Google Ends Spam Update

Google has completed its September spam update, while new insights from a Search Central event have shed light on how long crawling, indexing and recovery can take. Other recent developments include an updated Google Search Console filter, fresh warnings about fake author profiles and advice on how AI crawlers discover sitemaps.

These updates offer useful guidance for SEO professionals and website owners, particularly when interpreting ranking fluctuations, reporting search performance and diagnosing technical issues.

Google Completes September Spam Update After Nearly 14 Days

Google’s September 2026 spam update finished rolling out on 8 October, following a rollout that began on 24 September.

According to Google’s Search Status Dashboard, the update took approximately 13 days and 16 hours to complete. This was close to the two-week timeframe originally indicated by Google and considerably longer than the three earlier spam updates released in 2026, each of which finished in less than three days.

SEOmonitor, a rank-tracking platform, also reported unusual fluctuations in industry-wide tracking data from 26 September. The platform attributed these changes to incomplete or inaccurate results being returned by Google to automated search tools, rather than necessarily reflecting changes that ordinary users would see in search results.

What should website owners do?

With the rollout now complete, website owners can compare their performance before, during and after the update using the period from 24 September to 8 October as a reference.

However, ranking tracker movements should not automatically be treated as evidence that a website has been affected by the spam update.

SEOmonitor notes that genuine changes associated with spam updates tend to persist across consecutive days and may also appear in Search Console data, including impressions and clicks.

Website owners should therefore examine several sources of evidence before attributing a sudden decline in tracked rankings to Google’s update. Comparing Search Console performance with third-party tracking data can help establish whether a change is affecting actual search visibility or may instead reflect limitations in automated monitoring.

Google Shares Estimated Timescales for Crawling and Recovery

At Search Central Live Deep Dive Europe in Barcelona on 2 October, Google’s Gary Illyes presented timing ranges for crawling, indexing, website migrations and recovery following core updates.

The figures were subsequently shared in an event recap by John Campbell of ROAST, who participated as a community speaker.

According to the recap, the expected timeframes varied considerably depending on the situation.

SEO activity	Typical timeframe reported	Slowest timeframe reported
Website migration	One to three months	Six months to over a year
Recovery following a core update	Three to six months	Six months to one year

These estimates provide a useful point of reference for SEO teams managing migrations or investigating prolonged ranking declines. However, the recap does not explain the sample size, the period covered by the figures or the precise definition of a typical case.

The figures should therefore be treated as indicative ranges rather than guaranteed deadlines.

What do these timeframes mean for SEO?

Website migrations can involve changes to URLs, redirects, internal links and other technical signals that search engines need to process. As a result, it may take time for Google to crawl the new URLs, index the updated pages and reflect the changes in search results.

Similarly, recovering from a core update is not necessarily a quick process. A website may need to address content quality, relevance or other underlying issues before its performance improves.

The ranges shared at the event can help SEO professionals set realistic expectations when discussing progress with clients. For example, a migration that has not fully settled after three months may be approaching the upper end of the typical timeframe reported in the recap.

However, these figures do not establish that every migration or recovery should follow the same schedule. Each website is different, and progress should be assessed using its technical condition, crawling and indexing data, and search performance.

Search Console Introduces Combined Country Filtering

Google has updated the Performance report in Search Console to allow users to select multiple countries and view their combined search traffic.

The change was announced by Google Search Central on 6 October. The updated documentation confirms that users can now select more than one country or device to analyse the combined results.

Previously, teams examining performance across several markets often needed to review countries individually or compare them in separate views. The new filtering option makes it easier to obtain an overall picture of search performance across a group of markets.

The existing Compare feature remains available for examining two countries, devices, Search types or Search appearances side by side. However, the documentation notes that filtering by multiple Search appearances is not supported.

Why is this useful?

The update could make reporting more efficient for international websites and businesses operating across several countries.

Rather than collecting separate figures for each market, SEO teams can use a combined country filter to assess overall search performance across their selected regions.

This may be particularly helpful when preparing reports for clients or internal teams that want to understand how a website is performing across a wider geographical area.

However, combined figures should be interpreted carefully. A positive overall result could conceal declining performance in an individual country, while growth in one market might offset losses elsewhere.

Where regional performance matters, website owners should continue examining individual markets alongside the combined totals.

Google Warns Against Fake Author Profiles

Google has updated its guidance on creating helpful, reliable, people-first content to address the use of fabricated author identities.

The revised guidance warns against misleading practices such as using AI-generated headshots, invented names or false qualifications to make content appear as though it has been written by genuine human experts.

The warning appears alongside Google’s advice on providing accurate authorship information, including appropriate bylines.

Google describes deceptive author information as a sign of a low-quality page. Its Search Quality Rater Guidelines had already identified deliberately misleading information about a website’s content creators as a form of deception.

What should publishers review?

Websites that publish articles under individual author names should ensure their bylines and author profiles accurately represent the people responsible for the content.

This includes checking that profile photographs, professional credentials and biographical details are genuine and do not create a false impression of expertise.

Author pages can help readers understand who created an article and why that person may be qualified to discuss the subject. However, fabricated profiles undermine that purpose by presenting an appearance of credibility that is not supported by reality.

Publishers should therefore review existing author information and correct any details that could mislead readers about the identity or qualifications of a contributor.

The updated guidance reinforces the importance of transparency and accurate representation when demonstrating who is responsible for published content.

Google Explains How AI Crawlers Find Sitemaps

Google’s John Mueller has also discussed how AI training crawlers discover website content and why some valid sitemaps may receive a “Couldn’t fetch” message in Search Console.

Speaking on the 1 October episode of Google’s Search Off the Record podcast with Martin Splitt, Mueller explained that AI training crawlers generally do not provide a dedicated submission console through which website owners can register their sitemaps.

For websites that want these crawlers to discover their content, he suggested using a conventional sitemap filename, such as sitemap.xml, or making content available through an RSS feed.

Mueller also said he had observed AI crawlers accessing sitemap and RSS files in his own server logs.

Why might a sitemap fail to load?

Mueller identified two possible explanations for a valid sitemap displaying a “Couldn’t fetch” status: the load on the hosting server and the level of demand for crawling the website.

He noted that crawl demand is often influenced by how Google perceives a site’s quality. Google’s Search Console documentation also lists low crawl demand among the potential reasons a sitemap may not be fetched.

This means that a fetch error does not necessarily prove that the sitemap itself is broken. Other factors may affect whether Google attempts to retrieve it or successfully processes it.

Website owners should still verify that their sitemap is accessible and correctly configured, but they should also consider server performance and crawling behaviour when investigating persistent errors.

Making sitemaps easier to discover

Using a conventional sitemap filename and making it discoverable through the site’s existing infrastructure can help other systems locate it.

This is especially relevant for AI crawlers that do not offer a dedicated interface for sitemap submissions.

However, making a sitemap available does not guarantee that every crawler will access it or use its contents. Different systems may have their own crawling methods and limitations.

The Bigger Picture: Look Beyond the Labels

Taken together, these developments highlight the importance of understanding the information behind SEO metrics, status messages and labels.

A sudden decline in ranking tracker data does not necessarily mean that a Google update has damaged a website’s visibility. Likewise, the timeframes described at a Search Central event are reference points rather than fixed deadlines, particularly because the recap does not define how typical cases were measured.

Search Console’s new country filtering option also demonstrates why context matters when interpreting figures. A combined total can provide a useful overview, but it may conceal important differences between individual markets.

Meanwhile, Google’s updated author guidance shows that even seemingly straightforward details, such as a byline or profile photograph, can become misleading when they do not accurately represent the person behind the content.

Technical status messages also need to be interpreted carefully. A sitemap marked “Couldn’t fetch” may require investigation, but the message alone does not establish that the file is defective.

For SEO professionals and publishers, the practical lesson is to investigate the evidence behind a reported change before drawing conclusions. Using reliable data, checking the relevant documentation and understanding the limitations of individual metrics can lead to better decisions about website performance and optimisation.