Official statement
Other statements from this video 12 ▾
- 22:39 Should You Remove Links That Are Only Present in the Initial HTML?
- 60:22 Is Server-Side Rendering really essential for SEO in 2025?
- 76:24 Does the JSON hydration at the bottom of the page harm SEO?
- 121:54 Has Googlebot really become foolproof when it comes to JavaScript?
- 152:49 How does switching to Evergreen Chrome revolutionize Google's page rendering?
- 183:08 Does Google really render ALL of your JavaScript pages?
- 196:12 Why does Google never click on your Load More buttons, and how can you avoid this?
- 226:28 Should you really hide cumulative content from infinite paginations from Google?
- 251:03 Can you really provide a different navigation experience to Google without risking a cloaking penalty?
- 271:04 Does Googlebot really click on the JavaScript buttons and links on your site?
- 303:17 Should you create a separate page for each day of a multi-day event or canonize to a single page?
- 402:37 Is it true that JavaScript is fully compatible with modern SEO?
Google confirms that Core Web Vitals statistics include consecutive page loads, not just the first load. This clarification broadens the measurement scope beyond just the initial navigation. Uncertainty remains over the exact weight of this data in the page experience signal — Google is still refining its model.
What you need to understand
What does Google mean by 'consecutive loads'?<\/h3>
Google measures real user experience<\/strong> through data collected by Chrome (CrUX). A visitor browsing a website does not just load one page — they may go through 5, 10, or even 15 pages during a single session.<\/p> Until now, many SEO practitioners believed that only the initial load mattered<\/strong> in Core Web Vitals. Martin Splitt clarifies here that Google also aggregates metrics from subsequent loads — in other words, internal navigation counts in the calculation.<\/p> On an e-commerce site, a user might load the homepage, then a category, then a product page, then the cart. If each consecutive load deteriorates the CWV<\/strong>, the overall score collapses even if the entry page was fast.<\/p> Specifically, an optimized media site on landing but struggling on internal pages (articles, tags, archives) risks damaging its experience signal<\/strong> if visitors navigate through multiple pages. Optimization must be consistent, not just focused on SEO entry points.<\/p> No. Splitt admits that 'the exact details of their use for the page experience signal are still being finalized'. In other words: Google collects this data, but doesn't specify how it is weighed<\/strong>.<\/p> This gray area is typical of Google — we know a signal exists, but its internal mechanics remain opaque. For a practitioner, this means optimizing all loads<\/strong>, not just the first, without knowing precisely the weight of each.<\/p>Why is this nuance important for e-commerce or media sites?<\/h3>
Is Google transparent about the exact use of this data?<\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with field observations?<\/h3>
Yes and no. Many SEOs have noticed that sites with an ultra-optimized homepage<\/strong> but mediocre internal pages retained good CWV scores in the Search Console. If all consecutive loads were weighted as heavily as the first, we should see more degradation.<\/p> One hypothesis: Google may aggregate all visited pages but weights the first load differently from the subsequent ones<\/strong>. Alternatively, browser caching and prefetching may mask part of the issue — but CrUX measures actual user experience, so caching should affect both sides.<\/p> Splitt refers to 'Core Web Vitals statistics' — he's probably talking about the CrUX report<\/strong>, not necessarily the ranking signal. CrUX aggregates all user experiences, including consecutive loads. However, the page experience signal used for ranking might filter or weigh this data differently<\/strong>.<\/p> Another point: 'still being finalized' means that Google is experimenting<\/strong>. The current weighting could be temporary, or Google may be testing various models across sectors (e-commerce vs media, mobile vs desktop). [To be verified]<\/strong>: no public data allows quantifying the exact impact of consecutive loads on ranking.<\/p> Sites with deep navigation<\/strong> (highly structured e-commerce sites, forums, documentation sites) are at risk. If a user goes through 10 pages and 6 out of 10 have a poor LCP, the overall score deteriorates.<\/p> Conversely, one-page sites or those with very low page views per session (landing pages, showcase sites) are less affected<\/strong> — most users only load one page. This creates asymmetry: two sites with the same LCP on the homepage can have very different CWV scores depending on browsing behavior.<\/p>What nuances should be added to this statement?<\/h3>
In what cases could this rule work against certain sites?<\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What should you do to optimize all loads effectively?<\/h3>
Stop optimizing only the SEO entry pages. Run CrUX audits on all page types<\/strong>: categories, product pages, articles, tag pages, archives. Identify templates that slow down internal navigation.<\/p> Implement smart prefetching<\/strong> on internal links with a high click rate — this reduces perceived LCP on consecutive loads. Use tools like quicklink.js or native prefetch directives. But beware: too much prefetching can saturate mobile bandwidth and degrade the initial experience.<\/p> Do not sacrifice experience consistency<\/strong> by optimizing only priority SEO pages. A user landing from Google on a fast page and then navigating to slow pages will have a degraded experience — and Google measures this.<\/p> Avoid poorly configured SPAs (Single Page Applications): if each internal transition re-downloads massive JS chunks or triggers heavy API calls, each consecutive 'load' will be as slow as a cold load<\/strong>. Browser caching is insufficient if JS execution is costly in itself.<\/p> Use CrUX API<\/strong> to extract data by URL or origin, then segment by page type. Compare scores of your SEO entry pages against your internal pages — if there’s a massive gap, you have an internal navigation problem.<\/p> Implement RUM (Real User Monitoring)<\/strong> with tools like SpeedCurve, Datadog RUM, or Google Analytics 4 + Web Vitals. You can measure CWV at each step of the user journey and identify friction points. If 80% of your users see a good LCP on the homepage but only 60% on product pages, you know where to dig deeper.<\/p>What mistakes should be avoided when optimizing consecutive loads?<\/h3>
How to verify that my site is compliant across the entire journey?<\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Google utilise-t-il les chargements consécutifs dans le ranking ou juste dans les rapports CrUX ?
Un site one-page est-il avantagé puisqu'il n'a pas de chargements consécutifs ?
Le prefetching améliore-t-il les CWV des chargements consécutifs ?
Les SPA (React, Vue, Angular) sont-elles pénalisées par cette logique de chargements consécutifs ?
Comment savoir si mes pages internes dégradent mes CWV globaux ?
🎥 From the same video 12
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · duration 465h56 · published on 24/03/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →Related statements
Get real-time analysis of the latest Google SEO declarations
Be the first to know every time a new official Google statement drops — with full expert analysis.
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.