Official statement
Other statements from this video 25 ▾
- □ La vitesse de chargement est-elle vraiment un facteur de classement secondaire ?
- □ Comment Google ajuste-t-il le poids de ses signaux de classement après leur lancement ?
- □ 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 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 ?
Martin Splitt asserts that ranking variations by region are not a bug but a crucial feature. Google tailors its results based on language, culture, and local context to serve the user, not to standardize the web. In practical terms, a site may rank on the first page in Paris and be invisible in Montreal — and that's perfectly normal.
What you need to understand
What is the reasoning behind this geographic variation in results?<\/h3>
Google does not aim to produce a universal ranking<\/strong> that is the same everywhere in the world. The algorithm incorporates hundreds of local signals<\/strong>: the user's detected language, their search history, the geographical proximity of businesses, cultural trends from the country, and even recent events in the region.<\/p> A concrete example: a query for "best Italian restaurant" in Lyon and New York cannot return the same results — nor the same search intentions<\/strong>. A French user is likely looking for a physically close establishment, while a New Yorker may want a recipe, a guide, or a specific local address. Google's algorithms adapt to this reality.<\/p> Geographical factors<\/strong> are multiple and prioritized differently depending on the query. Google first analyzes the language of the content, then the domain extension (.fr, .ca, .com), followed by the IP hosting and signals from Google Search Console (geographical targeting), and finally local mentions in the content — addresses, phone numbers, city names.<\/p> But that's not all. Regional backlinks<\/strong>, mentions in local media, and even data from Google My Business influence geographical visibility. A site hosted in France with a .fr and links from Le Monde will naturally carry more weight in France than in Brazil — even if the content is theoretically accessible everywhere.<\/p> No, and this is where many SEOs go wrong. Even informational queries<\/strong> without explicit local intent are geo-filtered. Typing "best smartphone" from Paris or Montreal will not yield the same results, because Google detects cultural preferences<\/strong> — the French favor certain brands, the Quebecois others, product availability differs, and also the dominant e-commerce sites.<\/p> Transactional queries are obviously even more regionalized: Google favors sites that can deliver or serve<\/strong> the user in their geographical area. A French site without international shipping has no reason to appear in Canada, even if it is technically better than its local competitors.<\/p>How does Google determine that a result is relevant to a given region?<\/h3>
Does this regionalization concern only local queries?<\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Does this statement correspond to the ground observations of SEOs?<\/h3>
Yes, and it's a relief that Google says it openly. For years, clients have panicked seeing their site absent from the SERPs<\/strong> on a Canadian VPN while ranking in France. The reality is that geographical variations are massive — much more than Google implies publicly.<\/p> Specifically, we observe gaps of 30 to 50 positions<\/strong> for the same query between two French-speaking countries. A .fr site optimized for France may be completely invisible in Belgium or Switzerland — and this is not always justified by language. Google overweights local signals<\/strong> to the extent that mediocre content but well-rooted locally will outperform objectively better content that is "foreign".<\/p> Martin Splitt presents this variation as a logical fact, but he minimizes a major issue<\/strong>: Google provides no reliable tool to measure this regionalization. Search Console displays data by country, sure, but the filters are coarse — it’s impossible to distinguish Paris from Lyon or Quebec from Montreal. [To be verified]<\/strong>: does GSC data by country include VPN users or only native IPs?<\/p> Another vague point: Google says nothing about the relative weight<\/strong> of geographical criteria. Does a .fr hosted in Canada with French backlinks rank in France? Probably, but to what extent? SEOs are navigating in the dark, and this statement provides no quantitative data. Typical of Google.<\/p> For international brands<\/strong>, it's a constant puzzle. Does a French e-commerce wanting to conquer Belgium need to create a .be subdomain, a version /fr-be/, or simply target through Search Console? Google never clearly decides, and the results vary by sector. We have seen multilingual sites cannibalizing themselves between regional versions due to poor hreflang settings.<\/p> Even worse: position tracking tools<\/strong> become nearly useless. If Google personalizes by region, city, or even neighborhood, how do you measure a "real" ranking? SEOs use proxies, datacenter IPs, but we measure approximations, not the reality experienced by the user. And Google knows this very well.<\/p>What nuances should be added to this assertion?<\/h3>
In what cases does this logic pose a problem for SEOs?<\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What concrete steps should be taken to optimize your site according to regions?<\/h3>
The first step: clearly define your priority geographical markets<\/strong>. If you are targeting several French-speaking countries, accept right now that you will not rank uniformly everywhere. Each region requires a specific strategy — localized content, local backlinks, mentions in regional media, sometimes even geolocated hosting or CDN.<\/p> Next, correctly configure the geographical targeting in Search Console<\/strong>. If you have a .com and are targeting France, declare it explicitly. If you have several regional versions (e.g., .fr, .be, .ch), rigorously use hreflang tags — one mistake and Google mixes everything, or worse, deindexes one version in favor of another.<\/p> Never duplicate identical content across multiple regional versions without real localization<\/strong>. Google detects geographical duplicate content and will arbitrarily favor one version, often not the one you want. If you are targeting France and Belgium, the content must be tailored — local vocabulary, regional examples, currency, units of measure.<\/p> Another classic mistake: believing that an international backlink<\/strong> is worth as much as a local backlink. False. A link from Le Figaro weighs heavily in France, much less in Quebec. Conversely, a link from La Presse (Montreal) boosts in Canada but has limited impact in Europe. SEOs who buy generic backlinks without geographical targeting waste their budget.<\/p> Use geolocalized tracking tools<\/strong> — Semrush, Ahrefs, or SerpWatcher allow you to define a specific city. Monitor your positions from Paris, Lyon, Brussels, Geneva, Montreal according to your targets. Compare the discrepancies. If you rank on page 1 in Paris and are invisible in Lyon for a non-local query, you have a problem with conflicting geographical signals<\/strong>.<\/p> Then, analyze your backlinks by region<\/strong>: how many referring domains are French, Belgian, Swiss? If you are targeting Switzerland but have no links from .ch sites, you will struggle to rank there. The same logic applies to local mentions: Google analyzes the semantic context — if your content never mentions cities, regions, or local events, it will be perceived as generic.<\/p>What mistakes should be absolutely avoided in a multilingual or multi-country strategy?<\/h3>
How can I check if my site is correctly optimized for each target region?<\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Pourquoi mon site apparaît en première page en France mais pas en Belgique ?
Les balises hreflang suffisent-elles pour ranker dans plusieurs pays ?
Faut-il créer un sous-domaine ou un sous-répertoire pour cibler un nouveau pays ?
Est-ce qu'un hébergement local améliore le classement dans un pays ?
Comment mesurer précisément mon classement par région ?
🎥 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.