So Outside Technology Security CMS
AnQiCMS
Online Demonstration

The garbage station update in September took nearly fourteen days to end, when is it suitable for review?

📅 2026-11-01 👁️ 0

When should the ranking wait to be suitable for review? Two things need to be established at the same time: the official status panel marks this round of update as completed, and the data after the completion date returns to a stable interval. This round of update started at the end of September and was marked as completed on October 8th, lasting for more than thirteen days, and the rankings read before the mark was completed were all intermediate states in the process.

Why can't the data during the rolling period be conclusive?

The rolling release means that updates are implemented in batches by system and region. On the same day, different queries may hit two sets of sorting logic, which have taken effect and not yet taken effect, resulting in an unstable fluctuation when summarized in the report.

The readings during this period cannot be concluded, for two reasons. First, the fluctuation itself may come from the part of the keywords that have not yet covered you, and it will change back in two days; second, there are often other system adjustments running at the same time, which is the most common mistake when doing a review during the rolling period.

Judging criteria can be simplified into one sentence: Take the day the marking is completed as the starting point of the conclusion, and use the data before the starting point to observe, not to draw conclusions.

What does the duration on the panel mean?

The official panel records the start and end time and the scrolling duration, this round is written as thirteen days and fifteen hours. This duration has two practical uses.

The first layer is expectation management. Most people plan the review by the 'day' unit, while the actual update is often rolled by two weeks, if planned by day, it will be necessary to change the content in the middle of the rolling, solidifying the fluctuations that would naturally stabilize into a misjudgment.

The second layer is a rhythm reference. In the same year, there have already been four rounds of similar updates, with a closer interval than in previous years. Record the duration of each rolling, so that next time you can judge earlier whether it is still in the rolling period.

It should be noted that the target range (targets) column on the panel is still marked as unknown, which means you cannot infer whether your site is within the affected area based on what the update is aimed at, but only by observing the stability of your own data.

Two conditions to be reviewed

It needs two conditions to clarify this matter after the completion date.

Condition one is to stabilize. After the completion date, the fluctuation of the ranking curve is significantly narrowed, approaching the interval of the previous week's update. The position read at this time is the stable position after the update. Condition two is a long enough observation window. The slow effectiveness of the repair action is a common feature of this type of update, and the official statements also mention that the changes will take several months to appear in the results, so the first review should be placed between two weeks and a month after the completion date, as it is too early to see the effect of the adjustments made.

If there is still a significant fluctuation after the completion date, it's not 'update is still rolling' that you should suspect, but rather other variables at the same time, such as content revision, domain switching, or server stability issues. At this point, it is necessary to rule out internal changes first.

What should be investigated within the waiting period?

Waiting for stability is not just waiting passively. The waiting period is suitable for conducting basic item inspections. These items are unrelated to updates but will affect the inclusion and crawling quality.

Check the robots configuration: Confirm that there are no mistakenly blocked directories that need to be crawled, and the rules for allowing script resource directories should be checked against the actual addresses. Then check the sitemap: Check if the submission entry is accessible, whether the generated addresses are consistent with the current online addresses, and whether any invalid pages or old addresses before redirection are left inside.

There are still two things worth doing on the content side: Make a list of pages that are obviously repetitive and low in information, and deal with them all at once after the review results come out; Archive the readings and screenshots of this period's reports to avoid making judgments based on memory two weeks later.

Common questions

The ranking fell during the rolling period, should we change the content immediately?It is not recommended. The position within the rolling period is unstable, and at this time, making major changes will mix two variables together, making it impossible to determine whether the recovery is from the end of the update or from the changes.

How long has it been since it stabilized? Should you suspect other reasons?If there is still a significant fluctuation after the completion date, first check the internal change records and server availability, and then look at the external links and environmental changes.

Do we have to wait so long for each update?The length of the observation window depends on the rolling duration. Record the start and end time and duration of this round of updates, so that the next time you can arrange the review time according to the historical interval, rather than fixed by week or month.

Related articles

The window for the secure version and the major version release are scheduled in the same week, which one should the site follow first?

When the fixed secure version window and the annual major version are scheduled in the same week, follow the secure version first. The secure version closes known exploitable entries, while the major version changes data structures and template behaviors, with a higher verification cost. This article explains the differences in the nature of the two types of updates, how to evaluate the cost of delaying the major version by one week, and the two-step verification and rollback preparation to be reserved in the scheduling.

2026-11-01

Components that cannot be found in the vulnerability library, can they be considered risk-free?

A component that cannot be found in the public vulnerability library cannot be considered risk-free, as it is often just that the scope of collection and naming criteria do not match. The vulnerability library categorizes entries by core, extension, and theme, and verifies them one by one. Self-built and commercial components are often not included. This article provides three reasons for not finding them, the handling criteria for the worst-case scenario, and how to turn the asset list into an executable mitigation action sequence.

2026-11-01

Allowing customization of the position of the style, why does the style content also need to be filtered?

The reason for filtering the style content at the position where custom styles are allowed is that styles are not just a presentation layer: attribute names and values can be used to change the page display or make external requests. Filtering needs to cover the three segments of selectors, attribute names, and values, and be coordinated with sensitive word filtering, content review, and background role permissions. This article uses the bypass of the style attribute filter in the official repair list as an entry point to explain the criteria.

2026-11-01

The confirmation process for members changing their email addresses is bypassed, and what else does the account side need to verify?

The confirmation process of changing the member's email binding is bypassed, which means the bypasser has obtained the password recovery channel. The account side needs to verify not only this logic. This article explains why property changes require two-way confirmation, how user groups and access permissions should be tightened, the role of email reminders in the process of handling, and provides four records to be checked after the repair.

2026-11-01

Only a little over 30% of the pages referenced in the AI overview come from the top ten, so should we still pay attention to the ranking?

A large-scale study shows that only about 30% of the pages referenced in AI overviews are also in the top ten natural search results, while this proportion was about 75% a year ago. The decline in overlap does not mean that the ranking has become ineffective: the ranking is still the entry point, but is no longer a condition for reference. The focus should be on which issues the reference hits, whether paragraphs can be extracted separately, and whether the keyword library and anchor text can stably identify the content.

2026-11-01

Most llms.txt files have never been requested, and is it still worth maintaining them?

The analysis of logs from more than 100,000 sites shows that 97% of the llms.txt files have never been requested, with reading concentrated in a few sites. This result does not mean that the file is useless, but rather that it does not solve the two issues of being discovered and intercepted. Whether to continue maintaining it should be judged by looking at whether there are corresponding requests in the access logs of your own site, rather than by looking at whether the file has been uploaded.

2026-11-01

The adoption rate statistics of the two llms.txt files are very different, which decision口径 should be adopted?

Two studies that were checked on the same day are very different: The adoption rate is 8.3% when statistics are taken from the top ten thousand domain names, and it reaches 49.2% when statistics are taken from more than two thousand sites. The difference does not come from who made a mistake in the calculation, but from the denominator range and the method of judgment. When making decisions, do not take the average of the two numbers, but first see which category your site falls into among the samples, and then confirm whether the口径 can be used by checking the three-step verification method.

2026-11-01

The training crawler was blocked in robots, why can't the content still be retrieved

There are tests from more than 2,300 sites showing that only 3.6% of the sites block training crawlers in robots, but when accessing the homepage directly by real identity, 18.8% cannot access usable content. There is a gap between declarations and actual usability: writing rules does not mean they take effect, and there are also cases where the side that grants access cannot access the text. Self-inspection should be in order of four types of signals, not just whether that line of rules is in the text.

2026-11-01