Is Google really sending more traffic to websites each year?

This statement comes in a context where many web players accuse Google of monopolizing clicks through its own features (SGE, featured snippets, Knowledge Graph). Mueller is clearly trying to reassure the ecosystem.

The message is intentionally broad: "open web", "year after year", "growing opportunities". No figures, no specific period, no shared methodology.

What does "traffic to the open web" really mean?

Google is contrasting here the open web (independent third-party sites) with its own properties. The idea: the search engine doesn't absorb all traffic, it redistributes it.

But this formulation sidesteps a central question — what proportion of searches actually generates an outbound click? Zero-click searches now represent more than 50% of queries according to several independent studies.

Is this trend observable in the statistics?

Google does not publish aggregated data on the evolution of traffic sent. Therefore, it's impossible to verify this claim directly.

What we observe on the publisher side: increased volatility, massive redistributions during Core Updates, and traffic fragmentation across more long-tail queries. Total volume may stagnate even if Google claims to send "more".

Who benefits from this supposed growth?

If growth exists, it probably doesn't benefit all sites uniformly. Authoritative domains in YMYL sectors capture most of the gains.

Small sites and emerging players struggle to break through, caught between saturated SERPs full of established brands and Google features that cannibalize clicks.

• Google claims to send more traffic — without providing verifiable data
• The "open web" formulation excludes Google properties but ignores zero-click searches
• No methodology or specific period accompanies this statement
• The real-world experience of many SEOs contradicts this optimistic discourse
• Any growth, if it exists, primarily benefits already-authoritative domains

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Let's be honest: many SEO professionals don't see this trend in their data. Search Console traffic reports show stagnation or declines in certain sectors, despite sustained optimization efforts.

SERP features (People Also Ask, featured snippets, local packs, shopping) consume an increasingly large share of clicks. Even when a site ranks well, organic CTR mechanically declines.

[To verify] : Google might be counting all traffic sent — including Discover, Google News, image search. This would artificially inflate the figures without reflecting the reality of traditional SERP traffic.

What nuances should be added to this message?

Mueller talks about "growing opportunities". This is true in the sense that overall search volume increases — more users, more devices, more queries.

But the click-through rate to third-party sites doesn't necessarily follow. A site can capture "more traffic" simply because the market is growing, without Google sending it a larger share than before.

Another nuance: the concept of "website" becomes blurred. Google increasingly prioritizes structured content (YouTube videos, local maps, product cards) over traditional web pages.

In which cases does this claim not apply?

Sites in highly competitive niches or heavily impacted by SERP features (recipes, weather, definitions, conversions) probably don't see this growth.

Similarly, sites penalized by successive Core Updates or affected by E-E-A-T quality issues suffer brutal drops that completely contradict this discourse.

Finally, this trend only concerns indexable web content. Content behind authentication, poorly configured paywalls, or blocked by robots.txt obviously benefit from no Google traffic whatsoever.

What should you do concretely to capture this traffic?

If Google is indeed sending more traffic, you still need to be positioned to capture it. This requires a content strategy aligned with actual search intent, not fantasy keyword volumes.

Invest in featured snippets and structured answers. Paradoxically, even when they sometimes cannibalize clicks, they maintain your visibility and strengthen your topical authority.

Monitor your Core Web Vitals and mobile user experience. Google does redistribute traffic, but prioritizes sites that meet its technical standards.

What mistakes should you avoid regarding this statement?

Don't take this claim at face value and absolutely don't abandon your alternative traffic channels (newsletters, social media, dark social). Diversifying remains a prudent strategy.

Also avoid over-investing in content optimized only for Google at the expense of real user experience. If traffic arrives but leaves immediately, you lose on all fronts.

Don't neglect competitive analysis: compare your traffic evolution to that of your direct competitors via third-party tools. If everyone stagnates except you, congratulations. If everyone declines including you, the problem is probably larger.

How can you verify the real impact on your site?

Analyze your Search Console data over several years: impressions, clicks, average CTR. Break it down by query type (brand, informational, transactional) to identify where gains or losses concentrate.

Compare your total organic traffic to the evolution of search volume in your sector. If the market grows 20% but your traffic stagnates, you're actually losing share.

Monitor the SERP features that appear on your strategic keywords. If they multiply, your CTR will mechanically decline even while maintaining your positions.

• Optimize your content for featured snippets and People Also Ask
• Maintain excellent Core Web Vitals (LCP, FID, CLS)
• Diversify your traffic sources beyond Google
• Analyze the evolution of your organic CTR by query type
• Compare your growth to that of the overall market and your competitors
• Strengthen your E-E-A-T authority to capture traffic redistributed during Core Updates
• Monitor the appearance of new SERP features on your key queries