Every guide to Google Discover hands you a list. Add this tag. Set up this markup. Submit this feed. Build these backlinks.

Google's own documentation says something much smaller, and it says it in the first paragraph of the page:

"Content is automatically eligible to appear in Discover if it is indexed by Google and meets Discover's content policies. No special tags or structured data are required. Note that being eligible to appear in Discover is not a guarantee of appearing."

That is the requirement. Indexed, and inside the content policies. There is no third thing.

Which means the useful question is not "how do I optimise for Discover". It is this:

1  Is the page indexed?              you can fix this
2  Does the page break a policy?     you can check this
3  Will Google choose it?            not up to you

Almost everything written about Discover is aimed at line 3, and line 3 is the one nobody can act on. The rest of this page is lines 1 and 2, in Google's words, including the parts of the documentation that get skipped, one image measurement that most sites get wrong by about forty pixels, and a change to the system that landed in February 2026 and has not been written about for beginners.

What that sentence rules out

Worth saying plainly, because the internet says otherwise.

There is no Discover tag. There is no meta tag, no header, no file, no verification step. You cannot declare yourself Discover-ready.

There is no Discover structured data. The page says "no special tags or structured data are required", and it is not being modest. There is no such type. Schema.org does not have an item called Discover, and Google does not read one. If you want a sense of how much weight a tag carries once Google stops using it, the FAQ rich result is the useful comparison: the feature was removed and the markup was not.

There is nothing to submit. Compare it with the things that do have a submission: a sitemap is submitted, a new URL can be requested for indexing, a feed can be added. Discover has none of that. There is no queue to join.

"Eligible" is not "chosen". The same sentence ends with "not a guarantee of appearing", which is Google saying the quiet part directly. You can pass both conditions today and see nothing tomorrow, and that is the documented behaviour rather than a fault.

So if you have been treating Discover as a thing you install, you have been doing work on a system that does not have an installation step. The only lever you have is the same lever you have in search: a page worth indexing that does not break a rule.

What carries over from search

There is one more sentence on the page, and it is the one that tells you what to actually spend your time on:

"As part of Google Search, Discover makes use of many of the same signals and systems used by Search to determine what is helpful, people-first content. Given this, those looking for success with Discover should review our advice on creating helpful, reliable, people-first content."

That is Google pointing at its own guidance page and calling it the Discover guidance. There is not a second set of rules for the feed. Which is good news twice over. It means the work you do for search is the work that counts here, and it means there is no Discover-shaped gap in your site that a different set of tricks could fill.

The same document lists what that guidance rewards, and the short version is effort, originality, and first-hand experience. If any of that sounds like it is describing something other than length and frequency, that is because it is: a page that could only have been written by someone who did the thing is not the same object as a page that summarises people who did.

The second condition is the one people fail

Everyone understands the first condition. Get indexed. It is a whole subject of its own, and the short version is that a page Google crawled is not automatically a page Google kept, which is the difference between the crawl and the index and the thing that holds up most new sites.

The second condition is where Discover differs from what people expect, because it is not one policy. It is a stack of them.

"To help ensure Google Discover is a helpful experience for everyone, to be eligible, content should follow best practices for Discover and must not violate Google Search's overall policies, Google Search's spam policies, or these policies for Search features"

Read the shape of that. Your page has to clear Google's overall policies, its spam policies, and the policy list that applies to Search features, and then Discover adds three rules of its own. Three is a small number, and they are not the ones people worry about.

One: the preview must not promise something the page does not deliver.

"We don't allow preview content that misleads users to engage with it by promising details which aren't reflected in the underlying content."

That is a policy, not advice. It covers the title, the snippet and the image together, because those three are what a person sees before they decide. If the headline asks a question the article never answers, the mismatch is the violation.

Two: the ads must not be bigger than the article.

"Advertising and other paid promotional material on your pages should not exceed your content."

And the part that catches affiliate sites:

"Sponsorship, including, but not limited to, ownership or affiliate interest, payment, or material support, should be clearly disclosed to readers."

Note what that word covers. Affiliate interest counts as sponsorship. It has to be disclosed, and it has to be disclosed in a way a reader can find, which in practice means the page they are on rather than a sentence in a footer nobody opens.

Three: a reader has to be able to find out who wrote this.

"Visitors to your site want to trust and understand who writes and publishes the content they read. That's why news sources on Google should provide:"

Followed by the list, in full:

Clear dates and bylines
Information about the authors, publication, and publisher
Information about the company or network behind the content
Contact information

Four items, and they are the cheapest four things on this page. A published date that a machine can read, a name on the article, a page about who that person is, and a way to get in touch. Most sites have two of them by accident and have never thought about the other two.

There is also a fifth policy surface that only applies once people follow you, and it is written on the same page:

"If users choose to follow your website, your content will appear in the "Following" feed unless it violates Google Search's overall policies or any of these policies for Search features"

And the consequence, stated once:

"When we find content or behavior that violates these policies, we may remove the content from Discover. In cases of repeated or egregious violations, a site may no longer be eligible for Discover or Discover surfaces such as "Articles for you" in Google Chrome."

Where you would find out is also documented, and it is not a separate report you have to go looking for:

"If your site violates one or more Discover content policies, Discover manual actions may appear in your Search Console under Security and Manual actions."

If that report is empty, you have your answer on condition two.

The things Discover filters out on purpose

This next paragraph is short and it surprises people, because it describes content that is perfectly good and simply not wanted in a feed:

"Discover might not recommend job applications, petitions, forms, code repositories, or satirical content without any context."

Then a sentence that is easy to misread:

"Discover makes use of SafeSearch but beyond that filters out content that might be seen as shocking or unexpected."

Shocking here sits next to SafeSearch, so read it as disturbing rather than surprising. It is not a contradiction of the advice about headlines later on this page. It is a separate filter, about what is suitable in an interest-based feed, and the two sentences are about different things. People quote one and get the other one wrong.

The image specification, exactly

This is the most concrete part of the documentation, and it is where a completely normal site loses its thumbnail size without noticing.

It sits under a recommendation that is easier to skip than it should be:

"Include compelling, high-quality images in your content that are relevant, especially large images that are more likely to generate visits from Discover."

Then the measurements:

"We recommend using images that meet the following specifications:"

At least 1200 px wide
High resolution of more than 300,000 total pixels
16x9 aspect ratio

The middle one comes with Google's own worked example:

"(for example, a 16:9 image that's 1280x720 pixels would have 921,600 total pixels and satisfies this specification)"

Now the forty pixels. The image most sites produce is the Open Graph one, and the standard size for it, printed in every social sharing guide, is 1200 by 630. That is a ratio of 1.905 to 1. Discover asks for 16 to 9, which is 1.778 to 1.

They are not the same shape, and they cannot both be 1200 wide. To reach 16:9 from a 1200 pixel wide image you would need 675 pixels of height. A 630 pixel tall image is 45 pixels short, so Google cannot crop the top or the bottom, and it trims the sides instead. Working it backwards: height 630 multiplied by 16 and divided by 9 gives 1120. The image becomes 1120 wide, and 40 pixels come off each side.

Google describes what it does next, and it is not a warning:

"Google tries to automatically crop the image for use in Discover. If you choose to crop your images yourself, be sure your images are well-cropped and positioned for landscape usage, and avoid automatically applying an aspect ratio."

Nothing breaks. Auto-cropping is the expected path. But if the thing that matters in your image sits within 40 pixels of the left or right edge, the crop takes it, and the version a reader sees is not the version you exported. True 16:9 at 1200 wide is 1200 by 675, and 675 x 1200 is 810,000 total pixels, which clears the 300,000 minimum with room to spare.

There is also a setting that has to be on for any of it to be used:

"Enabled by the max-image-preview:large setting, or by using AMP"

max-image-preview is a robots meta tag. From Google's own page describing it:

"Set the maximum size of an image preview for this page in search results."

The value you want is large, and the page says what it does:

"large: A larger image preview, up to the width of the viewport, may be shown."

And what happens if you never set it:

"If you don't specify the max-image-preview rule, Google may show an image preview of the default size."

One line, in the head of every page, and a lot of sites do not have it.

Which image, not just how big

Two more lines from the same list, and both of them contradict what a lot of sites do on purpose.

"Avoid using generic images (for example, your site logo) in the schema.org markup or og:image meta tag."

Your logo is the one image on your site that says nothing about the page it sits on. For a feed where every thumbnail is competing, it is also the image a reader has already seen a thousand times and has trained themselves to skip.

"For best results, avoid using text-heavy images in the schema.org markup or og:image meta tag."

This one is worth understanding rather than obeying, because it says "for best results" and it is not a rule you can fail. The reasoning behind it is that Discover already shows your headline as text next to the thumbnail. An image that repeats the same headline in large letters adds nothing to it, and it is the smaller, weaker version of the same words.

What changed in February 2026

Now the part that makes this page different from the others, because almost nobody covering Discover for beginners has read it.

On Thursday, 5 February 2026, Google published a post titled "Google's February 2026 Discover Core Update". A core update for Discover is a rare event. Discover is the feed, not the search results, and Google does not usually announce changes to it in those words.

"Today we've released the February 2026 Discover core update. This is a broad update to our systems that surface articles in Discover."

Then three changes, quoted exactly:

Showing users more locally relevant content from websites based in their country
Reducing sensational content and clickbait in Discover
Showing more in-depth, original, and timely content from websites with expertise
in a given area, based on our systems' understanding of a site's content

The expertise rule is per topic, not per site

The third line is the one with the most practical consequence, and Google explains it at unusual length for a blog post:

"Since many sites demonstrate deep knowledge across a wide range of subjects, our systems are designed to identify expertise on a topic-by-topic basis. So whether a site has expertise in multiple areas or has a deep focus on a single topic, there's equal opportunity to show up in Discover."

Then an example that is worth reading twice, because it is unusually concrete:

"For example, a local news site with a dedicated gardening section could have established expertise in gardening, even though it covers other topics. In contrast, a movie review site that wrote a single article about gardening would likely not."

Both parts of that are useful. Local relevance is now a positive signal, which explains the first line of the update and means a site written for one country is not at a disadvantage in it. And expertise is measured one subject at a time, so a site that covers several subjects is not penalised for that as long as each one has depth.

What it does penalise is the single article. One piece about a subject, on a site known for something else, is the example Google chose to name.

Sensational, not surprising

The second line is the one to sit with, because it describes a strategy that worked and now works less.

"Reducing sensational content and clickbait in Discover"

That is the same thing the documentation warns about, in different words:

"Avoid clickbait and similar tactics to artificially inflate engagement by using misleading or exaggerated details in preview content (title, snippets, or images) to increase appeal, or by withholding crucial information required to understand what the content is about."

"Avoid sensationalism tactics that manipulate appeal by catering to morbid curiosity, titillation, or outrage."

"Use page titles and headlines that capture the essence of the content."

Where the line falls is narrower than "stop being interesting". There are two different things people mean by a strong headline, and only one of them is the target.

SURVIVES HAPPILY                          NOW REDUCED
A specific, surprising, true fact         Outrage and manufactured drama
The answer in the headline                The answer held back to force a click
Emotion that comes out of the truth       Emotion layered on top of it

The test in the documentation is exact, and it is about withholding. A preview that gives the answer away is fine. A preview that holds it hostage is what "reducing sensational content and clickbait" describes. A strong finding, stated in full, in the headline, is on the right side of that line. "You will not believe what happened" is on the wrong side of it.

The rollout, and the honest caveat

Two more quotes from the same post, and both matter for expectations.

"We're releasing this update to English language users in the US, and will expand it to all countries and languages in the months ahead."

So if your traffic did not move the week it shipped, that may be because it had not reached you yet.

"As with all core updates, this change may lead to fluctuations in Discover traffic. Some sites might see increases or decreases; many sites may see no change at all."

Many sites may see no change at all. Google writes that sentence into every core update announcement, and it is the sentence that keeps publishers from reading a change into a week that did not have one.

Why Discover traffic moves, in Google's own list

This is the part of the documentation that should change how much of your plan you build on Discover:

"Traffic from Discover is less predictable or dependable when compared to keyword-driven search visits. Given its serendipitous nature, you should consider traffic from Discover as supplemental to your keyword-driven search traffic."

Supplemental. That is Google describing its own feed, and it gives three reasons traffic moves, all of which are outside your control:

Changing interests. If a reader stops being interested in a subject, their feed changes, and your impressions change with it.

Content types. The mix of what Discover shows shifts over time to match what people want.

Updates to Search. The one to read twice:

"Our ongoing work to improve Discover's user experience means sites may see changes in their traffic that are unrelated to the quality or publishing frequency of their content."

Traffic can fall while your site is fine. That sentence is in the documentation, so it is worth planning around rather than discovering.

How to find out whether it is working

There is a real report, and it is in Search Console. It is called the Performance report for Discover, and it shares the standard report metrics.

"This report shows impressions, clicks, and CTR for any of your content that has appeared on Discover in the last 16 months, as long as your data reaches a minimum threshold of impressions."

Sixteen months of history. And the threshold is the part that matters for a new site, because it means the report stays invisible until the site is doing some volume:

"This report is visible only if your property has reached a minimum number of impressions in Discover."

An empty report is not a signal. It is a threshold you have not crossed, and the only way to tell the two apart is that a report which exists and is empty is telling you something different from a report that is not there at all.

One more thing, and it is a verified dead end

The February 2026 announcement ends by pointing readers somewhere:

"For site owners seeking guidance, our general guidance about core updates applies, as does our Get on Discover help page."

I followed that link. The "Get on Discover" help page returns a 404. Not a redirect, not a moved page: "Sorry, this page can't be found."

The guidance people are being pointed at lives instead on the developer documentation page this article is built from. Recorded because a reader who follows Google's own link hits a wall, and because a dead link is a strange thing to find in an announcement about quality.

The order to check things in

1  Is the page indexed? Start here, not with Discover. An unindexed page is not
   eligible for anything, and everything else on this list is wasted work until
   it is fixed.
2  Open Security and Manual actions in Search Console. An empty report clears
   condition two. A Discover manual action is the thing to fix first.
3  Check the page has a max-image-preview:large robots tag, and that it is
   actually rendering in the HTML rather than sitting in a config file.
4  Measure your og:image. 1200 wide or more, more than 300,000 pixels, and
   either 16:9 exactly or a design that survives 40 pixels coming off each side.
5  Read your own headline as a stranger. Does it give the answer, or does it
   promise the answer? The first is fine, the second is the policy.
6  Check the four transparency items are on the page: a date, a byline, an
   author page, and a way to make contact.
7  Read your disclosure against your actual site. If there are affiliate links
   and nothing says so, that is the sponsorship policy, not a style choice.
8  Then stop. The remaining question, whether Google chooses your page, has no
   checklist, and Google says so in the sentence this article opened with.

The honest note about this page

Everything above is a check I ran on a site I run, and the results were not flattering.

The image was 1200 by 630, so it was 40 pixels wrong on each side and had been since the first article. The max-image-preview:large tag was present, which means one of the two image problems was already solved and I had assumed both were. The date and byline were there because of a change made for a different article. And the first condition, being indexed, was the one actually blocking everything, which is a plain and unglamorous conclusion: Discover was never the thing to fix. Being indexed was, and Discover was a reward that only exists on the other side of it.

That is the whole shape of this subject. Two conditions, one of them boring, one of them a checklist of things you probably already half have, and no third condition that any tag, plugin or course can supply.

Sources

  • Google Search documentation, Discover and your website
  • Google Search documentation, robots meta tag and X-Robots-Tag specifications
  • Google Search Central Blog, "Google's February 2026 Discover Core Update", 5 February 2026
  • Google Search Help, Discover content policies
  • Search Console Help, Performance report (Discover)