Google's Helpful Content System (HCS) explained

Originally published at thatdevpro.com. Part of ThatDevPro's open SEO + AI framework library. ThatDevPro is an SDVOSB-certified veteran-owned web + AI engineering studio. Open-source AI citation toolkit: github.com/Janady13/aio-surfaces.

Google's "People-First Content" Framework

A comprehensive installation and audit reference for ensuring website content meets Google's Helpful Content System standards — the framework that became part of Google's core ranking infrastructure in 2024 and continues to drive ranking outcomes across every core update. This document is dual-purpose: installation manual and audit document.

Cross-stack implementation note: the code samples in this framework are written in plain HTML for clarity. For React, Vue, Svelte, Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Astro, Hugo, 11ty, Remix, WordPress, Shopify, and Webflow equivalents of every pattern below, see framework-cross-stack-implementation.md. For pure client-rendered SPAs (no SSR/SSG) see framework-react.md. For Tailwind-specific concerns (purge, dynamic classes, dark-mode CLS, focus accessibility) see framework-tailwind.md.

1. Document Purpose & How to Use This Document

1.1 What This Document Is

This is the canonical reference for implementing Google's Helpful Content System (HCS) on a website. HCS is the framework Google uses to distinguish content created for people (helpful, original, satisfies the searcher's need) from content created for search engines (manipulative, derivative, designed to rank rather than serve). HCS was launched in August 2022 as a standalone update, became part of Google's core ranking system in March 2024, and now operates continuously rather than as a periodic update.

This document specifies how to evaluate every piece of content against the HCS framework, what signals to install on every page to demonstrate "people-first" content creation, and how to audit existing content for HCS compliance.

1.2 Three Operating Modes

Mode A — Install Mode: Building HCS-compliant content infrastructure. Follow Sections 2 → 14 in order.

Mode B — Audit Mode: Evaluating existing content against HCS criteria. Skip to Section 11.

Mode C — Hybrid Mode: Audit then install for failing items.

1.3 How Claude Code CLI Should Consume This Document

1. Read Section 2 — collect client variables
2. Run Section 3 self-assessment — apply the HCS questions to each piece of content
3. Identify SEO-first patterns — flag content showing signals of "made for search engines"
4. Install per-article HCS markers (Section 5) and per-site HCS infrastructure (Section 6)
5. Validate — Section 11
6. Generate report — Section 14

1.4 Conflict Resolution Rules

1.5 Required Tools

• Google Search Console — for monitoring HCS-related ranking changes
• MarketMuse, Frase, or Clearscope — for content depth and topic coverage analysis
• Originality.ai or similar — AI content detection
• Surfer SEO — for content quality benchmarking
• Internal review — qualified human evaluators who can self-assess content honestly

2. Client Variables Intake

# ============================================
# HCS FRAMEWORK CLIENT VARIABLES
# ============================================

# --- Business Context (REQUIRED) ---
business_name: ""
primary_domain: ""
business_industry: ""
business_focus_topics: []            # 3-7 topics this site is genuinely the authority on

# --- Content Audit Baseline (REQUIRED) ---
total_content_pieces: 0
content_publication_rate: ""         # "high_volume" (>10/week), "medium" (1-5/week), "low" (<1/week)
content_creation_method: ""          # "in_house_experts", "freelancers", "ai_assisted", "outsourced", "mixed"
average_content_length: 0            # Words

# --- Audience (REQUIRED) ---
primary_audience_description: ""     # Who is this content actually for?
audience_pain_points: []             # 3-5 specific problems they're trying to solve
audience_expertise_level: ""         # "beginner", "intermediate", "expert", "mixed"

# --- Content Strategy Honesty Check (REQUIRED — answer truthfully) ---
publishes_for_search_intent_only: false  # Be honest. Were any articles published only because keywords had volume?
publishes_thin_content: false        # Articles under 500 words on substantive topics
publishes_aggregated_content: false  # Content that mostly summarizes others without adding value
uses_ai_for_bulk_content: false
ai_content_review_quality: ""        # "minimal", "moderate", "rigorous", "expert_review_required"
content_serves_genuine_user_need: ""  # 1-10 self-rating of how well content serves users vs ranks

# --- Helpful Content Markers (RECOMMENDED) ---
has_about_us_explaining_purpose: false
has_author_bios_with_credentials: false
has_original_research: false
has_first_hand_experience_demonstrated: false
has_clear_topical_focus: false
has_practical_value_per_article: false
publishes_only_what_audience_needs: false

# --- SEO-First Anti-Patterns (RECOMMENDED — be honest) ---
has_pages_targeting_high_volume_low_intent_keywords: false
has_doorway_pages: false
has_thin_aggregator_pages: false
has_AI_content_passed_off_as_expert: false
has_content_promising_what_it_doesnt_deliver: false
has_clickbait_titles_not_matching_content: false
has_padded_content_to_hit_word_count: false

# --- Refresh & Maintenance (REQUIRED) ---
content_review_cadence: ""           # "monthly", "quarterly", "annually", "never"
has_content_decay_process: false
retires_outdated_content: false
consolidates_redundant_content: false

3. What HCS Is

The Helpful Content System (HCS) is Google's evaluation framework — and now, ranking infrastructure — for distinguishing content that genuinely helps people from content that's primarily designed to rank in search. Launched August 2022 as a sitewide signal, HCS was integrated into Google's core ranking systems in the March 2024 core update. It now operates continuously rather than as a periodic update.

The HCS framework is centered on a simple but uncomfortable question: was this content made primarily for people, or made primarily for search engines? Google's algorithms attempt to detect content optimized for search rankings without genuinely serving the searcher's need. When detected, that content gets demoted — and the demotion can cascade across the entire site if the pattern is widespread.

HCS evaluates content using a "Who, How, and Why" framework:

• Who created the content? Are they a real person with relevant expertise? Is there transparency about authorship?
• How was the content created? What process produced it? Was AI involved? Was it reviewed?
• Why was the content created? To genuinely help readers, or primarily to attract search traffic?

The framework is documented in Google's public guidance at developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content. It overlaps significantly with E-E-A-T but is distinct: E-E-A-T evaluates whether the source is trustworthy; HCS evaluates whether the content itself serves users. A site can have strong E-E-A-T (credentialed authors, good security, accurate information) but weak HCS (publishing thin content, optimizing for keywords rather than user need).

The 2024-2026 evolution of HCS reflects Google's response to the AI content explosion. Google's December 2025 helpful content guidance updated the "Who, How, and Why" framework to explicitly address AI-generated content. The position: AI involvement isn't disqualifying. Low effort, generic content that doesn't serve users IS disqualifying. AI-assisted content that is thoroughly reviewed by experts, enriched with original insights, and serves a genuine user need can pass HCS. AI content that's mass-produced for SEO with minimal review fails HCS — and the December 2025 core update specifically targeted these patterns, with significant ranking losses for content farms.

The four behaviors HCS most directly punishes:

1. Volume-over-quality content strategies — sites that publish many articles per day on topics they don't have genuine expertise in
2. Search-intent-first content — articles that exist because a keyword has volume, not because the audience needs an answer
3. Aggregated/derivative content — articles that summarize what others have said without adding original insight
4. AI-generated content without expert review — bulk AI content optimized for ranking rather than helping

The four behaviors HCS rewards:

1. Topical authority through depth — sites that cover a focused set of topics deeply rather than broadly
2. First-hand experience and original insight — content that demonstrates the author actually did, used, or experienced what's being discussed
3. Clear practical value per article — every article should leave the reader with something they didn't have before
4. Editorial integrity — content created by people who care about the topic, reviewed by people who know the topic

4. Google's Self-Assessment Questions

Google publishes specific questions creators should ask themselves about their content. This is the official HCS self-evaluation framework. Apply these to every piece of content.

4.1 People-First Content Questions

Score each question Yes/No/Partial for each article being evaluated:

Content quality

• Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis?
• Does the content provide a substantial, complete, or comprehensive description of the topic?
• Does the content provide insightful analysis or interesting information beyond the obvious?
• If drawing on other sources, does the content avoid simply copying or rewriting them, and instead provide substantial additional value and originality?
• Does the main heading or page title provide a descriptive, helpful summary of the content?
• Does the main heading or page title avoid exaggerating or being shocking in nature?
• Is this the sort of page you'd want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
• Would you expect to see this content in or referenced by a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book?
• Does the content provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
• Does the content have any spelling or stylistic issues?
• Is the content produced well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
• Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don't get as much attention or care?

Expertise

• Does the content present information in a way that makes you want to trust it, such as clear sourcing, evidence of the expertise involved, background about the author or the site that publishes it?
• If you researched the site producing the content, would you come away with an impression that it is well-trusted or widely-recognized as an authority on its topic?
• Is this content written or reviewed by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well?
• Does the content have any easily-verified factual errors?

Page experience

• Does the page have a clear purpose or focus?
• Given the topic, does the page provide a satisfying experience?
• Does the page have an intrusive amount of ads, including pop-ups, interstitials, or anything that distracts from the main content?
• Does the page display well for mobile devices?

4.2 SEO-First Content Red Flags (Avoid These)

Google explicitly warns that creating content with these patterns is a problem:

• Is content primarily made to attract people from search engines, rather than made for humans?
• Are you producing lots of content on different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results?
• Are you using extensive automation to produce content on many topics?
• Are you mainly summarizing what others have to say without adding much value?
• Are you writing about things simply because they seem trending, and not because you'd write about them otherwise for your existing audience?
• Does your content leave readers feeling they need to search again to get better information from other sources?
• Are you writing to a particular word count because you've heard or read that Google has a preferred word count?
• Did you decide to enter some niche topic area without any real expertise, but mainly because you thought you'd get search traffic?
• Does your content promise to answer a question that actually has no answer, such as suggesting there's a release date for a product, movie, or TV show when one isn't confirmed?
• Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?
• Are you adding lots of new content or removing lots of older content primarily because you believe it will help your search rankings overall by somehow making your site seem fresh?

4.3 The "Who, How, Why" Framework

For every piece of content, document:

Who created it?

• Real person or AI?
• If real: what's their relevant expertise?
• If AI-assisted: what role did AI play, and what role did humans play?
• Is the creator's identity transparent on the page?

How was it created?

• What was the editorial process?
• Was original research conducted?
• Was firsthand experience involved?
• Was the content reviewed by someone qualified?
• If AI was used, what was the review and editing process?

Why was it created?

• To genuinely help the audience solve a problem? (good)
• To demonstrate or document the creator's expertise on a topic they care about? (good)
• To target a search keyword the site has no genuine authority on? (bad)
• To increase publication volume for SEO? (bad)
• Because someone said the keyword had high volume? (bad)

The "why" is the hardest to be honest about. Most low-quality SEO content is created by people who would never admit it's primarily for search engines. The honest test: would you publish this article if Google didn't exist? If no, it's probably search-first content.

5. Per-Article HCS Implementation

What every article must include to demonstrate HCS compliance.

5.1 The Five HCS Markers

Every article must visibly demonstrate these markers:

5.1.1 Clear creator identity

Author byline at the top of every article with link to author page. The author must be a real person with verifiable expertise. See framework-eeat.md Section 4.2 for full implementation. HCS adds the requirement that anonymous content is a red flag — even pseudonymous bylines should explain why pseudonymity is appropriate.

5.1.2 Demonstrable original value

Every article must add something not available in the top-ranked search results for the query. Original value can be:

• Original research or data
• First-hand experience or testing
• Synthesis that connects ideas in a new way
• Specific examples not available elsewhere
• Counterintuitive findings or contrarian analysis
• Updated information based on the author's recent work
• Failure cases and edge cases the author has personally encountered

Build an "original value" sidebar on long-form articles:

<aside class="original-value" aria-label="What this article adds">
  <h3>What This Article Adds</h3>
  <p>Most articles on {{TOPIC}} cover {{COMMON_COVERAGE}}. This article goes further with:</p>
  <ul>
    <li>{{ORIGINAL_CONTRIBUTION_1}}</li>
    <li>{{ORIGINAL_CONTRIBUTION_2}}</li>
    <li>{{ORIGINAL_CONTRIBUTION_3}}</li>
  </ul>
</aside>

5.1.3 Comprehensive coverage when relevant

If the article promises to be a "complete guide" or "everything you need to know," it must actually be comprehensive. Use a coverage checklist in the article structure:

<nav class="article-coverage" aria-label="What this article covers">
  <h2>What This Guide Covers</h2>
  <ol>
    {{LIST_OF_SECTIONS_WITH_LINKS_TO_HEADINGS}}
  </ol>
</nav>

If you can't be comprehensive, don't claim to be. Title and meta should match the actual depth.

5.1.4 Honest meta and titles

Title and meta description must accurately describe the content. Anti-patterns:

• "Ultimate Guide to X" when the article is 800 words of basics
• "X Things You Didn't Know" when the things are well-known
• "Best X for Y" when the article is just a list of things, not a real comparison
• Question titles that the article doesn't actually answer
• Numerical titles ("10 X") when the content has artificially padded to hit the number

Honest title test: would the article meet the searcher's expectation if they clicked from the title alone, without reading the meta?

5.1.5 No trailing fluff

End the article when the value is delivered. HCS-compliant articles avoid:

• Conclusion paragraphs that restate what was said
• "I hope this article helped" filler
• Padding to hit a target word count
• "Stay tuned for more articles like this" engagement bait
• AI-generated boilerplate endings

End the article with: a clear takeaway, a next step, a related resource, or a question for the reader. Not filler.

5.2 The HCS Article Template

Combining the markers above:

<article class="article hcs-compliant">
  <!-- Metadata header -->
  <header>
    <h1>{{ACCURATE_TITLE_THAT_MATCHES_CONTENT}}</h1>

    <div class="article-byline">
      <img src="{{AUTHOR_PHOTO}}" alt="{{AUTHOR_NAME}}">
      <p>By <a href="/authors/{{AUTHOR_SLUG}}/" rel="author">{{AUTHOR_NAME}}</a></p>
      <p class="byline-credentials">{{RELEVANT_CREDENTIALS_FOR_THIS_TOPIC}}</p>
      <time datetime="{{PUBLISHED}}">Published {{PUBLISHED_HUMAN}}</time>
      <time datetime="{{UPDATED}}">Updated {{UPDATED_HUMAN}}</time>
    </div>

    {{IF_AI_USED}}
    <aside class="ai-disclosure">
      This article {{AI_USAGE_LEVEL}}. Reviewed and verified by {{REVIEWER_NAME}}.
    </aside>
    {{/IF}}
  </header>

  <!-- Original value indicator -->
  <aside class="original-value">
    <h2>What This Article Adds</h2>
    <ul>
      {{ORIGINAL_CONTRIBUTIONS}}
    </ul>
  </aside>

  <!-- Coverage promise (if comprehensive guide) -->
  {{IF_COMPREHENSIVE_GUIDE}}
  <nav class="article-coverage">
    <h2>What This Guide Covers</h2>
    {{TOC}}
  </nav>
  {{/IF}}

  <!-- Article body — substantive content -->
  <div class="article-body">
    {{CONTENT_THAT_DELIVERS_ON_THE_TITLE_PROMISE}}

    <!-- First-hand experience callout when applicable -->
    {{IF_PRACTICAL_CONTENT}}
    <aside class="experience-callout">
      <h3>How I Know This Works</h3>
      <p>{{SPECIFIC_EXPERIENCE_DETAILS}}</p>
    </aside>
    {{/IF}}

    <!-- Original imagery, screenshots, data visualizations -->
    {{ORIGINAL_VISUAL_CONTENT}}

    <!-- Failure cases for practical content -->
    {{IF_LONG_FORM_PRACTICAL}}
    <section class="failures-edge-cases">
      <h2>What Doesn't Work</h2>
      {{SPECIFIC_FAILURES_OR_EDGE_CASES}}
    </section>
    {{/IF}}
  </div>

  <!-- End cleanly: takeaway, next step, or related -->
  <footer>
    <section class="article-takeaway">
      <h2>Key Takeaway</h2>
      <p>{{ONE_SENTENCE_TAKEAWAY}}</p>
    </section>

    <section class="article-next-step">
      <h2>Next Step</h2>
      <p>{{SPECIFIC_RECOMMENDATION_FOR_THE_READER}}</p>
    </section>

    {{REFERENCES_IF_FACTUAL_CONTENT}}
    {{AUTHOR_BOX}}
    {{RELATED_ARTICLES_GENUINELY_RELATED}}
  </footer>
</article>

5.3 What to Remove from Articles

To be HCS-compliant, audit every article for and remove:

• Generic introductions ("In this article, we'll cover...") — get to the value
• Unnecessary backstory before the core content
• Padded sections that don't add value
• Restated conclusions
• Engagement bait ("Don't forget to subscribe!")
• AI-generated transition sentences ("It's important to note that...", "Furthermore...")
• Sections clearly added to hit keyword density or word count
• "Did you know" filler facts unrelated to the user's actual question
• Disclaimers buried in irrelevant places
• Sales pitches for unrelated services
• Pop-up newsletter prompts that interrupt the reading experience

6. Site-Wide HCS Implementation

Beyond per-article work, the site as a whole must signal HCS compliance.

6.1 Phase 1: Topical Focus Audit

Sites that try to cover everything do worse than sites with clear topical focus. HCS rewards depth over breadth.

6.1.1 Define the site's topical pillars

Identify 3-7 topics this site is genuinely the authority on. These should be:

• Topics the founder or team has demonstrable expertise in
• Topics where the site has unique perspective or experience
• Topics where the site can publish original research or insights
• Topics that connect to the business's actual offerings

Document at /topics/ or in an internal strategy doc:

Primary Topics (we are the authority):
1. {{TOPIC_1}} - {{WHY_WE_ARE_AUTHORITY}}
2. {{TOPIC_2}} - {{WHY_WE_ARE_AUTHORITY}}
3. {{TOPIC_3}} - {{WHY_WE_ARE_AUTHORITY}}

Secondary Topics (we have meaningful coverage):
1. {{TOPIC_4}}
2. {{TOPIC_5}}

Topics We Don't Cover (and why):
- {{ADJACENT_TOPIC}} - {{REASON_NOT_COVERED}}

6.1.2 Audit existing content against pillars

For every existing piece of content:

• Does it fit a primary or secondary pillar? (keep)
• Is it a one-off article on an unrelated topic? (consolidate or remove)
• Is it an old SEO experiment that doesn't fit our focus? (remove)
• Is it duplicative of better existing content? (consolidate)

The result: a content inventory where every remaining article reinforces topical authority on a defined pillar.

6.2 Phase 2: Topical Hub Pages

Each primary pillar gets a dedicated hub page demonstrating depth.

<article class="topical-hub" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/CollectionPage">
  <h1>{{TOPIC_NAME}}</h1>

  <section class="hub-introduction">
    <p>{{200_400_WORD_AUTHORITATIVE_INTRO_DEMONSTRATING_DEPTH}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="hub-our-perspective">
    <h2>Our Perspective on {{TOPIC}}</h2>
    <p>{{WHAT_MAKES_THIS_SITES_TAKE_ON_THE_TOPIC_DISTINCTIVE}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="hub-content-organized">
    <h2>{{TOPIC}} — Complete Coverage</h2>

    <h3>Foundations</h3>
    <ul>{{FOUNDATIONAL_ARTICLES}}</ul>

    <h3>Practical Application</h3>
    <ul>{{PRACTICAL_ARTICLES}}</ul>

    <h3>Advanced Topics</h3>
    <ul>{{ADVANCED_ARTICLES}}</ul>

    <h3>Original Research</h3>
    <ul>{{RESEARCH_ARTICLES}}</ul>
  </section>

  <section class="hub-related-pillars">
    <h2>Related Topics We Cover</h2>
    <ul>{{LINKS_TO_RELATED_HUBS}}</ul>
  </section>

  <section class="hub-not-covered">
    <h2>Topics We Don't Cover (And Where to Find Them)</h2>
    <p>{{HONEST_GUIDANCE_TO_OTHER_AUTHORITATIVE_SOURCES}}</p>
  </section>
</article>

The "honest guidance to other sources" section is counterintuitive but powerful. Pointing readers to legitimate authorities on adjacent topics demonstrates editorial integrity and improves user satisfaction.

6.3 Phase 3: About Page That Explains the Site's Purpose

Google's HCS guidance specifically asks: "If you researched the site producing the content, would you come away with an impression that it is well-trusted or widely-recognized as an authority on its topic?"

The About page is the answer. Build at /about/ with:

<article class="about-page">
  <h1>About {{BUSINESS_NAME}}</h1>

  <section class="why-we-exist">
    <h2>Why We Exist</h2>
    <p>{{SPECIFIC_PROBLEM_THE_SITE_SOLVES_FOR_AUDIENCE}}</p>
    <p>{{HOW_THE_SITE_IS_DIFFERENT_FROM_ALTERNATIVES}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="who-we-are">
    <h2>Who We Are</h2>
    <p>{{FOUNDER_BIO_WITH_RELEVANT_EXPERIENCE}}</p>
    <p>{{TEAM_INFO_IF_APPLICABLE}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="what-we-cover">
    <h2>What We Cover</h2>
    <ul>{{LIST_OF_PRIMARY_PILLARS_WITH_LINKS}}</ul>
  </section>

  <section class="what-we-dont-cover">
    <h2>What We Don't Cover</h2>
    <p>{{HONEST_DESCRIPTION_OF_TOPICS_OUTSIDE_SCOPE}}</p>
  </section>

  <section class="our-process">
    <h2>How We Create Content</h2>
    <ul>
      <li>{{CONTENT_CREATION_PROCESS_DETAIL}}</li>
      <li>{{REVIEW_PROCESS_DETAIL}}</li>
      <li>{{FACT_CHECKING_DETAIL}}</li>
      <li>{{IF_AI_USED_HOW}}</li>
    </ul>
    <p>See our <a href="/editorial-policy/">editorial policy</a> for full details.</p>
  </section>

  <section class="our-relationships">
    <h2>Our Relationships and Commitments</h2>
    <p>{{INDEPENDENCE_STATEMENT}}</p>
    <p>{{ANY_AFFILIATE_OR_PARTNERSHIP_CONTEXT}}</p>
    <p>See our <a href="/disclosure/">full disclosures</a>.</p>
  </section>

  <section class="contact">
    <h2>How to Reach Us</h2>
    <p>{{CONTACT_INFO}}</p>
    <p>Editorial questions: <a href="mailto:editorial@{{DOMAIN}}">editorial@{{DOMAIN}}</a></p>
  </section>
</article>

6.4 Phase 4: Content Removal & Consolidation

Sites with significant low-quality content drag their entire site's HCS score down. HCS evaluates the site holistically — even good articles can underperform if they're surrounded by low-quality content.

6.4.1 Removal candidates

Remove or noindex content that:

• Is thin (under 500 words on a substantive topic)
• Has no original insight (purely aggregated/derivative)
• Is outdated and not refreshed
• Duplicates other content on the site
• Was published as an SEO experiment without genuine expertise
• Has consistently low engagement metrics
• Is no longer aligned with the site's topical focus

6.4.2 Consolidation candidates

Consolidate content where:

• Multiple articles cover overlapping ground
• A series of thin articles could become one comprehensive piece
• Old articles are still relevant but need merging with newer ones

6.4.3 Consolidation pattern

When merging multiple articles into one comprehensive piece:

1. Identify the strongest URL to keep (best-ranked, oldest authoritative URL, or cleanest URL structure)
2. Merge content from the others into the kept URL
3. Improve the merged article significantly — don't just stitch text together
4. 301 redirect the consolidated URLs to the kept URL
5. Update internal links to point to the kept URL
6. Re-submit sitemap

6.5 Phase 5: AI Content Disclosure & Strategy

If AI is used in content creation, HCS requires more than just disclosure. Google's December 2025 guidance specifically asks "Why" content was created — using AI for bulk publication is a "Why" failure.

6.5.1 What's acceptable AI use under HCS

• AI for research assistance (gathering information for human writer)
• AI for first-draft generation followed by extensive human revision
• AI for grammar and style editing
• AI for summarizing the writer's own notes
• AI for outline generation that the writer fills in with original content
• AI in content the writer reviews and takes professional responsibility for

6.5.2 What's not acceptable

• AI generating articles that get published with minimal review
• AI generating articles on topics the publishing entity has no genuine expertise in
• AI content masquerading as written by a specific human author
• AI churning out articles to hit publication volume goals
• AI generating fake quotes, fake statistics, or fake experiences

6.5.3 AI disclosure on every AI-assisted article

<aside class="ai-content-disclosure">
  <h3>About this article</h3>
  <p>{{SPECIFIC_DESCRIPTION_OF_HOW_AI_WAS_USED}}</p>
  <p>This article was reviewed and edited by {{REVIEWER_NAME}}, {{CREDENTIALS}}.</p>
  <p>{{REVIEWER_NAME}} verified all factual claims, citations, and recommendations. They take professional responsibility for the accuracy of this content.</p>
  <p>See our <a href="/disclosure/">full AI use policy</a>.</p>
</aside>

6.6 Phase 6: Refresh Strategy (Not Date Manipulation)

HCS specifically warns against "changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed."

6.6.1 Genuine refresh process

When refreshing an article:

1. Read the article from the user's perspective — what's no longer accurate?
2. Update outdated information with current data
3. Add new sections covering developments since the last update
4. Remove sections that are no longer relevant
5. Update statistics, examples, screenshots
6. Verify all citations still work
7. Get reviewer sign-off if YMYL

Then update dateModified and add a changelog entry.

6.6.2 Article changelog

For substantive refreshes, document what changed:

<details class="article-changelog">
  <summary>Last updated {{UPDATED_DATE}} — see what changed</summary>
  <ul>
    <li><time datetime="{{UPDATE_1_DATE}}">{{UPDATE_1_DATE_HUMAN}}</time>: {{WHAT_CHANGED}}</li>
    <li><time datetime="{{UPDATE_2_DATE}}">{{UPDATE_2_DATE_HUMAN}}</time>: {{WHAT_CHANGED}}</li>
    <li><time datetime="{{UPDATE_3_DATE}}">{{UPDATE_3_DATE_HUMAN}}</time>: {{WHAT_CHANGED}}</li>
  </ul>
</details>

This proves the refresh was substantive, not just a date change.

7. Per-Article HCS Audit Criteria

Score each article:

Score: 30 max. World-class HCS article: 26+/30 with zero Critical fails.

8. Site-Wide HCS Audit Criteria

Score: 24 max. World-class HCS site: 21+/24 with zero Critical fails.

9. Common HCS Mistakes & Anti-Patterns

9.1 Keyword-First Content Strategy

Anti-pattern: Selecting topics based on keyword volume regardless of whether the site has genuine expertise.

Why it fails: Google's HCS specifically targets this pattern. Even well-written articles on topics outside the site's authority struggle.

Fix: Topic selection must start with "what does our audience genuinely need?" not "what has high search volume?"

9.2 AI Content Volume Strategy

Anti-pattern: "We can publish 100 articles per month with AI." Mass-produced AI content with minimal review.

Why it fails: December 2025 core update specifically targeted this. Sites with this pattern lost significant traffic.

Fix: Either dramatically slow publication and improve review quality, or remove the AI content. Quality > quantity.

9.3 "Comprehensive Guide" Without Depth

Anti-pattern: Title says "complete guide" but article is 1500 words of basics.

Why it fails: Title-content mismatch is a Trust violation and HCS failure.

Fix: Either deliver actual comprehensive coverage (often 3000-8000+ words for genuinely comprehensive guides) or change the title.

9.4 Forced Word Count

Anti-pattern: "Articles need to be 2000 words to rank." Padded content to hit a number.

Why it fails: HCS specifically warns about this. Padded content is detectable and fails the user.

Fix: Length matches content needs. A 600-word article that perfectly answers the question outranks a padded 2000-word article.

9.5 Trending Topics Without Genuine Coverage

Anti-pattern: Site that normally covers cooking suddenly publishes articles about cryptocurrency because crypto is trending.

Why it fails: HCS asks "Are you writing about things simply because they seem trending?" Yes is a failure.

Fix: Stay in your lane. Cover what you genuinely know.

9.6 Date Refresh Without Content Refresh

Anti-pattern: Updating dateModified without substantively updating content.

Why it fails: Google detects this pattern. It's a Trust violation.

Fix: Update dates only when content was genuinely updated. Document what changed.

9.7 Generic AI Boilerplate

Anti-pattern: AI-generated articles with telltale phrases ("It's important to note...", "Furthermore...", "In conclusion...") and no specific examples or insights.

Why it fails: Detectable, generic, doesn't serve users.

Fix: Either rewrite to remove AI boilerplate and add specific value, or remove the article.

9.8 Aggregator Pages Without Original Insight

Anti-pattern: "The 10 best X tools" articles that just describe what each tool does without any actual evaluation, testing, or insight.

Why it fails: Low original value. The article doesn't add anything beyond visiting each tool's homepage.

Fix: Test the tools, document the testing, share specific findings, give a recommendation based on real evaluation.

9.9 Hidden Affiliate Optimization

Anti-pattern: "Best X for Y" article that's structured around which products have the best affiliate commissions.

Why it fails: HCS detects mismatch between recommendation and user need. Long-term Trust damage.

Fix: Recommendations based on actual user benefit. Disclose affiliates clearly.

9.10 Content Without a Real Person

Anti-pattern: "Editorial Team" or no byline at all on substantive content. Generic about pages.

Why it fails: HCS asks who created the content. Anonymous content is suspect.

Fix: Real author bylines. Real about pages.

10. Stack-Specific HCS Implementation

10.1 WordPress

• Use Yoast or Rank Math to enforce title-meta-content alignment
• Build content review workflow into Editorial Calendar
• Custom fields per article: "What this article adds," "Author's experience with this topic"
• Plugin to detect duplicate content and consolidation candidates

10.2 Next.js / Astro / Hugo

• Type-safe content frontmatter requiring HCS metadata
• Pre-publish CI/CD check that requires HCS markers (author, original value, etc.)
• Build script generates topical hub pages from article frontmatter
• Static analysis of content for AI boilerplate patterns

10.3 Universal Pattern

The HCS workflow:

1. Topic selection: passes "is this in our authority area?" test
2. Drafting: passes "what does this add?" test
3. Reviewing: passes "would a reader feel this was worth their time?" test
4. Publishing: HCS markers all present
5. Monitoring: track engagement metrics; revise or retire underperforming content
6. Refreshing: substantive updates only; document changes

11. Validation Protocol

11.1 Per-Article Validation

Sample 10% of articles. For each:

1. Read it as if you found it in search results
2. Apply Google's self-assessment questions (Section 4.1)
3. Score Pass/Partial/Fail per HCS criterion (Section 7)
4. Document findings

11.2 Site-Wide Validation

1. Audit topical focus — do articles cluster around clear pillars?
2. Inventory content quality — what percentage is high-quality vs thin/derivative?
3. Check for HCS-failing patterns (Section 9)
4. Evaluate About page against Section 6.3 requirements
5. Score against Section 8 criteria

11.3 Honesty Test

The hardest HCS validation: ask someone outside the site (a peer, a target audience member, an industry colleague) to read sample articles and answer:

• "Did this article help you?"
• "Did you trust the source?"
• "Would you bookmark or share this?"
• "Would you come back to this site?"
• "Could you tell if this was AI-written or written by a real expert?"

External honest feedback is the most reliable HCS signal.

12. Audit Mode

Total HCS audit: 54 points (30 per-article average + 24 site-wide).

A site with critical HCS fails (HS1, HS5, HS6, HS7, HS11, HS12) is at significant risk for ranking suppression in core updates regardless of E-E-A-T or technical SEO strength.

13. Maintenance Schedule

13.1 Weekly

• Check newly published content for HCS markers
• Review one piece of older content for refresh or retirement

13.2 Monthly

• Audit recent publications against HCS criteria
• Track engagement metrics to identify decay candidates
• Review and update one topical hub page

13.3 Quarterly

• Site-wide HCS audit
• Review topical pillar definitions — still accurate?
• Inventory removal/consolidation candidates
• Update About page if business or focus has shifted

13.4 Annually

• Comprehensive content inventory and quality scoring
• Reduce content footprint if quality issues exist
• Strategic review: are we publishing for users or for search?
• Update editorial policy

13.5 Post-Core-Update

After every confirmed Google core update (typically 3-4 per year):

1. Identify pages that lost ranking
2. Apply HCS criteria to those pages
3. Look for patterns — what failed?
4. Remediate per HCS framework
5. Track recovery over 30-60 days

14. Implementation/Audit Report Templates

14.1 HCS Implementation Report Template

# HCS Framework Implementation Report

**Project**: {{BUSINESS_NAME}}
**Implementation Date**: {{TODAY}}

## Summary
- Total content audited: {{COUNT}}
- Content kept (high quality): {{COUNT}}
- Content refreshed substantively: {{COUNT}}
- Content consolidated: {{COUNT}}
- Content removed: {{COUNT}}

## Topical Pillars Defined
{{LIST_OF_PILLARS}}

## Hub Pages Created
{{LIST_OF_HUB_URLS}}

## About Page Updated
{{STATUS_AND_KEY_ADDITIONS}}

## AI Use Policy
{{POLICY_STATUS}}

## HCS Markers Installed Per Article Type
{{TABLE}}

## Items Flagged for Manual Review
{{LIST}}

## Validation Results
{{AUTOMATED_AND_MANUAL_RESULTS}}

## Sign-Off
Implementation complete: {{DATE}}

14.2 HCS Audit Report Template

# HCS Framework Audit Report

**Site**: {{BUSINESS_NAME}}
**Audit Date**: {{TODAY}}

## Executive Summary
{{ONE_PARAGRAPH_ASSESSMENT}}

**Overall Score**: {{X}}/54
**Status**: {{STATUS}}

## Topical Focus Assessment
{{FINDINGS}}

## Content Quality Distribution
- High-quality content: {{PERCENTAGE}}%
- Acceptable content: {{PERCENTAGE}}%
- Thin/derivative content: {{PERCENTAGE}}%

## Critical HCS Failures
{{LIST_WITH_REMEDIATION}}

## Per-Article Findings (Sample of 10%)
{{DETAILED_FINDINGS}}

## Site-Wide Findings
{{DETAILED_FINDINGS}}

## Recommended Remediation Order
1. Critical: {{PRIORITY_1}}
2. High: {{PRIORITY_2}}
3. Medium: {{PRIORITY_3}}

## Estimated Remediation Effort
{{HOURS}}

## Sign-Off

End of Framework Document

Document version: 1.0
Last updated: 2026-04-29
Maintained by: ThatDeveloperGuy

HCS is the evaluation framework for content quality — but more importantly, it's an honest mirror for content strategy. Sites that genuinely serve their audience pass HCS naturally. Sites that prioritize search rankings over user value fail HCS regardless of how clever the SEO is. The fastest path to HCS compliance is the hardest one: be honest about why content exists, who it's for, and whether it's genuinely useful.

Companion documents:

• framework-eeat.md
• framework-ymyl.md
• framework-sqrg.md
• framework-coreupdates.md
• framework-infogain.md
• framework-entitysalience.md
• framework-knowledgegraph.md
• framework-aicitations.md

About this framework library

This article is the Dev.to republish of a framework reference document from ThatDevPro's SEO + AI engineering library. Canonical source: https://www.thatdevpro.com/insights/framework-hcs/

ThatDevPro is an SDVOSB-certified veteran-owned web + AI engineering studio operating from Cassville, Missouri. The studio runs the full 14-tier Engine Optimization stack and ships open-source tooling for AI citation engineering.

Companion 14-tier Engine Optimization stack (each tier is its own article):

1. Tier 1 — Foundation
2. Tier 2 — Search Visibility
3. Tier 3 — AI Domination
4. Tier 4 — Entity and Authority
5. Tier 5 — Local Domination
6. Tier 6 — Content and Multimedia
7. Tier 7 — Social and Community
8. Tier 8 — Data, Analytics, Conversion
9. Tier 9 — Monitoring and Intelligence
10. Tier 10 — Workflow and Operations
11. Tier 11 — Marketplace and Retail
12. Tier 12 — International
13. Tier 14 — Advanced and Immersive

Need this framework implemented on your site? See the Engine Optimization service or hire through ThatDevPro contact.