Does Google really adjust its algorithms against SEOs?

Does this statement mean that Google ignores the existence of SEOs?

Absolutely not. Google is fully aware that millions of professionals optimize content for its search engine every day. The Search Quality team understands our methods, tools, and both white-hat and black-hat techniques.

What Gary Illyes emphasizes is that the approach is not targeted against us. When an engineer detects that a practice massively degrades the quality of results — let's say extreme keyword stuffing or poorly hidden PBNs — they do not think, 'How can we block SEOs?' but rather 'How can we distinguish relevant content from noise?'. The nuance may seem subtle, but it is fundamental. The goal remains user satisfaction, not our neutralization.

Why this distinction between "improving quality" and "targeting SEOs"?

Because the practical consequences differ radically. If Google targeted SEOs, it would look for optimization markers — presence of schema tags, silo structure, varied anchor texts — to systematically penalize them. However, these elements can sometimes be found on quality sites and sometimes absent from mediocre sites.

By focusing on quality, Google develops signals of relevance, reliability, real utility — actual reading time, adjusted bounce rates, depth of engagement, natural external citations. These metrics are harder to manipulate and better reflect user experience. If your optimization genuinely serves the user, it survives updates. If it only serves ranking, it ends up penalized — not because it's SEO, but because it's of poor quality.

What exactly is a "systemic problem" in the results?

A systemic problem is when an entire category of queries returns massively unsatisfactory results. A classic example: affiliate thin content that saturated certain commercial queries a few years ago. Google was not looking to eliminate affiliation but to filter out pages with no added value.

Another example: "SEO parasites" where authoritative sites rent subdirectories to rank unrelated content. The problem isn't that an SEO optimized, but that a user searching for "best VPNs" lands on a page hosted on a government site that has no relation to the subject. The solution? Adjust the algorithms to detect thematic inconsistency, not to blacklist SEOs.

• Google optimizes for user satisfaction, not against SEO professionals.
• Algorithmic adjustments target patterns of poor quality, whether they are caused by SEOs or not.
• If your optimizations genuinely enhance user experience, they withstand updates.
• "Systemic problems" concern entire categories of degraded queries, not individual sites.
• The distinction between "quality vs anti-SEO" implies that ranking signals are evolving towards metrics of actual engagement rather than easily manipulable technical markers.

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Partly, yes — but the reality is more nuanced than the official discourse. Some major updates (Penguin, Panda, the Helpful Content Update) have indeed targeted patterns of poor quality: duplicate content, keyword stuffing, spam backlinks. These sites objectively offered a degraded experience.

However, in practice, we frequently observe sites with impeccable content being crushed after an update, while others, objectively of lower quality but technically better optimized (top Core Web Vitals, artificially enhanced EEAT), manage to survive. [To be verified]: If Google isn’t targeting SEOs, why do certain domains using common techniques — semantic cocooning, optimized internal linking — face disproportionate sanctions? The line between "legitimate optimization" and "penalizable over-optimization" remains blurry.

What cognitive biases are hidden behind this discourse?

Google has every interest in maintaining a peaceful relationship with the SEO ecosystem. Saying "we don’t target you" reduces collective paranoia and avoids accusations of arbitrary manipulation. But the technical truth is more complex: some algorithms do indeed detect signals of aggressive optimization.

A concrete example: anti-spam link algorithms. They do not look for "SEO", they look for patterns of over-optimized anchors, unnatural link profiles. However, these patterns are predominantly produced by… SEOs. So yes, technically, Google does not target us. Practically? Our techniques come under scrutiny as soon as they become detectable at scale. Semantic nuance, identical impact.

In what cases does this rule not apply completely?

When Google identifies an intentional and massive manipulation, the response can be more direct than a simple "quality adjustment". Manual actions still exist and specifically target certain behaviors — often SEO-related. An identified PBN network? Brutal deindexing. Aggressive cloaking? Manual penalty.

Another edge case: guidelines for Quality Raters. These documents explicitly guide human evaluation towards detecting certain SEO practices (satellite pages, affiliate thin content). These evaluations then feed into machine learning. So indirectly, yes, certain SEO techniques are indeed in the crosshairs — even if the stated objective remains "quality".

What should be done concretely to align SEO practices with this "quality first" logic?

Prioritize measurable user experience rather than purely technical optimizations. This means investing in metrics that Google can observe: actual engagement time, reading completion rates, interactions (scrolls, relevant internal clicks), low immediate bounce rates. These signals are hard to manipulate without genuinely enhancing content.

Concrete actions? Test your pages with real users. Use tools like Hotjar or Clarity to observe behaviors. If visitors leave after 10 seconds, Google sees that too. Optimize to retain attention — engaging titles, impactful opening lines, relevant visuals, scannable structure. The goal is no longer to "please Google" but to create a page that the user wants to read.

What mistakes should be avoided to not fall into the crosshairs of a "quality" adjustment?

Avoid eye-visible optimizations that seem artificial. Over-optimized anchor texts (do all your backlinks say "best CRM software"?), mechanical repetitions of keywords, content generated massively with identical templates. These patterns trigger algorithmic radars, even if the intention is not malicious.

Another trap: temporary "hacks" that work until the next update. Are you exploiting a ranking bug? Take advantage of it, but know it's temporary. Google adjusts constantly. Build on solid ground — real thematic authority, editorial backlinks obtained naturally, content that others spontaneously cite. It takes longer, but it’s infinitely more resilient.

How to check if my site is perceived as "qualitative" by Google?

Analyze your Core Web Vitals in real-life conditions (not just in the lab). Use the Search Console to identify pages with low engagement. Compare your organic click-through rate with the average position — an abnormally low CTR for a position of 3-5 signals a perceived relevance issue (disappointing title/description, or content that doesn’t meet expectations).

Also examine the queries for which you rank without having sought them out. If Google sends you traffic on irrelevant terms, your content lacks thematic clarity. Refine, refocus, eliminate the noise. A "qualitative" site in Google's eyes has a strong and coherent semantic identity.

• Measure and improve real engagement metrics (time on page, interactions, completion)
• Have real users test your pages before publishing
• Avoid mechanical and easily detectable optimization patterns at large scale
• Build natural editorial backlinks instead of standardized link-building campaigns
• Monitor Core Web Vitals in real conditions and correct problematic pages
• Analyze organic traffic to detect thematic inconsistencies and refine your semantic positioning