Should we really stop optimizing for Google's ranking factors?

Does Google really say to stop doing technical SEO?

No, and that's where the ambiguity of this statement lies. Google does not ask to abandon technical optimization, but rather to subordinate it to a logic of real utility. The message primarily targets practices that sacrifice user experience for algorithmic manipulations.

Specifically, Google seeks to discourage keyword stuffing, mass-generated content without added value, or artificial link structures. The underlying idea: a site that truly meets user needs naturally generates positive signals that the algorithm will capture anyway.

Does this approach change the game for SEO practitioners?

Not really. Experienced professionals have long known that behavioral signals (time spent, bounce rates, engagement) influence ranking. What Google calls 'user value' partially overlaps with metrics already tracked: Core Web Vitals, accessibility, navigation depth, conversion rates.

The discourse is evolving, but the algorithmic reality remains unchanged. Google has never explicitly confirmed that satisfying the user is enough to compensate for major technical shortcomings. A slow, poorly structured site that is invisible to Googlebot will not rank, no matter how good its content is.

Why does Google communicate this way on the subject?

Several plausible reasons. First, to limit the proliferation of low-quality optimized content solely aimed at capturing traffic without the intention of serving the user. Next, to reposition the engine as a quality arbiter rather than as a system that can be manipulated through techniques.

There is also a legal dimension: by emphasizing user value, Google protects itself against accusations of algorithmic opacity. Saying 'do what's good for your visitors' avoids documenting ranking factors precisely, which preserves the competitive advantage of the algorithm.

• Google does not say to abandon technique, but to have it serve real experience
• Behavioral signals matter, but do not compensate for structural technical flaws
• This discourse protects Google against manipulation attempts and criticisms regarding algorithmic opacity
• The dichotomy of 'user first vs. ranking factors' is false: both remain linked in practice
• No public data proves that a technically flawed site can rank on editorial quality alone

Is this statement consistent with what we observe in the field?

Only partially. Yes, sites that rely solely on black hat techniques or shallow content tend to be demoted. However, claiming that user value is sufficient ignores the reality: hundreds of sites with exceptional content stagnate on pages 3 or 4 simply because their technical architecture blocks Googlebot or because their link profile is nonexistent.

Conversely, we still see average sites in terms of UX ranking in first position thanks to a strong backlink profile and a flawless technical structure. The relative weight of factors varies by queries and sectors, but Google's discourse remains intentionally vague on these nuances.

What nuances should be added to this message?

The main one: correlation does not imply causation. Yes, a site that meets user needs generates visit time, shares, mentions—positive signals. But these signals only trigger if the site is already discoverable and indexable. Without effective crawling, a logical internal link structure, or minimal domain authority, no one will ever find that perfect content.

Another critical point: Google measures user satisfaction through proxies (CTR, dwell time, pogo-sticking), not through direct surveys. These metrics remain algorithmic signals that can be optimized—which brings us precisely back to the 'ranking factors' logic that Google claims to want to move beyond. [To be verified]: Google has never published data showing that user experience alone can compensate for a major technical deficit.

When does this rule not apply?

Sectors with high commercial competition are the best counter-example. In finance, insurance, and travel, ranking for transactional queries without a robust link profile and established domain authority is utopian. Content quality matters, but it does not erase the advantage of historical actors who have dominated the SERP for years.

Another case: high-volume informational queries. Even with exceptional content, a new site will struggle to dethrone Wikipedia, established forums, or authority media. Google favors perceived reliability (via domain authority) as much as content relevance. Saying 'user value comes first' ignores this structural reality of ranking.

What should be done concretely after this statement from Google?

First, audit the alignment between your SEO optimizations and the actual experience of visitors. Ask yourself the brutal question: do your pages truly meet search intent, or are they optimized solely to capture clicks without fulfilling the request? If you notice a gap, that is where you need to intervene.

Next, check that your technical foundations are not sabotaging the user experience. A slow, poorly responsive site or one filled with intrusive pop-ups sends negative signals that Google captures through Core Web Vitals and behavioral metrics. Fix these irritants before investing in new pages or additional content.

What mistakes should be avoided to stay compliant?

Avoid over-optimizing to the point of making content artificial. Repeating keywords, forced link anchors, H2/H3 stuffed with exact keywords: anything that harms reading flow becomes counterproductive. Google is getting better at detecting these patterns and penalizes them through algorithmic filters.

Another trap: neglecting conversion pages on the pretext that they are not 'SEO-friendly'. A poorly structured product page, a long form, a chaotic user journey degrade the experience and reduce the conversion rate—which ultimately impacts ranking through weak engagement signals. SEO and conversion are not separate silos.

How to verify that your site aligns with this approach?

Use real behavioral data: Google Analytics for bounce rates, Search Console for organic CTR, Hotjar or Microsoft Clarity for heatmaps. If you see a discrepancy between traffic and engagement (many clicks, little time spent), it means your pages promise something they do not deliver.

Also test direct user satisfaction through post-visit surveys or NPS. Google does not have access to this data, but it gives you a clear view of the real value you provide. If your visitors are frustrated or can't find what they are looking for, no SEO trick will durably compensate for that deficit.

• Audit each key page to ensure it precisely meets search intent
• Fix identified UX irritants via Core Web Vitals and behavioral heatmaps
• Eliminate over-optimizations harming reading flow (keyword stuffing, forced anchors)
• Align editorial content with conversion paths to maintain engagement
• Continuously monitor behavioral metrics (time spent, bounce rates, pages per session)
• Regularly test user satisfaction through surveys or NPS to detect perceived gaps