The quarterly marketing review
A clinic website rarely goes wrong because someone edited it. It goes wrong because the rules and the search engine moved underneath it, and nobody looked.
Counted from Google's own RSS feed, 1 September 2026
Google's Search Central documentation feed logged 35 changes between 6 January and 31 August 2026, across 30 separate dates. The median gap was seven days. The longest quiet stretch in eight months was 25 days.
Google Search Status Dashboard
The February 2026 Discover update, the March spam update, the March core update, the May core update, the June spam update and the August spam update. Across the full twelve months there were seven, and the longest gap between any two was 56 days.
The argument for 90 days
Review quarterly and one review has about 13 documented changes and two ranking updates to explain. That is a question you can answer. Review annually and it is about 54 changes and nine updates. Nobody can reason about that.
Google's changelog, 8 May 2026
Google's entry says the feature "will no longer appear in Google Search starting May 7, 2026", and the documentation was removed on 15 June. Keep the Q&A content, because AI answer engines read it. Stop paying anyone to win the rich result.
What ages fastest
Practitioner titles, because people leave and registration lapses. Reviews, because new ones arrive every quarter. Anything naming a prescription-only substance. And an offer whose terms expired last year.
The template, 90 minutes
Your numbers. What you changed. What changed underneath you. The section 133 compliance sweep. A public register check on every named practitioner. The quarter's reviews and captions. Then one decision, with one owner.
What a first review usually finds
Three pages nobody remembers publishing, one practitioner who left in April, and an offer that expired in 2025. That is a good result. It means the review is doing the job the calendar was supposed to do.
Tap for the full template, with every source.