By the DenverSEO.io team · 2026-10-19
In 2026 Google removed FAQ rich results from Search (May 7) and the FAQPage documentation (June 15), stated that Search does not use llms.txt (June 15), tightened review-snippet guidelines against incentivized or undisclosed reviews (July 24), extended aggregator and supplier result units to local business queries (September 18), added a creator property to VideoObject (September 24), updated its guidance on generative AI content (October 1) and launched a UGC Fresh Data Program (October 8). Practical effect: keep FAQPage only where the FAQ is real and visible, audit every Review and AggregateRating node, add creator to video markup, and stop treating any file or markup as an AI shortcut.
May 7: FAQ rich results removed
What changed. The expandable question-and-answer boxes under a result are gone for all sites. Google had already limited them to government and health sites in 2023; the 2026 entry removes the rich result entirely, and the June 15 entry removes the FAQPage documentation from the structured-data gallery.
What to do. You do not have to delete FAQPage markup, and we keep it on pages where the FAQ is real, visible and matches the markup exactly, because typed question-and-answer pairs remain useful to retrieval systems that read schema. What you should delete is FAQ markup that exists only to chase a rich result: hidden FAQs, FAQs that duplicate the page body, and FAQPage nodes on pages with no visible questions. Those were always a parity risk; now they are a parity risk with zero upside. Our schema mistakes note covers the parity test.
June 15: llms.txt is not used by Google Search
What changed. A changelog note stating Google Search does not use llms.txt, alongside the AI guidance that no new machine-readable file is needed.
What to do. Nothing to the file; keep it if you have it. Stop paying for it. The long version is here.
July 24: review snippet guidelines tightened
What changed. The review-snippet documentation now states that markup must not represent reviews that were incentivized, or where an incentive was not disclosed, in addition to the existing rules against self-serving reviews and reviews not visible on the page.
What to do. Audit every Review and AggregateRating node. The common failures we find: an AggregateRating on a service page that aggregates Google reviews not shown on that page; a theme that emits a 5.0 rating from zero reviews; testimonials from a “leave a review, get a discount” campaign, which are now explicitly out of bounds. The rule we use on every site we build: a rating in the markup must be computed from reviews a visitor can read on that page, collected without incentives. If that is not true, the node comes out. This site carries no AggregateRating for that reason.
September 18: aggregator and supplier units cover local business queries
What changed. The result units that show providers and suppliers side by side, which Google introduced for product and service comparisons, are documented as covering local business queries.
What to do. Make sure your LocalBusiness or Service markup is complete and consistent: name, address, telephone, openingHoursSpecification, areaServed, priceRange where you publish one, and the same facts in visible HTML. These units are built from entity data; a thin node gets a thin card or no card.
September 24: VideoObject gains creator
What changed. VideoObject now documents a creator property, so Google can attribute a video to the person or organization that made it, distinct from the page publisher.
What to do. If you embed your own videos, add "creator": {"@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://yoursite/#organization"} to each VideoObject. If you embed someone else’s, name them. Attribution properties are increasingly how Search and AI features decide whose content something is; this is a cheap win.
October 1: generative AI content guidance updated
What changed. Google’s page on using generative AI content was revised, citing the Search Quality Rater Guidelines sections on scaled content abuse (4.6.5) and low-effort main content (4.6.6).
What to do. Not a markup change, but it touches markup indirectly: a hundred near-identical city pages with programmatic FAQPage and Service nodes are exactly the pattern the scaled-content section describes. Fewer, real pages with real facts beat generated ones with perfect schema. Our note on programmatic SEO draws the line we use.
October 8: UGC Fresh Data Program
What changed. A program for sites with user-generated content (forums, Q&A, reviews) to supply fresh data to Google more directly.
What to do. Only relevant if you run a community or review platform. If you do, read the program terms; it is the first formal channel for pushing UGC freshness since the retirement of several older feeds.
The audit we run after a changelog like this
- Validate every page’s JSON-LD (Schema.org validator and the Rich Results Test), and record which rich results each node can still earn. FAQPage: none. Review: only under the tightened rules.
- Parity check: every fact in the markup appears in the visible HTML of the same page.
- Entity graph check: one Organization @id, referenced by WebSite, WebPage, Service and BlogPosting nodes, not five disconnected copies.
- Remove what no longer earns its keep or carries risk: hidden FAQs, unsupported ratings, Product markup on service pages.
- Add the cheap wins: creator on videos, complete LocalBusiness fields, BreadcrumbList on every inner page.
Our schema markup validator produces the connected graph pattern above; the technical SEO services page covers the full audit.