing at a number. Built for solo SEO writers, freelance content writers, and in-house content agencies. Free to try. No card.
Solo SEO writers shipping ten to thirty pieces a month, freelance content writers serving SEO-focused clients, and in-house content agencies running topic-cluster strategies and programmatic SEO templates all share the same need: a fast pre-publish scan that flags AI-shaped prose before Google's helpful-content classifier does.
SEO writing is the most exposed corner of the content market to AI review because every page is built to rank, and Google has spent two years tightening the screws on what it calls scaled content abuse. The realistic 2026 workflow uses AI assistance for outline and research, writes the prose with a human pass, and pre-scans the output before publication.
Ten to thirty pieces a month across two to five SEO-focused clients. Pro at $14.99 a month yearly gives unlimited scans, 10,000 character pastes, and 90-day history covering a full content engagement. The integrated AI rewriter handles stubborn paragraphs that flag every time without forcing a full rewrite of an article already aligned to a target keyword.
One or two writers running pillar pages plus a cluster of supporting articles. Pre-scanning every piece before it goes to the CMS keeps the cluster on the safe side of the helpful-content classifier and surfaces the specific paragraphs that read templated before they erode topical authority. The PDF export keeps a per-article record for the QA log.
Five to thirty writers shipping fifty or more articles a month across multiple client accounts. Business at $29.99 a month yearly unlocks five seats with shared scan history, REST API access for workflow automation through a CMS or Notion pipeline, an audit log, and white-label PDFs branded to the agency for monthly client reporting.
Google's quality raters score content against E-E-A-T. The helpful-content classifier approximates the same rubric at scale. AI-shaped prose scores low on the same dimensions a detector picks up, which is why pre-scanning correlates with ranking health more than most writers expect.
Google's March 2024 core update folded the standalone helpful-content classifier into the core ranking system and explicitly targeted scaled content abuse: pages produced at high volume with minimal editorial value. Sites publishing bulk AI content with no human pass saw the steepest visibility drops. The signal was clear even if the implementation was opaque: volume without quality stopped working.
The March 2025 helpful-content refresh confirmed the trajectory. Sites that had cleaned up their thin AI content recovered partially. Sites that doubled down on templated programmatic output lost more ground. The cut-off was not AI use itself but the absence of human signal: real first-person experience, concrete examples, specific vocabulary that did not appear in the template.
AI-shaped prose reads low on Experience because it lacks first-person specificity, low on Authoritativeness because it averages across the training corpus, and low on detector scores for the same structural reasons. Sentence-level highlights in TextSight pinpoint the exact paragraphs that read most templated, which are usually the same paragraphs that read weakest on E-E-A-T. Fix one and you tend to lift the other in the same pass.
Pro at $19.99 a month standard, $14.99 a month on yearly, is the right fit for solo SEO writers and freelancers. Business at $39.99 a month standard, $29.99 a month on yearly, fits content agencies and in-house SEO teams. Full details on the pricing page.
Billed $89.88/year — Save $30
Billed $179.88/year — Save $60
Billed $359.88/year — Save $120
Yearly billing saves 25%. View full pricing →
Google extracts from your content into the synthesized answer above the blue links. The pages most often cited share two traits, and both of them happen to be the same traits a detector scores well on. Calibrate for AI Overview citation and your detector score rises as a side effect.
The synthesizer pulls declarative claims supported by concrete evidence. A page that says "topic clusters lifted organic traffic by forty percent for three of our portfolio sites in 2025" gets cited far more often than a page that says "topic clusters can be an effective strategy for many sites." The first reads specific and verifiable. The second reads averaged across a corpus of similar pages.
Generic AI-shaped prose is the worst possible style for AI Overview citation because the synthesizer cannot tell your page apart from the ten others making the same claim in the same words. AI Overviews preferentially cite the one page that phrases the claim distinctively, which is the page that scores well on detector signals: distinctive cadence, specific vocabulary, varied sentence length.
Writing for AI Overview citation and writing to pass a detector are the same writing problem in two different framings. Concrete first-person evidence, specific vocabulary, and structural variance all serve both goals. Pre-scanning before publication catches the paragraphs that would lose both races, which is the same diagnostic for the same fix.
Programmatic SEO is the highest-risk format for an AI-content flag because every page shares the same skeleton. The defence is keeping the human signal concentrated in the parts that vary, and pre-scanning a representative sample of every template before scaling it across hundreds of pages.
Pre-scan a representative sample of five to ten pages from a template before scaling it across hundreds. The sentence highlights expose which template prose reads most flat. Rewrite that scaffolding once and the score lifts across every page generated from it, instead of fixing two hundred individual pages after the helpful-content classifier already flagged the pattern.
Location-specific examples, dated stats, real first-person commentary, and concrete vocabulary that does not appear in the template are where the human signal lives in a programmatic page. The template prose is the lowest-risk place to be flat, because it repeats and pattern-matches. Front-load the human signal where each page actually varies.
Once a template is live across a hundred or more pages, scan a stratified sample of fifty and look at the distribution of Authenticity Scores. A clean template has most pages clustered above seventy with a small tail below. A leaky template has a bimodal distribution where roughly half the pages score well and half score poorly. The half that scores poorly is usually the half where the variable fields were short or generic, and that is the fix lever.
On Business, the REST API plugs into the publish step of a programmatic pipeline. Each generated page gets scanned before it goes live, and any page below the agency floor flags for editor review automatically. This is the only realistic way to keep a programmatic property on the safe side of the helpful-content classifier once page count moves past a few hundred.
Originality.ai is the detector most SEO writers and agencies already know. The headline scores correlate closely with TextSight on long-form content. Three practical differences shape which tool fits which workflow.
TextSight has a real free tier: three scans a day, 5,000 characters per scan, no card, no email. Originality.ai is paid-only past a tiny trial. For SEO writers running a low-volume side gig or testing the workflow before committing, the free tier matters. For agencies running fifty articles a month the paid tiers are comparable in price, with TextSight Business at $29.99 on yearly versus Originality's monthly subscription tiers.
Originality.ai is calibrated primarily for American English. SEO writers serving global clients or writing in non-native English registers see more false positives on Originality than on TextSight. TextSight was tuned against writing samples from non-native English contexts as well, which means English-as-second-language register tends to score more fairly. Worth knowing if your agency staffs across timezones.
Originality.ai pronounces a verdict (likely AI, likely human) alongside the score. TextSight shows the score, the sentence highlights, and the perplexity and burstiness signals, and lets you read the pattern yourself. For SEO teams where the writer and editor disagree about a borderline scan, the no-verdict approach makes the conversation easier because there is no headline judgment to argue about.
If a direct client runs Originality.ai as their QA tool, pre-scanning with TextSight before delivery puts you on the same page without locking you into a paid-only tool. Scores correlate closely on long-form. The five to ten percent gap that occasionally appears on borderline pieces is usually paragraph-level, which the TextSight sentence highlights surface immediately.
Two scan moments matter in an SEO content workflow. The pre-publish scan catches what Google's helpful-content classifier would flag. The pre-handoff scan catches what your client's own QA tool would flag. Both belong in the standard delivery ritual.
Before the article goes into the CMS, scan it in TextSight and read the sentence highlights. Anything below the agency floor (most SEO teams settle on an Authenticity Score of 75 or 80) gets rewritten before publication. This is the scan that protects the ranking. Skipping it on a pillar page is the same risk profile as skipping the schema check or the internal linking pass.
Before the deliverable goes to the client, scan it again and attach the score to the delivery email. Marketing managers and content leads routinely run Originality.ai or GPTZero on contractor drafts before approving an invoice. A pre-scan plus the PDF export on Pro pre-empts the conversation. Once a client receives one delivery with the scan attached, they usually stop running their own check on subsequent pieces because the trust is established.
Once a quarter, bulk-scan the pillar page and every cluster article in a topic cluster as one batch. The distribution of scores tells you which articles are dragging the cluster's topical authority. The articles below seventy are the ones to refresh first when the next content sprint kicks off.
The audit log on the Business tier shows which writer scanned which deliverable, with timestamps, and which scans were exported as PDFs. Useful for quarterly client reviews where the agency wants to demonstrate consistent AI-quality control across the writing team rather than relying on individual judgment.
A single percentage is not a fix path. The TextSight result panel shows which sentences reacted and why, with paragraph-level rollups for longer pieces, so you can edit specific lines instead of rewriting the whole article.
Every sentence is colour-coded by its own AI-likeness score. Red sentences clustered in one paragraph are a stronger signal than scattered yellows. Scattered yellows in otherwise structured prose often just mean a stock transitional phrase. You read the pattern, not just the headline number.
Longer pieces get paragraph-level rollups so you can see which paragraph is dragging the headline score. The intro and the closer are the usual suspects on pillar pages, while the per-item paragraphs are the usual suspects on listicles and comparisons. Targeting the lowest paragraph first is the fastest way to lift the article.
Perplexity is how predictable your word choices are to a language model. Low perplexity reads AI-like. The score is shown per-sentence on Pro, which is the diagnostic context you need to decide whether a flag is real AI residue or a particularly well-rehearsed SEO claim.
Burstiness is how much your sentence length and structure vary across the piece. ChatGPT defaults to uniform medium-length sentences. Real human writing has bursty rhythm: one short sentence, one long, one fragment. Low burstiness across an entire article is the classic AI fingerprint and the same fingerprint Google's helpful-content classifier appears to weight.
More for SEO writers.
How agency teams running fifty-plus pieces a month build the scan into their QA workflow.
For agencies →Sister page for solo and agency content writers focused on client deliverables and brand voice.
For content writers →Side-by-side feature, pricing, and accuracy comparison for SEO teams choosing a detector.
Read the comparison →Free, Starter, Pro, Business. Yearly billing saves 25%. Solo to agency tiers.
See pricing →Free to try. No card. Pro at $14.99 a month on yearly for solo SEO writers; Business at $29.99 a month on yearly for content agencies.