Is the Page Experience score really essential for making it into Top Stories?

What does this statement mean for Top Stories?‍

Google has set a clear barrier to entry: without a very good Page Experience score, there's no hope of appearing in Top Stories. It’s not a simple weighting — it’s an elimination criterion. The nuance is important: we are not talking about a marginal advantage, but a minimum threshold to cross.

Top Stories, the section highlighted in mobile search results for news, is now reserved for sites that check all the technical boxes. The message is clear: Google wants fast, stable, and pleasant-to-browse pages in this premium space.

Why are Core Web Vitals alone not enough?

The Core Web Vitals (LCP, FID, CLS) are just one part of the Page Experience score. Google also incorporates HTTPS, the absence of intrusive interstitials, mobile-friendly navigation, and other safety and usability signals.

But the crucial point here: even with good technical metrics, quality signals take time to develop. Google observes user behavior, performance stability over time, and consistency of signals. It’s not an on/off switch — it’s a gradual validation.

What are the key takeaways?

• Elimination criterion: no very good Page Experience score = no Top Stories
• The Core Web Vitals are necessary but not sufficient for the overall score
• Validation of quality signals is progressive and temporal, not instantaneous
• Top Stories is becoming a territory reserved for technically faultless sites
• Optimization must be sustainable, not just a one-time effort to pass an audit

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Yes and no. In principle, sites appearing in Top Stories do typically display good technical performance. But the correlation is not perfect. Some sites with average Core Web Vitals manage to slip in, especially for hot news queries where content freshness seems to weigh heavily.

The real issue: Google remains vague about what constitutes a "very good score." [To be verified] — no numerical threshold is provided. We are navigating blind. Does 75% of URLs in 'good' suffice? Should we aim for 90%? This imprecision makes optimization difficult to calibrate.

What nuances should we consider regarding the time factor?

The claim regarding signals that "take time" warrants a critical look. Specifically, how much time? Weeks? Months? Google doesn’t say. We know from experience that improvements in Core Web Vitals can reflect relatively quickly in CrUX (28 days of rolling data), but the impact on ranking follows a different timeline.

Another point: this temporal logic can penalize new entrants or emerging media. A recent site, even if technically perfect, will have to wait before being “validated” — which mechanically favors established players. This is an additional barrier to entry.

In what cases does this rule not apply?

Let’s be honest: during major current events (disasters, elections, breaking news), Google sometimes favors freshness and editorial authority over technical perfection. We have seen sites with average performance temporarily appear in Top Stories during news spikes.

The other observable exception: national authority sites (major media outlets, news agencies) seem to benefit from a broader tolerance. Their historical presence and E-E-A-T score likely compensate for some technical weaknesses. But this is merely an observation — Google will never officially acknowledge it.

What should you do concretely to aim for Top Stories?

First step: measure. Use the Page Experience report in Search Console to identify your problematic URLs. Cross-reference with CrUX data (Chrome User Experience Report) to see how your pages actually perform for users.

Next, prioritize Quick Wins: image compression (WebP), lazy loading, eliminating blocking resources, aggressive caching. These optimizations yield measurable results quickly. But don’t stop there — stability over time matters just as much as a peak performance moment.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Classic error: optimizing only for lab metrics (Lighthouse, PageSpeed Insights) and ignoring real-world data (CrUX). Google bases its assessments on users' actual experiences, not on a synthetic test under ideal conditions. If your visitors are mostly on 3G or entry-level devices, your CrUX scores will differ from your Lighthouse tests.

Another pitfall: believing that a good Page Experience score compensates for weak content. Top Stories remains an editorial section — relevance, timeliness, and journalistic quality take priority. Technical excellence is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

Don’t overlook ancillary signals: HTTPS, absence of aggressive interstitials, mobile-friendliness. These "basic" criteria are often forgotten even though they are integral to the Page Experience score.

How can you check if your site is eligible?

• Review the Page Experience report in Search Console to identify failing URLs
• Check your Core Web Vitals for the past 28 days through CrUX (real user data)
• Test your news pages using PageSpeed Insights to pinpoint priority optimizations
• Ensure that 100% of your URLs are on HTTPS (no mixed content)
• Eliminate intrusive interstitials on mobile (full-screen pop-ups, aggressive paywalls)
• Validate mobile compatibility using Google’s Mobile-Friendly Test
• Monitor the evolution of your metrics over several weeks to confirm stability
• Cross-reference with your appearance data in Top Stories (Search Console, Performance by appearance type)