Do core updates really not penalize any technical errors?

What does 'improving relevance' really mean?

Google talks about result relevance without detailing the criteria that define it. Does the algorithm evaluate content freshness, depth, perceived domain authority, engagement signals? The answer is: a mix of all that, but the proportions remain opaque.

In practice, sites that gain positions after a core update often have more comprehensive content, better alignment with search intent, and sometimes a stronger topical authority. But not always. Some technically impeccable sites drop in rankings for no apparent reason.

Does a traffic drop really indicate no technical issues?

Mueller states that a drop post-update does not indicate a technical error or penalty. This is true in absolute terms: manual penalties appear in the Search Console, and core updates do not trigger them.

However, here's the catch—a drop can reveal structural weaknesses that Google will never classify as 'technical.' A site with poor internal linking, a poorly optimized crawl budget, or orphan pages will not face formal penalties. It will just perform less well against better-architected competitors.

How does the algorithm determine that content is 'more relevant'?

Google never shares its granular criteria—it's the classic black box. We know that search intent plays a major role: transactional content will not satisfy an informational query, even if it is technically perfect.

User experience signals (session time, bounce rate, repeated clicks) likely influence the perception of relevance, even if Google sometimes denies their direct weight. Sites that retain their audience with unique and actionable content tend to withstand the turbulence of core updates.

• A core update is not a penalty: no notification in the Search Console, no manual action.
• Relevance is measured relative to competition: your content may be good, but others are deemed better.
• The criteria for relevance remain undocumented: Google talks about 'overall quality' without detailing specific levers.
• A drop can hide non-technical structural issues: information architecture, content depth, topical authority.
• Search intent is paramount: a mismatch between what the user is looking for and what your page offers can explain a drop.

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Partially. It is indeed observed that technically impeccable sites—optimal loading times, perfect crawl, HTTPS activated—can lose positions after a core update. This validates Mueller's thesis: technical alone is not enough.

But the opposite also exists: sites with mediocre quality content but a solid technical foundation (coherent internal linking, optimized crawl budget, silo architecture) perform better than amateur blogs with rich but poorly structured content. [To be verified]: Google may downplay the role of technical foundations to prevent a sole focus on them.

What nuances should be added to this assertion?

Mueller refers to 'relevance' as a monolithic concept. In reality, it breaks down into dozens of micro-signals: content depth, semantic coverage, link authority, behavioral engagement, timeliness, perceived E-E-A-T.

To say that a drop 'does not signal an error' is reductive. It mainly signals that your relative positioning has deteriorated: either your competitors have improved, or the algorithm has adjusted its priorities, or your content is no longer meeting targeted queries as well. In any case, it is a signal—certainly not a technical error, but a strategic mismatch.

When does this rule not apply?

If a core update coincides with a site migration, a major redesign, or a change in URL structure, it can be difficult to untangle what belongs to the algorithmic update and what is due to an undetected technical error. 302 redirects instead of 301, poorly configured canonical tags, or an outdated XML sitemap can create a sharp decline that you might wrongfully attribute to the core update.

Another edge case: multi-topical sites that are losing topical authority. Google may decide that your site covers too many disparate topics and demote it for certain queries in favor of pure players. This is not a technical error, but an editorial choice penalized by the algorithm—and it contradicts the idea that a drop is solely due to competition.

What should you do after a drop post-core update?

First, don't panic and change anything. Google advises waiting several weeks before making massive content modifications—the rankings can fluctuate for days after the full deployment of the update. Identify the pages that have lost the most positions and analyze the new top 3 for those queries.

Next, compare your content with that of competitors: depth of coverage, semantic richness, timeliness, format (video, infographic, structured FAQ). If your articles are three years old and the top positions feature recent, enriched content, you have your answer. Update, enrich, restructure.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Don't fall into the trap of 'adding content for the sake of adding content'. Google detects fluff: if you artificially inflate a 1500-word article to 3000 without adding real value, you won't improve anything. Length is not a criterion in itself—the comprehensive coverage of intent is.

Another common mistake: neglecting topical authority. If you write about ten different topics and your competitors are pure players, Google may deem their content more 'expert' even if it is objectively less detailed. Focus your editorial efforts on a few thematic pillars and develop them in depth.

How can you verify that your site will withstand future core updates?

Audit your information architecture: are the pillar pages well-linked? Do deep pages receive enough internal links? An orphaned piece of content, no matter how good, will never rise in the SERPs. Use a crawler to detect pages more than 3 clicks from the home—bring them closer.

Analyze your E-E-A-T signals: is the expertise of your authors visible (bio, credentials, links to LinkedIn or Twitter profiles)? Are sources cited? For YMYL topics (health, finance, legal), these signals carry substantial weight. If you're writing about taxation without mentioning your qualifications, a certified competitor will outperform you.

• Identify dropped pages and compare them to the new top 3: what is missing?
• Update dated content with recent data and concrete examples.
• Strengthen topical authority: trim peripheral topics, focus on your pillars.
• Optimize internal linking so that each important page receives at least 5 contextual internal links.
• Add visible E-E-A-T signals: identified authors, cited sources, detailed 'About' and 'Team' pages.
• Do not modify anything in the 48 hours following a core update: wait for rankings to stabilize.