Is Google really going to limit the dominance of the same domains in deeper SERPs?

What does Google mean by “result repetition”?

Currently, the same domain can occupy multiple positions in search results, particularly when navigating beyond the first page. This saturation is common for queries with a strong informational component where sites like Wikipedia, specialized forums, or dominant media prevail.

The mechanism described by Google aims for a repetition threshold that will be gradually applied in deeper pages. The official goal: prevent a user from seeing only 3-4 different domains while scrolling to page 5. This logic is not new—Google has previously introduced anti-duplication filters—but it is being reinforced.

From which page does this limitation apply?

Google remains intentionally vague about the exact threshold. The announcement mentions “beyond a certain threshold” without specifying whether it refers to page 2, 3, or more. This ambiguity gives the algorithm full latitude to adjust dynamically according to the query.

What we know from observation: on page 1, Google already maintains a form of forced diversity with rarely more than 2 results from the same domain (except in special cases like branded sites). The novelty would therefore concern pages 2-5, an area often explored for specialized content or in-depth searches.

Why this update now?

Two plausible hypotheses. First, the rise of AI-generated content has multiplied semantic saturation strategies: the same site deploys dozens of variations on a theme to capture all the long tail. Google is likely reacting to this inflation.

Second, regulatory and competitive pressure. Regulators are scrutinizing the diversity of sources displayed by Google, especially in Europe. Showing more different sites, even on deeper pages, enhances the engine's image of openness against accusations of systematically favoring the same players.

• The same domain will no longer be able to saturate pages 3-4-5 of a SERP as before
• Google does not specify the exact threshold of tolerated repetition, leaving the algorithm to adjust
• Expected impact mainly on long tail and deep informational queries
• Highly vertical authority sites (forums, specialized wikis) might lose visibility
• Diversification of sources becomes an enhanced quality signal for Google

Does this statement align with observed practices in the field?

Yes and no. On page 1, Google has been applying a form of limitation for years. Seeing 3 results from the same domain remains exceptional, reserved for navigational or branded queries. Field observation shows that forced diversity already exists on the first page.

However, on pages 2 to 5, the situation is more mixed. Tests show that a highly vertical site can indeed occupy 4 to 6 positions out of 50 total results (pages 1-5). Therefore, this update would indeed target those less scrutinized areas, where Google allowed more repetition. [To be verified]: the actual impact will depend on the chosen, undisclosed threshold.

Which sites are most likely to lose visibility?

Hyper-specialized vertical sites are at the forefront. Technical forums, niche wikis, and highly productive thematic media: all those that dominated their subject by volume and depth of content. Historically, their thematic authority allowed them to place numerous contents on long tail variations.

Semantic saturation strategies will suffer. Creating 50 optimized pages on minor variations of a query will no longer yield the same ROI if Google displays a maximum of 2-3 per domain on deeper pages. Sites that relied on multiplication rather than unique depth will need to rethink their approach.

However, caution: Google does not specify anything about subdomains or different sections of a site. If technically Google considers them as distinct entities (unlikely but not impossible), the limitation could be circumvented. To be honest: Google has an interest in closing this loophole from the outset.

In what cases might this rule not apply strictly?

Brand or navigational queries will likely remain exempt. If someone searches for “Adobe Photoshop technical support,” it makes sense that adobe.com occupies multiple positions with different help pages. Google has historically preserved this logic.

Low-density SERPs raise questions. In ultra-niche areas where only 3-4 sites really address the subject, forcing diversity would mean displaying less relevant content. Google will need to arbitrate between diversity and quality. [To be verified]: how the algorithm manages these edge cases.

What should be done concretely right now?

First action: audit your current visibility on pages 2 to 5. Identify the queries where you occupy 3 positions or more in this area. These keywords are potentially at risk if Google applies a strict threshold. Use Search Console by filtering positions 11-50 to map your exposure.

Next, prioritize consolidation rather than multiplication. If you have 5 pages addressing minor variations of the same topic, consider merging them into unique, more comprehensive content with greater depth. A single exhaustive article on page 1 is worth more than 5 average pages spread over pages 3-4.

What mistakes to avoid in this transition?

Do not massively delete content out of panic. Google speaks of display limitation, not quality penalty. Your pages remain indexed and can still rank individually. A hasty deletion could destroy internal linking, backlinks, and acquired authority.

Avoid also multiplying subdomains or technical structures to circumvent the limitation. If Google considers that blog.yoursite.com and www.yoursite.com are the same domain (very likely), you waste your time. Worse, a fragmented structure complicates crawl budget and dilutes authority.

How to adapt long-term editorial strategy?

Favor real editorial differentiation. Instead of 10 variations on “best CRM for SMEs,” create truly distinct angles: detailed comparisons, sector-specific use cases, in-depth technical guides. Each page must earn its place individually, not rely on volume to saturate.

Strengthen your external distribution strategy. If Google limits your presence in its SERPs, compensate through partnerships, strategic guest posting, and collaborations with other sites in your niche. Diversifying traffic sources becomes even more critical.

These strategic adjustments can be complex to orchestrate alone, especially if your site contains hundreds of pages. Engaging a specialized SEO agency allows for a precise audit, intelligent prioritization of actions, and personalized support to restructure your content without losing the acquired authority.

• Audit positions 11-50 in Search Console to identify queries at risk of cannibalization
• Map clusters of similar content likely to be limited in display
• Consolidate pages with low differentiation into more complete unique content
• Update internal linking to direct authority towards priority pages
• Monitor the evolution of traffic on long tail queries after deployment
• Develop truly distinct editorial angles rather than minor variations