Should you really design your website for the user rather than for Google?

Why has Google been repeating this mantra for years?

This statement has been part of Google's official rhetoric since at least 2010. The stated goal is to discourage over-optimization techniques that degrade the actual experience. Google wants publishers to first consider search intent and user satisfaction.

The technical reason behind this discourse? Google's algorithms now measure directly user engagement through Core Web Vitals, adjusted bounce rates, time on site, and Chrome signals. A site designed solely to rank without considering UX generates dissatisfaction signals that machine learning models quickly detect.

What does it really mean to “create for the user” in SEO?

This involves structuring content according to natural navigation logic rather than forced silo architecture. A user is looking for a quick answer, a smooth journey, and a clear hierarchy. If your internal linking looks like an artificial spider web designed to distribute PageRank, you are creating for Google, not for humans.

In practical terms, prioritizing the user means: informative titles rather than keyword-stuffed ones, easy-to-read paragraphs on mobile, logical calls to action, and acceptable loading times. These criteria serve UX, but Google also measures them as proxies of quality.

Does this mean we should ignore technical optimizations?

Absolutely not. This is where Google's discourse becomes intentionally vague. A site that's perfect for the user but poorly crawled, with broken canonical tags or a missing sitemap, will never rank. The opposition of “user VS engine” is a false dilemma.

Real professionals know that both are necessary: optimizing technical discoverability (crawl, indexing, structured data) AND the actual experience. A well-thought-out navigation menu serves UX and improves internal linking. Well-structured content with logical H2/H3 headings facilitates human reading and algorithmic parsing.

• UX and SEO are not opposed: the best sites combine rigorous technical architecture and smooth user journeys
• User signals are ranking factors: Core Web Vitals, engagement, organic click-through rates
• Some SEO optimizations remain invisible to users: hreflang tags, canonicals, robots.txt, pagination
• Over-optimization is still penalized: keyword stuffing, repeated exact anchors, content generated to rank without added value
• Google measures satisfaction indirectly: through Chrome, Analytics, return rates to SERPs

Does this guideline truly reflect the reality of ranking?

Partially. Sites with high editorial authority (press, institutions, large e-commerce) can afford to neglect certain fine optimizations and rank on raw quality. For niche sites or new entrants, ignoring technical SEO adjustments is suicidal. [To be verified]: Google does not publish any data on the relative weight of UX signals vs. backlinks vs. semantic relevance.

In practice, we see that technically mediocre sites but with impeccable UX and comprehensive content outperform over-optimized sites. But the reverse is also true: a technically perfect site with adequate UX often beats a competitor with better UX but poorly crawled or lacking quality backlinks.

When does this rule become a hindrance rather than a guide?

When it serves as an excuse to avoid technical work. Some publishers hide behind “we do it for the user” to justify the absence of keyword strategy, structured internal linking, or loading time optimization. UX without SEO does not generate organic traffic. SEO without UX does not convert and ends up penalized.

Another problematic case: sites that apply this guideline by removing all useful SEO content on the pretext that “the user does not need it.” For example, an exhaustive FAQ at the bottom of a page may seem “SEO-oriented,” but it answers real questions and improves semantic coverage. Removing it in the name of pure UX is counterproductive.

What are the contradictions between this discourse and observed practices?

Google says “create for the user,” but its own featured snippets favor structured content with bullet lists, HTML tables, and schema.org tags. Natural content written like a magazine article has less chance of being extracted than content formatted for parsing. This is a form of optimization for the engine, not for humans.

Another contradiction: sites ranking in position zero often use artificial formulations optimized for long-tail questions. No one naturally writes “What is the best gluten-free chocolate cake recipe?” as a title; it’s pure engine optimization. Yet, Google rewards this practice.

How can I audit if my site leans too much towards “SEO” or too much towards “pure UX”?

Start by analyzing your engagement rates in Analytics: average time on page, adjusted bounce rate, pages per session. If these metrics are low despite good positioning, your content is likely over-optimized without real value. Conversely, if engagement is high but organic traffic stagnates, you lack technical visibility.

Then compare your top-performing pages organically with those that convert well. If these are two distinct groups, you have a misalignment problem: your SEO pages do not serve the end user, or your UX pages are not discoverable. The goal is to merge these two segments.

What adjustments should be prioritized to balance technical SEO and real experience?

First, focus on technical frictions that degrade both UX AND crawl: chain redirects, server response times, resources blocked in robots.txt. These points penalize double. Next, optimize the semantic structure: clear H2/H3 headings help human reading and algorithmic parsing.

On the content side, apply the “impression test” rule: if you were to print this page for a user, would it remain useful without internal links and additional blocks? If the answer is no, you probably have SEO stuffing to clean up. Good content must be standalone and complete.

In what cases should we accept a compromise in favor of technical SEO?

For certain optimizations that are invisible to users: hreflang for international, clean pagination, canonical tags, structured data. These elements do not degrade UX if well implemented, but they are critical for crawl and indexing. Never sacrifice them for the sake of “pure UX.”

Another case: strategic internal linking. Adding 2-3 contextual links to pillar pages in an article may seem “SEO-oriented,” but if these links are relevant, they enrich the user journey. The dosage is key: no blocks of 20 links in the sidebar, but natural links within the body text.

• Audit Core Web Vitals and fix blocking points (LCP, CLS, INP)
• Ensure that each page has a clear user objective, not just a target keyword
• Clean up thin content generated to rank without providing real value
• Optimize internal linking so it serves both navigation AND PageRank distribution
• Implement invisible technical tags (canonical, hreflang, schema) without compromise
• Test the mobile journey in real conditions, not just in an emulator