Official statement
Other statements from this video 9 ▾
- □ JavaScript et indexation : Google est-il vraiment capable de tout indexer ?
- □ Le Web Rendering Service de Google suit-il vraiment toutes les dernières fonctionnalités de Chrome ?
- □ Pourquoi Google peine-t-il à indexer correctement les sites qui utilisent des Web Workers ?
- □ Pourquoi les SEO et développeurs doivent-ils absolument travailler ensemble ?
- □ Les core updates de Google sont-elles vraiment des rappels à l'ordre sur les guidelines ?
- □ Les core updates sont-elles vraiment neutres ou cachent-elles des pénalités déguisées ?
- □ Core update : pourquoi Google refuse-t-il de donner des détails spécifiques ?
- □ Pourquoi Google refuse-t-il de révéler ce que contiennent vraiment les core updates ?
- □ Les core updates de Google affectent-ils vraiment tous les sites ?
Google claims that core updates aim to improve the relevance and quality of results for users. Mechanically, when one site gains positions, another loses — it's a zero-sum game in the top 10. The key question: is your site rising because it's improving, or because others are declining?
What you need to understand
Why does Google emphasize user improvement so much?<\/h3>
Every time a core update rolls out, Google repeats the same mantra: “We are improving our relevance and quality algorithms to better serve users”<\/strong>. This is a way to legitimize upheavals in the SERPs without having to explain the technical details.<\/p> 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.<\/p> Gary Illyes puts it bluntly: in a top 10, if one site rises, another must fall<\/strong>. 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.<\/p> 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.<\/p> Google remains deliberately vague about what these “relevance and quality algorithms”<\/strong> encompass. We know they include E-E-A-T, content freshness, depth of coverage, engagement signals — but their relative weight and thresholds remain opaque.<\/p> 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.<\/p>What does this zero-sum game really mean for us?<\/h3>
What quality and relevance signals is Google really talking about?<\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Does this statement align with real-world observations?<\/h3>
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<\/strong>. We’ve seen updates favor sites that are clearly less comprehensive than those they replace.<\/p> The problem is that “quality” and “relevance” are elastic concepts<\/strong>. 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.<\/p> 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<\/strong>. A site can lose 5 positions on its flagship query while gaining overall traffic because it is performing better on 200 secondary variations.<\/p> Another nuance: core updates do not affect all sectors with the same intensity<\/strong>. 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.<\/p> [To be verified]<\/strong> Google has never published data showing that user satisfaction measurably increases after each core update. We take their word for granted.<\/p> There are situations where the argument “we optimize for the user”<\/strong> 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.<\/p> 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<\/strong>.<\/p>What nuances need to be considered for this simplistic zero-sum view?<\/h3>
In what situations does Google’s explanation fall short?<\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What should you do concretely after a core update that causes you to lose positions?<\/h3>
First, don’t panic and wait for 2-3 weeks.<\/strong> 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.<\/p> Next, thoroughly analyze what has changed in the SERPs<\/strong> — 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.<\/p> Classic mistake: rewriting your content en masse in panic mode.<\/strong> 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.<\/p> Another trap: blindly copying what the new top 3 are doing.<\/strong> 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.<\/p> Finally, do not neglect technical and UX signals<\/strong>. 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.<\/p> 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<\/strong> if you have access to tools like SimilarWeb or shared analytics data. Google values content that keeps users engaged.<\/p> Also check compliance with the Quality Rater Guidelines<\/strong> — 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?<\/p>What mistakes should be avoided when trying to recover from a post-update drop?<\/h3>
How can I verify that my site aligns with Google’s current expectations?<\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Est-ce que Google pénalise activement certains sites lors des core updates ?
Combien de temps faut-il pour se remettre d'une baisse après une core update ?
Si je n'ai rien changé sur mon site, pourquoi mes positions baissent-elles ?
Google communique-t-il quels signaux sont renforcés dans chaque core update ?
Peut-on anticiper une core update et se préparer à l'avance ?
🎥 From the same video 9
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 11/01/2022
🎥 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.