Google search attorney John Mueller recently addressed the SEO community’s concerns about the site recovering after being hit by algorithm updates.
The conversation arose as people wondered if sites affected by September’s useful content update would be able to recover lost traffic and rankings after future core updates.
The exchange began at X when SEO professional Thomas Jepsen asked Mueller if Google’s previous position still held true: that the search engine “holds no grudges” and sites will recover once issues are resolved .
Mueller confirmed: “This is still the case”, but warned that “some things take much longer to reevaluate (sometimes months, at the moment), and some larger effects require another update cycle.“
This is still the case. That said, some things take much longer to reevaluate (sometimes months, at the moment), and some larger effects require another update cycle. has a little more
— John 🧀 … 🧀 (@JohnMu) April 29, 2024
Address persistent confusion
After Mueller’s statements, confusion persisted about whether the sites affected by the useful content update requires a new one core update to regain lost ranking.
Mueller clarified:
“… not all changes require another update cycle. In practice, I’d assume that stronger effects will require another update. Basic updates can include a lot of things.”
He compared basic updates to adjustments in ranking formulas and thresholds, the latter often requiring another update cycle.
For example, a ranking formula + some thresholds could be updated. The effects of the updated formula are mostly ongoing, changes to thresholds often require another update to adjust.
— John 🧀 … 🧀 (@JohnMu) May 4, 2024
Dismissing concerns about permanence
There is concern that sites affected by September’s useful content update will be permanently ranked, which will obstruct future growth.
Mueller addressed these concerns and stated that affected sites could recover traffic by improving quality.
However, Mueller says a full recovery to pre-upgrade levels is unrealistic.
He states:
“Permanent changes aren’t very useful in a dynamic world… However, ‘recovering’ implies going back to how it was before, and IMO that’s always unrealistic, as the world, user expectations, and the rest of the web they keep changing. It’s never “the same as before”.
Permanent changes aren’t very useful in a dynamic world, so yeah. However, “recovery” implies going back to the way it was before, and IMO that’s always unrealistic, as the world, user expectations, and the rest of the web keep changing. It’s never “the same as before”.
— John 🧀 … 🧀 (@JohnMu) May 6, 2024
When asked directly if a site affected by the useful content update can increase traffic if it improves in quality, Mueller said:
“Yes, sites can grow back after being hit by the ‘HCU’ (well, core upgrade now). This is not permanent. It can take a lot of work, time and maybe upgrade cycles, and/but A different, updated site will also be different in search.”
Yes, sites can grow back after being hit by the “HCU” (well, basic update now). This is not permanent. It can take a lot of work, time and maybe update cycles, and/but a different, updated site will also be different in search.
— John 🧀 … 🧀 (@JohnMu) May 6, 2024
The long road ahead
Continuing the conversation on LinkedIn, Mueller emphasized that the rollback process is not specific to useful content updates or core updates, but applies to all types of Google systems and updates.
Mueller states:
“… to be clear, it’s not that “useful content update” “rollbacks” take longer than other updates. It’s just that some types of changes take a long time to build, and that applies to everything types of systems and updates from Google and any other larger computer system. To say that this is specific to the useful content system or core updates would be incorrect and misleading.”
Mueller acknowledged that the recovery process does not have a one-size-fits-all solution and can require deep analysis and significant work to understand how to make a website relevant again.
“However, there is the additional aspect of ‘basic updating’ about how our systems evaluate content in general, how we consider it to be useful, reliable and relevant to user queries. This does not refer to a single change you can make to a website, so in my experience it’s not something a website can just tweak overnight and do, it can take some deep analysis to figure out how to do for a website to be relevant in a modern world and important work to implement these changes, assuming it’s something that aligns with what the website wants.
Finally, he adds that a recovery will require more than fixing technical problems. It may require a realignment of business priorities.
“These aren’t ‘recoveries’ in the sense that someone fixes a technical problem and gets back on track; they’re essentially changes in a company’s priorities (and, a company might choose not to).”
Why SEJ cares
Updates to Google’s core algorithm can dramatically affect a website’s visibility and search traffic.
For adversely affected sites, clear guidance on recovery is critical, both to set realistic expectations and to chart a practical path forward.
Mueller’s insights ensure that improvement remains possible through strategic realignment with Google’s current quality standards.
How this can help you
Mueller’s insights allow affected sites to set realistic expectations for recovery.
Regaining visibility is still possible with patience, thorough analysis and persistent effort.
Mueller’s statements offer the following findings for sites affected by Google’s updates:
Recovery is not out of the question, but will require significant effort over several upgrade cycles. Simply restoring previous tactics is insufficient; Sites must evolve to meet changing user needs and Internet best practices. Deep analysis is necessary to identify areas of improvement and readjust the content strategy with modern relevance signals. Returning to previous ranking positions is not realistic due to evolving user needs.
Featured image: rudall30/Shutterstock
