Official statement
Other statements from this video 25 ▾
- □ La vitesse de chargement est-elle vraiment un facteur de classement secondaire ?
- □ La vitesse d'un site peut-elle compenser un contenu médiocre ?
- □ Pourquoi mesurer uniquement le LCP est-il une erreur stratégique pour votre SEO ?
- □ Comment Google valide-t-il réellement ses signaux de classement avant de les déployer ?
- □ Google distingue-t-il vraiment deux types de changements de classement ?
- □ Pourquoi votre classement Google varie-t-il autant selon la géolocalisation de la requête ?
- □ Pourquoi Google crawle-t-il votre site à une vitesse différente de celle mesurée par vos utilisateurs ?
- □ Pourquoi Google refuse-t-il de divulguer le poids exact de ses facteurs de classement ?
- □ Pourquoi Google utilise-t-il vraiment la vitesse comme facteur de classement ?
- □ Pourquoi Google ne se soucie-t-il pas du spam de vitesse ?
- □ Pourquoi les métriques SEO peuvent-elles signaler une régression alors que l'expérience utilisateur s'améliore ?
- □ La vitesse de chargement mérite-t-elle encore qu'on s'y consacre autant ?
- □ Le HTTPS n'est-il qu'un simple bris d'égalité entre sites équivalents ?
- □ Le HTTPS n'est-il vraiment qu'un « bris d'égalité » dans le classement Google ?
- □ Comment Google détermine-t-il vraiment le poids de chaque signal de classement ?
- □ Pourquoi Google mesure-t-il parfois l'impact d'une mise à jour avec des métriques négatives ?
- □ La vitesse de chargement est-elle vraiment un signal de classement mineur ?
- □ La vitesse du site est-elle vraiment secondaire face à la pertinence du contenu ?
- □ Pourquoi mesurer uniquement le LCP ne suffit-il plus pour les Core Web Vitals ?
- □ Vitesse de crawl vs vitesse utilisateur : pourquoi Google distingue-t-il ces deux métriques ?
- □ Pourquoi vos résultats de recherche varient-ils selon les régions et langues ?
- □ Votre site est-il vraiment global ou juste multilingue ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment investir dans l'optimisation de la vitesse pour contrer le spam ?
- □ Pourquoi Google refuse-t-il de dévoiler le poids exact de ses facteurs de ranking ?
- □ Pourquoi Google utilise-t-il la vitesse comme facteur de classement ?
Google experiments with the weight of each ranking signal before and after deployment. The case of HTTPS illustrates this approach: launched as a strong signal, it has been gradually lowered 4 to 5 times until it became a mere tie-breaker in case of a tie. This revelation confirms that Google continuously adjusts the influence of its criteria based on their actual impact on the quality of results.
What you need to understand
Why does Google experiment with the weight of signals instead of freezing them from the start? <\/h3>
Google's algorithm relies on hundreds of ranking signals<\/strong> that interact with each other in complex ways. Launching a new signal with a definitive weight would be risky: too strong, it overwhelms other criteria and skews results; too weak, it becomes invisible and loses its usefulness.<\/p> Therefore, Google adopts an iterative approach. Quality teams test different weightings in real-world conditions<\/strong>, observe the impact on result relevance, and then make adjustments. This method allows finding the optimal balance<\/strong> among all criteria without disrupting the entire system.<\/p> HTTPS was publicly announced as a ranking signal in 2014<\/strong>, with a deliberately moderate weight. What Gary Illyes reveals is that even after this cautious launch, Google continued to reduce its influence<\/strong> four to five consecutive times.<\/p> Today, HTTPS acts as a "tie-breaker"<\/strong>: it differentiates two pages that are strictly equivalent in all other criteria. In practical terms? If your content is mediocre, switching to HTTPS will change nothing. But with equal quality compared to a competitor, you come out on top.<\/p> A tie-breaker is a criteria for differentiation<\/strong> that only intervenes in the case of a perfect tie between two results. HTTPS is probably not the only signal in this situation — it can be reasonably assumed that other technical factors such as exact match domain<\/strong> or certain engagement signals work similarly.<\/p> This tie-breaker status explains why some HTTPS migrations produced no position gains<\/strong>: if your pages were already ranking better or worse than the competition on the major criteria, HTTPS could not change the game. It only becomes decisive in situations of perfect balance<\/strong>, which are relatively rare in practice.<\/p>Is the case of HTTPS representative of Google's general approach? <\/h3>
What is a "tie-breaker" and how many signals work this way? <\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with field observations? <\/h3>
Absolutely. Tests conducted by numerous SEOs since the launch of HTTPS confirm that switching to HTTPS alone does not guarantee any position gains<\/strong>. Sites that saw improvements after migrating to HTTPS usually had other factors at play: fixing technical issues, redesign, improving content.<\/p> Gary Illyes' admission of the successive adjustments also explains why the effects of HTTPS seemed to fade over time<\/strong>. It's not that Google abandoned the criterion, but that it calibrated it so as not to overvalue a purely technical factor at the expense of content quality.<\/p> It’s very likely. The Core Web Vitals<\/strong>, launched as a ranking signal, probably follow a similar trajectory. Google had indeed specified from the outset that their impact would be moderate, and field observations show that a slow site with exceptional content regularly beats a fast but mediocre site.<\/p> [To be verified]<\/strong>: We do not have official data on the exact number of adjustments made for other signals, nor on their extent. Google’s transparency usually stops at confirming the existence of a signal, rarely quantifying its evolution over time. The case of HTTPS remains a rare exception<\/strong> where a Googler provided precise numbers.<\/p> When Google announces a new ranking criterion, one should expect that its initial weight will not be definitive<\/strong>. The effect observed in the first months may gradually fade if Google finds that it is over-weighting the signal compared to other criteria that are more relevant to the quality of results.<\/p> Let’s be honest: this also means that some heavily marketed signals<\/strong> by Google may end up becoming almost invisible in the actual algorithm. The challenge for an SEO is therefore never to overinvest in a single criterion at the expense of the fundamentals — content, authority, relevance — which remain the pillars of ranking.<\/p>Can this logic be generalized to other recent signals? <\/h3>
What implications for future signals announced by Google? <\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
Should HTTPS still be prioritized in an current SEO strategy? <\/h3>
Yes, but for the right reasons<\/strong>. HTTPS remains essential for user trust, GDPR compliance, and access to certain modern web features (HTTP/2, service workers, geolocation). Its direct SEO impact is marginal, but its absence can harm your conversion rate and credibility.<\/p> In practical terms? If you are not yet on HTTPS, migrate — but do not expect a spectacular leap in the SERPs. If you are already on HTTPS and your positions are stagnating, look elsewhere<\/strong>: optimizing content, strengthening internal linking, and acquiring quality backlinks will have a much more measurable impact.<\/p> Adopt a balanced and diversified approach<\/strong>. When Google announces a new signal, integrate it into your roadmap, but do not sacrifice your fundamental priorities. Technical signals (speed, mobile-first, HTTPS) are prerequisites<\/strong>, not growth levers on their own.<\/p> Monitor feedback from the SEO community in the 6 to 12 months following the launch of a signal. If tests show a decreasing impact, it is probably that Google has started to adjust the weight<\/strong> downwards. Adjust your priorities accordingly rather than clinging to a strategy based on initial official announcements.<\/p> Never completely overhaul your entire SEO strategy around a newly announced single signal<\/strong>. The history of HTTPS shows that Google can reduce the influence of a criterion even after publicly highlighting it. Always maintain a holistic and multi-faceted view.<\/p> Another classic trap: overinvesting technical resources (developers, time, budget) on a signal while your fundamentals are weak<\/strong>. If your content is poor, your internal linking is nonexistent, and your backlinks are of low quality, optimizing Core Web Vitals will not save your positions. Prioritize what has the most measured impact, not what makes the most noise in official announcements.<\/p>How to anticipate future adjustments on other signals? <\/h3>
What mistakes to avoid in light of announcements for new signals? <\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
HTTPS est-il encore un facteur de classement aujourd'hui ?
Combien de fois Google a-t-il réduit le poids de HTTPS ?
Pourquoi ma migration HTTPS n'a-t-elle produit aucun gain de positions ?
Les Core Web Vitals suivent-ils la même logique que HTTPS ?
Comment savoir si Google a ajusté le poids d'un signal récent ?
🎥 From the same video 25
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 06/05/2021
🎥 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.