Can an algorithm update really avoid targeting anything specific?

Why was this update perceived as targeting health?

The August update severely affected medical and health websites. Tens of thousands of pages lost 50 to 80% of their organic traffic overnight. As a result, the SEO community quickly dubbed this update the "Medic Update."

However, Google dismissed this label. According to John Mueller, it was a general ranking change, not a sector-specific filter. So why this widespread perception? Because health websites shared common faults: superficial content, unnamed authors, intrusive advertising, and lack of transparency about sources.

The algorithm reassessed the overall quality of content, and health websites found themselves at the forefront. Not because they were targeted but because they concentrated more weak signals than other sectors. A cross-sectional algorithmic correction always produces unequal sectoral effects.

What does a general ranking change mean in practical terms?

A general update modifies the weighting of ranking signals across the entire index. Google adjusts how it evaluates authority, relevance, user experience, or reliability. It is not a binary filter targeting one type of site.

In this specific case, the algorithm strengthened criteria related to E-A-T (Expertise, Authority, Trustworthiness), without explicitly mentioning this concept at the time. Sites that showed weak expertise signals—anonymous authors, vague sources, lack of editorial credibility—suffered declines, regardless of their sector.

The problem is that YMYL sites (Your Money Your Life) such as health, finance, or law are scrutinized more severely. A qualitative weakness has a disproportionate impact there. So yes, a general update can hit a sector harder without directly targeting it.

Is the absence of specific guidelines a strategy by Google?

Mueller states that there are no specific guidelines for managing this update. This is a typical stance by Google concerning major updates: no list of 10 points to fix, just a vague reference to the Quality Rater Guidelines.

This evasive response irritates practitioners. It forces empirical analysis: comparing sites that rose and fell, identifying common patterns, testing hypotheses. Google refuses to provide a checklist because a general update does not rest on a single lever. It is a multifactorial reassessment.

In practice, this opacity drives SEOs to focus on qualitative fundamentals rather than tactical optimizations. Strengthening editorial expertise, structuring transparency, improving UX: long-term projects that are impossible to bypass.

• The August update was cross-sectional, not a sector-specific filter, despite its disproportionate impact on health.
• YMYL sites undergo stricter algorithmic scrutiny, amplifying the effects of general updates.
• Google voluntarily does not provide a corrective checklist, referring to general quality principles instead.
• Empirical and comparative analysis remains the only reliable method to identify impacted levers.
• E-A-T signals were strengthened, even though Google did not explicitly announce this at the time.

Is this statement consistent with ground observations?

Yes and no. Technically, Mueller is correct: no code filters sites by sector. But on the ground, the sectoral impact was massive and undeniable. Post-update studies have shown that 40 to 60% of analyzed health sites lost positions, compared to 15 to 25% for other sectors.

The problem with this communication is that it downplays the reality experienced by webmasters. Saying "it's not specific to a sector" ignores that some sectors concentrated precisely the weaknesses targeted by the update. An unevenly impacting general change is not neutral.

Moreover, Google later officially introduced the E-A-T concept strengthened for YMYL, validating post facto that this update indeed evaluated stricter criteria for certain content. Mueller's statement was technically true but strategically misleading. [To Verify]: E-A-T criteria already existed in the guidelines, but their algorithmic weighting was clearly heightened at that time.

What nuances need to be added to this official position?

Google often communicates in strict technical terms: there was no filter "if domain = medical then penalize." But practitioners reason in terms of observable effects. And the effects were clearly concentrated.

A crucial nuance: a general update can have structural sectoral effects. If the algorithm suddenly values author identification, anonymous health sites drop massively. It is not targeting; it is a mechanical consequence. But the result is the same for the webmaster.

Another point: the absence of specific guidelines is a legal protection for Google. Providing a checklist would mean admitting that a specific signal changed, exposing the company to accusations of manipulation. Saying "improve overall quality" is legally safer, even if it is frustrating for practitioners.

In what cases does this rule not apply?

This logic of "general update not sector-specific" collapses when Google launches Core Updates with specific components. For example, the Product Reviews Update explicitly targets product reviews. Passage Ranking structurally favors long and segmented content.

Additionally, manual actions remain sector-specific: Google manually penalizes health sites that violate medical guidelines, financial sites that manipulate, etc. Mueller's statement only applies to automatic algorithmic updates.

Finally, some sectors mechanically benefit from general changes. If Google strengthens the weight of backlinks from academic sources, educational sites rise without being "targeted." The sectoral effect always exists, but in both directions.

What should you do concretely after a general update?

First, analyze loss patterns. Compare the pages that have dropped: do they have identified authors? Cited sources? A clear editorial structure? A balanced ad/content ratio? Sites that rose often display opposite signals.

Next, focus on the E-A-T fundamentals. Add detailed author biographies with verifiable credentials. Cite primary sources. Clearly state who is behind the site and why they are legitimate to discuss these topics. These elements are not "SEO signals" in the technical sense, but trust indicators that the algorithm indirectly picks up.

The third lever: improve user experience. Sites that survived the update often had better loading times, fewer intrusive pop-ups, and clearer navigation. Google assesses user satisfaction through behavioral signals: bounce rates, time on site, quick returns to SERPs.

What mistakes to avoid when facing an update with no specific guidelines?

Do not fall into the trap of tactical over-optimization. Adding 500 words to each page, stuffing keywords, multiplying internal links: these mechanical adjustments solve nothing if the problem is structural.

Also, avoid panicking and changing everything at once. General updates take time to stabilize. Google recalculates the index gradually. A brutal correction without prior analysis can worsen the situation. Test hypotheses on a subset of pages before rolling out.

Finally, do not neglect off-page signals. If your backlink profile is weak or spammy, no on-page improvements will compensate. General updates reassess the overall authority of the domain, not just the content. A health site without backlinks from recognized medical sources will remain vulnerable.

How can I check that my site aligns with post-update expectations?

Use a comparative audit. Identify five competitors who gained traffic while you were losing it. Analyze systematically: editorial structure, author identification, source quality, technical performance, link profile. The discrepancies reveal the criteria weighted by the update.

Consult the Quality Rater Guidelines. Google details what it considers high-quality content there. These guidelines are not the algorithm, but they reflect the direction Google wants to impose. General updates often align the algo with these standards.

Monitor Core Web Vitals and behavioral metrics. A slow or intrusive site generates negative signals that amplify the effects of a quality update. If your LCP exceeds 2.5 seconds or your CLS is unstable, address that as a priority.

• Add detailed author biographies with verifiable expertise on all strategic pages.
• Cite reliable primary sources for every factual claim, especially on YMYL topics.
• Reduce the ad/content ratio and eliminate intrusive pop-ups that degrade UX.
• Improve Core Web Vitals: LCP under 2.5s, FID under 100ms, CLS under 0.1.
• Audit and clean the backlink profile to eliminate spam links and acquire relevant sectoral links.
• Structure content with clear sections, FAQs, and H2/H3 hierarchy for scannable reading.