Many content teams still believe in a simple rule: "Google rewards long articles." Ask where that belief came from and you will hear about word-count studies, skyscraper content and, if the person has been around long enough, a feature called in-depth articles.
On 6 August 2013, Google added a special block to its results for long-form, evergreen writing. For a few years, publishers could win a labeled spot just for serious, deep journalism, and Google even told them which markup to use. Then the label disappeared, the block faded, and by 2019 trackers could not find it at all.
In this post I will explain what Google launched, what it asked publishers to do, who benefited, why the feature disappeared, and what it really teaches about long-form content in 2026. If you want the wider context of 2013, a year that also brought Hummingbird and Penguin 2.1, see our Google algorithm updates timeline.
In-depth articles at a glance
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Launched | 6 August 2013, announced on the Google Webmaster Central blog by Pandu Nayak |
| Type | New search results feature (a block within results), ranked algorithmically |
| Confirmed by Google? | Yes |
| Where | English results on google.com at launch |
| What it surfaced | High-quality, long-form content with lasting value on broad topics |
| Who benefited | Mainly major publishers and magazines with deep evergreen journalism |
| Status | Label and images removed in 2015; tracked appearances dropped off from March 2019; Google says it still surfaces evergreen content within normal results |
What Google launched in August 2013
The announcement came from Pandu Nayak, a member of Google's technical staff. His argument was that not every search is a quick question. Some people want to understand a broad subject properly.
“Users often turn to Google to answer a quick question, but research suggests that up to 10% of users' daily information needs involve learning about a broad topic.”
— Pandu Nayak, Google, In-depth articles in search results
Google's answer was a set-apart group of results labeled "In-depth articles," shown for broad searches about a person, thing or subject. Each entry showed the article title, a thumbnail image and the publisher's logo and name. The articles were ranked algorithmically, based on signals Google said identified high-quality, in-depth content. The post now carries a note on Google's Search Central blog archive saying the information is outdated.
The feature fit neatly with the direction Google was taking that year. A few weeks later Hummingbird rolled out, improving how Google understood whole queries. I explain that change in my post on Google Hummingbird (2013). A year earlier, the Knowledge Graph launch had given Google a database of the very "broad topics" that in-depth articles were built around.
The eligibility signals Google spelled out
Unusually, Google told publishers how to help its algorithms find their in-depth work. The recommendations, as summarized by Hive Digital on launch day, were:
- Use schema.org Article markup to identify the headline, alternative headline, main image, description, publication date and article body.
- Use authorship markup (rel=author linked to a Google+ profile) to connect the article to its writer.
- Handle multi-part articles properly with rel=next and rel=prev for the pages, plus rel=canonical.
- Make your logo clear, either by linking to your Google+ Page or by using organization markup.
On authorship, Google's guidance said: "Authorship markup helps our algorithms to find and present relevant authors and experts in Google search results," as quoted by Hive Digital. Here is a simplified example of the kind of markup publishers added in 2013, written in today's JSON-LD style:
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "How Rivers Shape Cities",
"alternativeHeadline": "A 200-year history of urban waterfronts",
"image": "https://example.com/rivers.jpg",
"description": "A long-form look at how rivers shaped city planning.",
"datePublished": "2013-08-01",
"author": { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jane Writer" }
}Most of these recommendations have since changed. That is worth knowing if you find old tutorials still repeating them:
| 2013 recommendation | Status in 2026 |
|---|---|
| schema.org Article markup | Still supported. Google's Article structured data docs say "There are no required properties"; author, dates, headline and image are recommended |
| Authorship markup (rel=author, Google+) | Retired. Google dropped authorship from results in 2014, and Google+ closed for consumers later |
| rel=next / rel=prev pagination | No longer an indexing signal, as the note on Google's original post now says |
| rel=canonical for multi-page articles | Still used to indicate the preferred URL |
| Logo via Google+ Page | Replaced by Organization structured data with a logo property |
If you want the modern version of this markup, our Article schema guide for blogs and publishers has working examples.
Who benefited from the in-depth block
In practice, the block favored established publishers. That makes sense: they had the archives, the long investigative pieces and the brand logos Google wanted to show. Even near the end, in early 2019, Search Engine Land noted that a search for [Amazon] had shown in-depth results from The Verge, Wired and Gizmodo just a week before they vanished.
Smaller sites could appear in theory, because the ranking was algorithmic. But a few patterns made it harder:
- Brand recognition: the publisher logo was part of the display, which suited known names.
- Evergreen depth: Google wanted content with lasting value, not quick news posts or thin listicles.
- Broad topics: the block appeared for big subjects like companies, places, ideas and people, where major outlets already ranked well.
- Technical setup: correct markup, authorship and logo connections took effort many small sites never made.
Here is a hypothetical example of why publishers cared. Imagine a magazine feature that ranked eighth for a broad topic and drew 600 visits a month. If the in-depth block placed it in a labeled box with a thumbnail and logo, it could stand out more than a plain blue link in position three. Nobody published reliable click data on the block, so I would not put a number on the uplift, but the extra visibility was obvious on the page.
For more on how publishers in particular have been affected by Google's changes since, see my post on how Google updates affect news publishers.
Why the in-depth articles block disappeared
The feature did not end with an announcement. It faded in stages.
- 2015: the label and images go. Search Engine Land reported that Google removed the "In-depth articles" heading and the thumbnail images. Google said this was part of efforts to "streamline the search results page design overall," explaining that "these results are now part of the web results."
- A 17-day outage. Search Engine Land later reported that in-depth articles vanished on 9 April and returned on 26 April, according to Mozcast data. Google did not reply to questions, and the author suspected a bug or outage.
- January 2016: harder to find. Go Fish Digital wrote that in-depth results were "appearing less frequently in the results", now marked only by thin gray lines.
- March 2019: gone from trackers. Moz and FiveBlocks reported that the results stopped appearing from 6 March, per Search Engine Land. Google said a coding change for this content type likely explained the drop in tracking tools.
Google's 2019 statement is the closest thing to an official ending:
“When relevant, we do and will continue to surface high-quality evergreen content as part of the overall search results.”
— Google spokesperson, quoted by Search Engine Land, What's going on with In-depth Articles on Google?
Why did Google drop the block? It never said directly. Go Fish Digital speculated that users may not have clicked the labeled results much. My own reading is simpler: once Google's core ranking became better at recognizing depth and quality on its own, after Hummingbird and later quality systems, a separate box for "serious articles" was no longer needed. I treat that as an informed opinion, not a fact.
The loss of authorship markup in 2014 also removed one of the feature's main inputs. I cover that story in the 2014 Google Authorship removal.
What in-depth articles teach about long-form content now
The feature's history is a useful correction to the "longer always wins" belief. Google wanted depth, not length. Its current guidance on creating helpful content asks: "Does the content provide a substantial, complete, or comprehensive description of the topic?" It also asks whether you are writing to a word count because you heard Google prefers one, and answers plainly: "(No, we don't.)"
Here is how I would compare the 2013 mindset with what works now:
| Question | 2013 in-depth thinking | 2026 practice |
|---|---|---|
| What earns visibility? | Long, evergreen pieces with the right markup | Content that fully satisfies the searcher, at whatever length that takes |
| Role of the author | Authorship markup linked to Google+ | Clear bylines, author pages and real expertise |
| Where it appears | A labeled block | Normal results, featured snippets, Discover and AI answers |
| Main risk | Missing markup | Padding: long pages that bury the answer |
If you are deciding whether a topic deserves a long guide, my post on when long-form content wins and when it doesn't goes into that choice. For beginners, the lesson on helpful, people-first content is the right starting point, and our guide to author pages and bylines covers the modern replacement for authorship markup.
Questions about Google's in-depth articles feature
When did in-depth articles launch?
On 6 August 2013, in English on google.com, announced by Pandu Nayak on the Google Webmaster Central blog.
Did you need markup to appear in in-depth articles?
Google said markup helped its algorithms understand pages, but ranking was algorithmic. Article markup, authorship, pagination tags and a clear logo were recommendations, not guarantees.
Do in-depth articles still exist?
Not as a labeled block. The label went in 2015 and trackers stopped seeing the results in March 2019. Google says it still surfaces high-quality evergreen content within normal results.
Does Google still prefer long articles?
No. Google says it has no preferred word count. It wants content that covers a topic substantially and completely, which sometimes means long and sometimes does not.
Writing in-depth content that still earns its place
The in-depth block is gone, but the reason Google built it has not changed. Some searchers want to really understand a subject, and Google still looks for pages that serve them well: clear structure, real expertise, original insight and an obvious author behind the work.
If you want long-form content that is deep for the right reasons and not just long, our content writing team can plan and write it with you. Or get a quote and tell us which topics you want to own.
Google updates around the same time
Before this update:
- Google Hummingbird (2013): The Rewrite Behind Conversational Search (Aug 2013)
- The Payday Loan Updates (2013-2014): Google vs. Spammy Query Niches (Jun 2013)
After this update:
- Penguin 2.1 (October 2013): The Refresh That Hit 1% of Searches (Oct 2013)
- Google's Panda 4.0 Update (May 2014): What Changed and Who Lost (May 2014)
Or browse every Google update on one timeline, newest first.
Sources for this in-depth articles history
- Google Webmaster Central Blog: In-depth articles in search results (August 2013)
- Google Search Central Blog archive: In-depth articles in search results
- Hive Digital: Google In-Depth Article Search Results: How to Qualify Your Content (6 August 2013)
- Search Engine Land: Google Drops Title and Images From In-Depth Articles
- Search Engine Land: Google brings back in-depth articles after 17-day outage
- Go Fish Digital: Where Did In-Depth Articles Go in Google Search Results? (January 2016)
- Search Engine Land: What's going on with In-depth Articles on Google? (March 2019)
- Wikipedia: Timeline of Google Search
- Google Search Central: Article structured data
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
