Should you really stop obsessing over Core Web Vitals scores?

Why is Google making this distinction now?

Since Core Web Vitals were introduced as a ranking factor, part of the SEO industry has gone on a race for green numbers. The goal: achieve at all costs the thresholds of 2.5s for LCP, 100ms for FID, and 0.1 for CLS.

Google is attempting to refocus the debate here. The underlying message? Metrics were designed to reflect experience quality, not to become the experience itself. When a site optimizes solely to bump its PageSpeed score from 89 to 91, it might be missing the big picture.

What does 'optimizing for users' concretely mean?

This phrasing remains deliberately vague. Google doesn't provide a precise checklist of what constitutes a 'good user experience'. The intent is clear: prioritize genuine navigation fluidity, quickly accessible relevant content, and absence of frustration.

But for an SEO practitioner, this directive poses a problem. How do you measure that you've 'optimized well for the user' if not through numerical indicators? Google suggests looking beyond synthetic metrics, but offers no concrete alternative for evaluating success.

• Core Web Vitals remain ranking indicators, but should not become your sole obsession
• Improvement should aim for user perception, not just turning green in tools
• Google implicitly acknowledges that some sites over-optimized for metrics at the expense of real UX
• Field data (bounce rate, engagement time, conversions) remain essential complementary signals

Does this statement change the game for SEO?

Not fundamentally. Core Web Vitals continue to influence rankings; Google isn't withdrawing anything. What changes is the discourse: don't sacrifice overall experience to squeeze a few score points.

Concretely, if your site loads at 2.6s instead of 2.4s but offers intuitive navigation and immediately usable content, you're probably better off than a competitor at 2.3s with a clunky interface. Important nuance: this remains an interpretation; Google doesn't quantify this 'better off'.

Is this statement consistent with observed practices?

Yes and no. In the field, we observe that sites with good Core Web Vitals generally perform better, all else being equal. But we also see cases where a site with average metrics outperforms a 'perfect' competitor because its content better matches search intent.

The problem is that Google perpetuates this confusion itself. On one hand, it publishes tools (PageSpeed Insights, Search Console) that encourage score-chasing. On the other, it asks you not to obsess over these same scores. This dissonance creates an uncomfortable gray zone for practitioners.

What nuances should we add to this discourse?

First nuance: for a site in the red zone across all indicators, optimizing to improve both metrics AND user experience is the same thing. An LCP at 6 seconds is objectively bad, no matter the angle of approach.

Second nuance: some ultra-competitive sectors impose high standards. If all your competitors display green across the board, staying in yellow by 'UX philosophy' risks costing you positions. [To verify]: Google has never published data showing that an 'orange' site with excellent UX systematically beats a 'green' site with decent UX.

In what cases doesn't this rule really apply?

When your metrics are frankly poor, this directive doesn't hold. A site with catastrophic CLS (elements jumping everywhere) or LCP beyond 5 seconds doesn't provide good experience, period. There, optimizing for metrics means optimizing for the user.

Another case: e-commerce sites. Conversion is directly tied to perceived speed and stability. Here, every tenth of a second can have measurable impact on revenue. Ignoring metrics in favor of a 'philosophical' UX approach would be counterproductive.

What should you do concretely after this statement?

Continue improving your Core Web Vitals, but broaden your analysis framework. Don't stop when PageSpeed turns green. Test your site in real conditions: 3G connections, entry-level devices, various browsers.

Measure complementary indicators: engagement rate, session duration, journey completion rate. If your CWV are excellent but users leave the page immediately, something's wrong. Analytics and Hotjar data complement what PageSpeed doesn't reveal.

What errors should you avoid in this approach?

Error #1: interpreting this statement as a green light to neglect technical optimization. Google says 'don't optimize ONLY for metrics', not 'ignore metrics'.

Error #2: removing useful features to squeeze score points. If a carousel genuinely improves navigation but slightly hurts CLS, the choice isn't obvious. Always prioritize what serves the user, even if it costs some points.

Error #3: not documenting your trade-offs. When you decide to keep something 'expensive' for UX, note why. This avoids sterile second-guessing six months later.

How do you verify your approach is balanced?

Ask yourself this simple question: if I showed my site to an average user without any technical tools, would they find the experience smooth and pleasant? If the answer is yes AND your metrics are decent (not necessarily perfect), you're on the right track.

Use qualitative user testing. Five observation sessions often beat a hundred automated reports. Identify friction points that metrics don't capture: poorly placed forms, essential content too far down the page, confusing navigation.

• Audit your Core Web Vitals and fix frankly problematic areas (red/orange)
• Set up in-depth Analytics tracking: engagement, journeys, conversions
• Test your site on varied devices and connections, not just your MacBook Pro on fiber
• Conduct qualitative user testing to identify friction unmeasured by tools
• Trade off between technical optimization and UX features by documenting your choices
• Monitor your rankings and traffic: these are the final success indicators