I recently came across some important news from Google that I felt compelled to share with you. As of May 7, 2026, Google will no longer support FAQ rich results. This change means that these helpful snippets will no longer appear in Google Search results.
Additionally, Google Search Console will cease reporting on FAQ structured data, impacting how we track and analyze our content’s performance in search engines.
What Google said: Google has posted a notice on the FAQ structured data developer documentation. They state: FAQ rich results are no longer appearing in Google Search. By June 2026, Google plans to fully drop the search appearance, rich result report, and support in the Rich results test. To provide some adjustment time, support for the FAQ rich result in the Search Console API will be removed by August 2026.
Remove code: You might be wondering what to do with your existing FAQ structured data. The choice is yours—you can remove it from your code, but leaving it might still benefit you if other search engines use it for their own purposes.
Why we care: For me and many others, rich results have been instrumental in increasing web pages’ click-through rates and attracting additional traffic. The discontinuation of FAQ rich results could impact this dynamic.
To gauge the effect on your website, monitor pages with FAQ structured data closely and pay attention to any shifts in your traffic from Google.
Have you noticed a change in how Google displays links and citations in its AI search features? I recently learned about five key updates that aim to enhance our experience with AI Mode and AI Overviews.
According to Hema Budaraju, VP, Product Management at Google, these upgrades are designed to help us connect with authentic voices and access valuable information across the web. She detailed these updates in a recent article.
Let’s dive into the updates rolling out:
(1) Suggested angles at the end of AI responses. Google now suggests further reading options at the end of AI responses. These link to unique articles or analyses that deepen our understanding of the topic. It’s like having a roadmap to satisfy our curiosity!
Here’s a preview of this feature:
(2) Easier access to your news subscriptions. With this update, Google displays links from our news subscriptions prominently. This means I can quickly access content I trust, maximizing the value of my subscriptions. During Google’s early tests, these subscription links significantly boosted click-through rates.
If you’re a publisher, check out the documentation to enable this feature.
Here’s what this looks like in action:
(3) Social media and online discussions now include creator details. When AI features cite social media, Google includes not only the website’s name but also the creator’s name, handle, and community name. This transparency helps me spot firsthand sources at a glance.
Here’s a glimpse of how this plays out:
(4) More links, next to relevant text. Google is increasing the number of links shown directly within AI responses, strategically placing them next to relevant text. This makes it tempting for me to explore these sources further.
Here’s what it looks like:
(5) Hover over inline links for a quick look. Now when I hover over an inline link in Google’s AI features, I get a sneak peek of the website. This could just be the nudge I need to click through and explore further. I remember seeing Google test this back in February and thought it was a brilliant idea.
Here’s an example of the feature:
Why this matters. Google is committed to ongoing testing and refinements, ensuring these features serve us better. I truly believe these changes will promote more engagement with the cited pages, presenting an exciting step forward for both users and the web ecosystem. The real question is, will they meet my expectations?
I find it fascinating that Google’s Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP), which was initially limited to AI Mode, is now expanding into regular search results. It’s not just a fleeting trend; some retailers have already begun integrating this technology into their listing pages, making our online shopping experience even more intuitive.
Earlier this year, Google rolled out UCP for AI-agents to facilitate direct purchases from search results. It first launched exclusively within Google’s AI Mode but now, we’re seeing it implemented in Google’s main search results for retailers who support UCP.
Discovering what the UCP checkout looks like was made easier thanks to a post by Brodie Clark. He shared a screenshot showing how Wayfair’s listings on Google Search now feature a UCP-powered ‘Buy’ button. This button is a game-changer because it allows purchases directly from Google’s interface without navigating to Wayfair’s website.
The UCP protocol is paving the way for seamless transactions by establishing a common language for AI agents and commerce systems. No longer do we have to worry about bespoke integrations across different platforms.
Collaboratively developed with big names like Shopify, Etsy, Wayfair, and Target, UCP aligns with existing standards, such as Agent2Agent and Agent Payments Protocols, creating a more cohesive digital commerce space.
What really excites me is the potential for profit growth for retailers who embrace this technology. Although Wayfair might miss out on direct site traffic for specific searches, their affiliation with Google through UCP can still result in conversions.
While it’s clear that not everyone will bypass the traditional shopping journey, as many of us still prefer exploring products on the retailer’s site, the option to ‘Buy’ directly adds a layer of convenience. It’s definitely something worth monitoring as its prevalence in search results increases.
Have you ever wondered how Google is ensuring the authenticity of AI bots? I recently stumbled upon Google’s latest experimental method, Web Bot Auth, which aims to address exactly that. This project is currently in a limited testing phase, specifically for AI agents hosted on Google’s infrastructure, but it could be expanded in the future.
In Google’s new help document, they clarify that Web Bot Auth is a “new cryptographic protocol that helps websites validate that bots are authentic.” This innovative approach is designed to automate the authentication of AI Agent bots, distinguishing between genuine and fraudulent bots.
Limited test phase: Google’s team mentions they are “testing the protocol with some AI agents hosted on Google infrastructure.” It’s important to note that not all Google user agents are currently using Web Bot Auth, and the company isn’t signing every bot request with this protocol just yet.
What is Web Bot Auth? Defined as “an experimental cryptographic protocol used to authenticate requests sent by bots,” this method moves away from self-reported headers and IP addresses. Instead, it allows agents to sign their requests cryptographically.
According to Google, Web Bot Auth offers several benefits:
Future-proofing: Supporting a trusted environment where agent providers and websites can mutually verify access.
Cryptographic certainty: Transitioning from easily falsified headers to a verified identity, separate from IP addresses.
Better observability: Gaining clear insights into agent interactions with your content.
Why this matters to us: As AI agents continue to proliferate online, managing access to our sites becomes increasingly complex. This new authentication method could effectively distinguish credible AI agents from deceptive ones, ensuring the right entities access our data.
Since Web Bot Auth is still “experimental,” I’ll be keeping an eye on its development. It might just transform how we manage AI bot access in the future.
I recently discovered that back in December, Google introduced read more links for certain search result snippets on Google Search. Now, Google has shared some best practices to help us utilize these ‘Read More’ links effectively.
Digging into the Best Practices: To find these new insights, you can check out the documentation posted here. It outlines three essential tips:
Ensure the content is instantly visible to human visitors, not tucked away behind tabs or expandable sections.
Avoid using JavaScript that governs the user’s scroll position as the page loads. Let your users control their browsing experience.
If you’re calling history API functions or modifying window.location.hash on page load, don’t strip away the hash fragment. This could lead to issues with deep linking.
Visualizing the Concept: Google provided an image illustrating these links. Here’s a glimpse of how they appear:
Let me show you an example of these snippets in action:
Why It Matters to Us: The introduction of read more links adds an alluring touch to search result snippets. The potential for increased website clicks can be significant. Therefore, reviewing these best practices becomes essential for attracting even more visitors to our site.
Ultimately, driving more traffic is always a win, so optimizing your site with these tips could prove beneficial.
I’ve recently come across a noteworthy update from Google, which now enhances the potential impact of our spam reports. Interestingly, these reports are no longer just documentation—they might trigger manual actions against the reported sites. In addition, whatever I write in my report could be shared verbatim with the site owner I’ve reported.
Here’s Google’s Announcement. Google clarified in a note that they may utilize our spam report submissions to undertake manual actions against policy violations. This update makes it clear that spam reports are more critical than ever in maintaining the integrity of Google’s search results.
The updated guidelines specify:
“Ranking manipulation techniques that attempt to compromise the quality of Google’s search results violate our spam policies and can negatively impact a site’s ranking. Google may use your report to take manual action against violations. If we issue a manual action, we send whatever you write in the submission report verbatim to the site owner to help them understand the context of the manual action. We don’t include any other identifying information when we notify the site owner; as long as you avoid including personal information in the open text field, the report remains anonymous.”
Spam Reports Fuel Manual Actions. It seems that Google aims to clarify their usage of spam reports. This is quite the shift from their previous communication, where spam reports didn’t directly lead to manual actions. To me, this feels like more than just a clarification—it’s a significant development in how reports are handled.
Direct Transmission of Spam Report Text. Also, Google stated that the exact text I use in my spam report might be sent to the site owner. They advise us not to include personal details, as my submission remains anonymous unless I disclose such information.
Google emphasizes the importance of keeping sensitive information out of the report to ensure my anonymity is maintained.
Why This Matters to Us. This change could significantly alter how we approach spam reporting on Google. If you’re someone who regularly submits these reports, like I do, it’s essential to understand the new implications and modify your reporting practices accordingly.
You have until June 15, 2026, to remove the back button code before Google starts taking action.
I’ve just heard from Google about a new warning aimed at websites using back button hijacking tactics. These sites have been given a two-month deadline to remove or disable these sneaky techniques. If not, they risk facing manual spam actions or automated demotions in Google Search.
Back button hijacking. Google explained that, when we click the back button in our browser, we expect to return to the previous page. Back button hijacking disrupts this expectation. Google elaborated:
“It occurs when a site interferes with a user’s browser navigation, making it impossible to use the back button to immediately return to the original page. Users might instead be redirected to pages they didn’t visit, shown unsolicited ads or recommendations, or otherwise prevented from browsing normally.”
June 15, 2026. From June 15, 2026, Google will start enforcing this action. Google emphasized, “We prioritize user experience. Back button hijacking interrupts the expected browsing journey and leaves users frustrated. People feel manipulated, and this makes them hesitant to visit unfamiliar sites.”
Why now? Google has observed an increase in this type of behavior. “This is why we are marking it as an explicit violation of our malicious practices policy, which states:”
“Malicious practices create a mismatch between user expectations and the actual outcome, leading to a negative and deceptive user experience, or compromised user security or privacy.”
Google is giving us a two-month notice to implement changes. “By providing this policy now, two months ahead of the enforcement date, we are offering site owners the time needed to make adjustments before June 15, 2026,” Google stated.
Why this matters to me. If I’m using this technique, it’s crucial to remove it from my pages. I have a short window to make these changes before my website might face penalties or corrective actions.
I’ve always been fascinated by how Google keeps improving its search capabilities. Recently, Gary Illyes from Google shared more about Googlebot’s operations, diving into its crawling ecosystem, fetching processes, and how it handles data.
Googlebot Reimagined. It’s intriguing to learn that Google uses multiple crawlers for diverse objectives. Referring to Googlebot as a singular entity might not capture this complexity anymore. You can find more details on the various crawlers and user agents here.
Understanding Limits. During a recent discussion, Google elaborated on its crawling limits. Gary Illyes provided these insights:
Googlebot fetches up to 2MB for any individual URL, except for PDFs.
This means it crawls only up to 2MB of a resource, encompassing the HTTP header.
For PDF files, the limit is notably higher at 64MB.
Image and video crawlers have varied threshold values, contingent on the product they serve.
By default, other crawlers have a 15MB limit, regardless of content type.
What exactly occurs when Google initiates crawling?
Partial Fetching: For HTML files exceeding 2MB, Googlebot will not dismiss the page. Instead, it halts the fetch exactly at the 2MB mark, including HTTP request headers.
Processing the Cutoff: The downloaded section is then forwarded to Google’s indexing systems and the Web Rendering Service (WRS) as if it were the entire file.
The Unseen Bytes: Any data beyond the 2MB cutoff won’t be fetched, rendered, or indexed.
Resource Handling: All referenced resources in the HTML, except media, fonts, and certain files, are fetched by WRS independently, with their own byte count not affecting the parent page’s size.
Rendering Bytes with Google. Once the crawler accesses these bytes, WRS takes over. It processes JavaScript and executes code like a modern browser to grasp the final visual and textual state of the page. This process doesn’t request images or videos but does respect the 2MB threshold for each resource.
Best Practices You might want to embrace these recommended practices:
Streamline Your HTML: Shift large CSS and JavaScript to external files. While the main HTML document is capped at 2MB, external scripts and stylesheets can be fetched separately, under their own constraints.
Prioritize Content: Position crucial elements like meta tags, <title>, <link>, canonicals, and vital structured data high in the HTML to ensure they’re not overlooked.
Monitor Server Logs: Keep track of server response times. If your server struggles to deliver data efficiently, our fetchers may slow down to avoid overloading, reducing crawl frequency.
Don’t Miss the Podcast! Google also released a podcast on this topic. Check it out:
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
This feature is undocumented because, as John put it, “Given how big of a hammer it is, I don’t know if it’s something we should really suggest in the docs.” Essentially, you can block all links from a specific TLD, a top-level-domain, using a special syntax.
Let me break down how it works. You simply add “domain:abc” to your disavow file if you’re certain that you need to block an entire TLD. John shared this insight on his Bluesky post, and it’s a fascinating possibility if you’re often dealing with spammy domains.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
This feature is undocumented because, as John put it, “Given how big of a hammer it is, I don’t know if it’s something we should really suggest in the docs.” Essentially, you can block all links from a specific TLD, a top-level-domain, using a special syntax.
Let me break down how it works. You simply add “domain:abc” to your disavow file if you’re certain that you need to block an entire TLD. John shared this insight on his Bluesky post, and it’s a fascinating possibility if you’re often dealing with spammy domains.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
This feature is undocumented because, as John put it, “Given how big of a hammer it is, I don’t know if it’s something we should really suggest in the docs.” Essentially, you can block all links from a specific TLD, a top-level-domain, using a special syntax.
Let me break down how it works. You simply add “domain:abc” to your disavow file if you’re certain that you need to block an entire TLD. John shared this insight on his Bluesky post, and it’s a fascinating possibility if you’re often dealing with spammy domains.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
As I was exploring Google’s lesser-known features, I came across an intriguing method to disavow an entire TLD using their link disavow tool. John Mueller from Google mentioned this capability, though it’s not officially documented.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
This feature is undocumented because, as John put it, “Given how big of a hammer it is, I don’t know if it’s something we should really suggest in the docs.” Essentially, you can block all links from a specific TLD, a top-level-domain, using a special syntax.
Let me break down how it works. You simply add “domain:abc” to your disavow file if you’re certain that you need to block an entire TLD. John shared this insight on his Bluesky post, and it’s a fascinating possibility if you’re often dealing with spammy domains.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
This feature is undocumented because, as John put it, “Given how big of a hammer it is, I don’t know if it’s something we should really suggest in the docs.” Essentially, you can block all links from a specific TLD, a top-level-domain, using a special syntax.
Let me break down how it works. You simply add “domain:abc” to your disavow file if you’re certain that you need to block an entire TLD. John shared this insight on his Bluesky post, and it’s a fascinating possibility if you’re often dealing with spammy domains.
He did caution, “If you’re sure that it’s what you want to do, you can use ‘domain:abc’ in the disavow file. Keep in mind that you can’t carve out specific domains if you like some, but if you find the TLD is almost only annoying spammers, it’ll save you time.”
However, he also advised, “I’m sure all TLDs have some good sites.” This method is powerful but should be used judiciously. It’s a big decision—like using a sledgehammer when sometimes a chisel might do.
Why should you care about this? If you find a TLD that’s causing issues or is full of low-quality spammy backlinks, disavowing it might just be the clean-up you need. But be cautious—it’s often better to carefully choose which links to disavow and avoid blanket decisions.
For those interested in exploring the disavow tool further, there’s a helpful document available here.
I recently discovered that Google has adjusted its JavaScript SEO guidelines by removing the ‘design for accessibility’ section. This decision was made because the advice was deemed outdated. Nowadays, Google handles JavaScript smoothly.
When Google announced the change, they explained the section was no longer as useful as it once was. Previously, they warned that JavaScript might obscure content from Google, but clearly, that’s not an issue anymore.
The Old Advice. Here’s what the original guidance stated:
“Design for accessibility: Create pages for users, not just search engines. When designing your site, consider users who might not use a JavaScript-capable browser, like those with screen readers or less advanced mobile devices. Test your site’s accessibility by viewing it with JavaScript turned off or in a text-only browser like Lynx. This can help identify content hard for Google to see, such as text in images.”
Why It Was Removed. Google clarified:
“The information was outdated and less helpful. Google Search has successfully rendered JavaScript for years, so using it for content loading doesn’t hinder visibility.”
“Most assistive technologies can now handle JavaScript as well.”
The Importance. Even though Google is adept at processing JavaScript, it’s still critical to verify what Google Search sees. I recommend using the URL inspection tool within Google Search Console to ensure everything checks out.
Remember, while Google and probably Microsoft Bing manage JavaScript efficiently, some emerging AI engines might not render it as effectively.
