Do images in universal results truly influence Search Console rankings?

What exactly are universal results and image blocks?

Universal results refer to the integration of different types of content in standard SERPs: images, videos, news, maps. When Google displays an image block in position 3, for instance, these thumbnails occupy a space that could have been allocated to a traditional organic result.

The image block itself behaves like a ranking unit. If your visual appears in this carousel, Google considers your site to occupy that position. The problem? A user can click on the image and land in Google Images, not on your site. The position exists, but the traffic may not.

How does Search Console account for these appearances?

Until now, some practitioners believed that image blocks constituted a separate parallel path, distinct from standard organic ranking. Mueller clarifies: these appearances are integrated into the average position calculation. If your page ranks 8th in standard organic search but your image appears in position 2 in a universal block, Search Console records that position 2.

This calculation mechanic can create major statistical distortions. A site can show an average position of 3.5 while the majority of its impressions come from standard results at position 12. The aggregation of data masks the reality of the generated traffic.

Why does this clarification change the game for SEOs?

Because it mandates a differentiated reading of metrics. Your position KPIs no longer reflect only your text-based ranking. If you aggressively optimize your images and they appear in universal blocks, your average position will mathematically improve. However, your overall CTR may stagnate or drop if those blocks generate few clicks to your site.

This ambiguity requires data segmentation. An SEO expert must now cross average position and type of appearance to assess true performance. A position 2 via an image block does not hold the same business value as a position 2 in a standard result with a featured snippet.

• Image blocks in SERPs are counted as ranking positions in Search Console
• This counting can artificially inflate a site’s average position without proportionately increasing traffic
• A site can appear in universal results through images while having a mediocre standard organic ranking
• Data segmentation in Search Console becomes essential to differentiate image performance from text performance
• CTR remains the key indicator: a good position via an image block without a high CTR signals a visual conversion issue

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Yes, but it particularly reveals a persistent opacity in the way Google aggregates data. In the field, we have observed for months sites with excellent average positions but disappointing click-through rates. The presence in image blocks explains part of this discrepancy. The problem is that Google does not provide a native filter in Search Console to isolate these appearances. [To be checked]: Does Google plan to add a "type of appearance" dimension in the reports?

Another point: Mueller does not clarify whether this counting applies uniformly across all query types. For informational queries, image blocks frequently appear in high positions. For transactional queries, much less so. The statistical value of a position via an image block varies greatly depending on search intent, and Google offers no clarity on that.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

Mueller's statement is technically accurate but practitioner-incomplete. It confirms the counting mechanism without addressing business implications. An e-commerce site that ranked in position 4 with an 8% CTR may see its average position rise to 2.5 after image optimization, but its overall CTR could drop to 5% if image blocks cannibalize clicks without converting.

Another nuance: not all image blocks are created equal. An image block displayed in position 1 with 8 thumbnails generates a very variable click-through rate to source sites depending on the sector. In fashion or decor, these blocks convert well. In B2B or services, they dilute attention without generating qualified traffic. Google does not weigh this reality in its position statistics.

In what cases does this rule pose a problem?

It becomes problematic when you compare your performance to that of competitors who do not appear in universal blocks. Two sites may show an average position of 3, but if one is boosted by image blocks and the other by pure organic ranking, their real traffic and effective visibility are radically different.

Worse still: this mechanic can mislead when analyzing the impact of an algorithm update. If your average positions improve after a Core Update but your traffic stagnates, it’s not necessarily that your CTR has dropped. It might be that Google is displaying more image blocks for your queries, inflating your position stats without improving your actual visibility. [To be checked]: Is Google planning to dissociate these metrics in future reports?

What concrete steps should be taken to leverage this information?

Start by auditing your appearances in image blocks. Use Search Console to identify the queries on which you rank well, then manually check in the SERPs if you appear via a universal block or as a standard organic result. If most of your strong positions come from image blocks, your SEO strategy should shift towards optimizing these blocks to maximize CTR.

Next, segment your data. Create groups of queries based on the dominant type of appearance. For queries where image blocks are systematic, optimize your alt tags, file names, and compression to enhance visibility. For queries with standard results, focus on titles, meta descriptions, and rich snippets. Do not mix KPIs: a query dominated by image blocks should not be evaluated with the same criteria as a pure text query.

What errors should be absolutely avoided?

Avoid artificially inflating your average positions by aggressively optimizing images without checking the traffic generated. A site can show an average position of 2 with a CTR of 3% if all its appearances are in low-click image blocks. Conversely, a site in position 5 in standard results with a CTR of 12% generates more qualified traffic.

Another frequent error: neglecting the semantic coherence between your images and your textual content. If your visuals appear in image blocks but the landing page disappoints the user, your bounce rate skyrockets, and Google ends up downgrading the entire page. Appearing in a universal block is not an end in itself; it is a traffic lever that must integrate into a comprehensive conversion strategy.

How can you check that your site is leveraging this mechanic correctly?

Implement segmented tracking in Google Analytics or your web analytics tool. Identify the pages that receive traffic from Google Images or from universal blocks, and compare their conversion rates to those of pages receiving standard organic traffic. If the conversion rate for visitors coming from image blocks is significantly lower, it indicates that your visual content is attracting unqualified traffic.

Also, use advanced rank tracking tools like SEMrush, Ahrefs, or Sistrix, which differentiate classic positions from SERP features. Compare your average Search Console positions with positions reported by these tools. A significant gap indicates that your stats are inflated by appearances in universal blocks, and you should adjust your performance reading accordingly.

• Manually audit your appearances in the SERPs to distinguish image blocks from standard results
• Segment your Search Console data by query type and dominant type of appearance
• Optimize your images (alt, file names, compression, semantic context) to maximize CTR for universal blocks
• Compare average position and real traffic to detect statistical distortions
• Set up segmented Analytics tracking by traffic source (images vs. standard organic)
• Cross-reference your Search Console data with third-party rank tracking tools to validate your actual positions