Are Google’s core updates really designed to enhance user experience or to reshuffle rankings?

Why does Google emphasize user improvement so much?

Every time a core update rolls out, Google repeats the same mantra: “We are improving our relevance and quality algorithms to better serve users”. This is a way to legitimize upheavals in the SERPs without having to explain the technical details.

The implicit message? If your site loses positions, it's not because Google is penalizing you — it's that others are better meeting user expectations. Convenient for washing their hands of any business consequences.

What does this zero-sum game really mean for us?

Gary Illyes puts it bluntly: in a top 10, if one site rises, another must fall. It’s mathematical. But this obviousness obscures a more complex reality — some niches see 6-7 new sites land on the first page after a core update, while others maintain the same structure with just permutations.

In concrete terms, this means you are not only competing with your direct competitors but also with the evolution of relevance criteria themselves. Your reference content from 3 years ago may suddenly no longer meet the right criteria.

What quality and relevance signals is Google really talking about?

Google remains deliberately vague about what these “relevance and quality algorithms” encompass. We know they include E-E-A-T, content freshness, depth of coverage, engagement signals — but their relative weight and thresholds remain opaque.

What complicates matters: these criteria evolve with every core update. An article that was thriving due to its semantic density can suddenly be outperformed by a competitor with fewer words but more practical examples. The rules of the game are constantly changing.

• Core updates adjust relevance algorithms, not just spam penalties
• A site can lose without doing anything wrong — just because the criteria have evolved
• Google never details which specific signals are strengthened in each update
• The top 10 is a zero-sum game — your gain is another’s loss
• The notion of quality remains subjective and varies by query

Does this statement align with real-world observations?

Yes and no. In principle, it’s true that core updates shuffle the deck based on new quality criteria. But to say it’s solely for improving user experience is a bit too simplistic. We’ve seen updates favor sites that are clearly less comprehensive than those they replace.

The problem is that “quality” and “relevance” are elastic concepts. Google can decide overnight that pages with embedded videos are more relevant, or that sites with fewer ads deserve a boost. Technically, it’s still “for the user,” but it's also Google unilaterally defining what is better for them.

What nuances need to be considered for this simplistic zero-sum view?

The zero-sum game metaphor works for the top 10 of a given query. But it completely overlooks the impact on long-tail and related queries. A site can lose 5 positions on its flagship query while gaining overall traffic because it is performing better on 200 secondary variations.

Another nuance: core updates do not affect all sectors with the same intensity. Some verticals (health, finance, Your Money Your Life in general) undergo major shocks, while other niches remain almost stable. Saying “it’s for improving results” implies it's homogeneous — which is false.

[To be verified] Google has never published data showing that user satisfaction measurably increases after each core update. We take their word for granted.

In what situations does Google’s explanation fall short?

There are situations where the argument “we optimize for the user” seems more like storytelling than technical reality. For instance, when a site sees all its pages uniformly drop by 3-4 positions without any content change or competition — it’s more of a domain authority adjustment than a page-level relevance judgment.

Similarly, we have documented cases where ultra-comprehensive and up-to-date pages lose to objectively less detailed content but hosted on more “safe” or mainstream domains. User relevance does not explain everything — Google's reputation risk management plays a role too.

What should you do concretely after a core update that causes you to lose positions?

First, don’t panic and wait for 2-3 weeks. Core updates roll out over several days or even weeks. Your positions may fluctuate during the rollout. Acting too quickly on unstable data may lead to poor decisions.

Next, thoroughly analyze what has changed in the SERPs — not just your positions, but who has surpassed you and on which queries. Compare their content to yours: format, depth, freshness, structuring, integrated media. The patterns that emerge give you clues about the reinforced criteria.

What mistakes should be avoided when trying to recover from a post-update drop?

Classic mistake: rewriting your content en masse in panic mode. If you modify 50 pages at once without a clear hypothesis, you obfuscate the trails and lose the capacity to measure what works. Proceed with small test batches.

Another trap: blindly copying what the new top 3 are doing. They might not be there for the reasons you think. Perhaps they have a monstrous backlink profile or domain age that compensates for mediocre content. Do not mimic without understanding.

Finally, do not neglect technical and UX signals. A core update that claims to enhance relevance may also increase the importance of Core Web Vitals, mobile-first, or structured data. Perfect content on a slow site will not rise.

How can I verify that my site aligns with Google’s current expectations?

No magic solution, but a few checks that help. Compare your engagement metrics (time on page, bounce rate, scroll depth) with those of your competitors if you have access to tools like SimilarWeb or shared analytics data. Google values content that keeps users engaged.

Also check compliance with the Quality Rater Guidelines — it’s the closest document we have to a Google specification. Ask yourself the E-E-A-T questions: who writes, what expertise, what proof of credibility, what transparency about the author and the site?

• Wait 2-3 weeks before reacting to gather stable data
• Analyze who has surpassed you and on which specific queries
• Identify content or structure patterns among the new top rankers
• Do not modify en masse without a hypothesis — test in small batches
• Check technical signals (CWV, mobile, structured data)
• Audit E-E-A-T compliance and the Quality Rater Guidelines
• Measure actual user engagement on your key pages
  Core updates redistribute positions based on evolving quality criteria each time. Instead of reacting in haste, take time to analyze the new winners and test targeted adjustments. The key is to understand which specific lever has been strengthened — this is where the expertise of a specialized SEO agency can make a difference, by crossing technical, semantic, and competitive analysis to identify the real upward levers.