Google Advises that Websites Affected by Previous Content Updates Can Recover and Thrive

Intro

John Mueller of Google has reiterated that websites affected by previous updates, such as the September helpful content update and other core updates, can not only recover but also thrive. Speaking on platforms like X and LinkedIn, Mueller emphasized that recovery requires significant effort and time, rather than mere superficial changes to a website.

Mueller stated, "Sites can indeed regain their growth trajectory after being affected by historical updates now integrated into the core updates."

Although Google previously indicated that recovery could take from a few weeks to several months, the expectations set around the March 2024 core update facilitating recovery for sites impacted by the September update were not met.

On LinkedIn, Mueller detailed, "Changes take time to manifest in Google's systems and other large computing systems; this is not unique to Google’s helpful content system or core updates."

He highlighted that core updates focus on how Google evaluates the overall helpfulness, reliability, and relevance of content in response to user queries. This involves a comprehensive analysis and substantial changes, beyond simple tweaks, to ensure relevance in the modern digital landscape.

Mueller also noted that enhancing a site's helpfulness isn't just about increasing the volume of content. A blend of high-quality content and other factors are essential for improving user experience.

Furthermore, he explained, "Recovery doesn't imply returning to the previous state since the digital landscape, user expectations, and the web itself are constantly evolving."

Mueller's full statement on LinkedIn reads:

"I realize this is from the title of Barry's post, but to be clear, it's not that 'helpful content update' recoveries take longer than other updates. It's just that some kinds of changes take a long time to build up, and that applies to all kinds of systems & updates in Google & in any other larger computer system. Saying that this is specific to the helpful content system, or to core updates would be wrong & misleading.

There is, however, the additional aspect of the 'core update' being about how our systems assess content overall, how we consider it to be helpful, reliable, relevant to users' queries. This does not map back to a single change that you can make on a website, so - in my experience - it's not something that a website can just tweak overnight and be done with it. It can require deep analysis to understand how to make a website relevant in a modern world, and significant work to implement those changes -- assuming that it's something that aligns with what the website even wants. These are not 'recoveries' in the sense that someone fixes a technical issue and they're back on track - they are essentially changes in a business's priorities (and, a business might choose not to do that).

He added on LinkedIn:

"Making a site more helpful (assuming that's what you're aiming for) doesn't mean you have to add more content. There's a lot that goes into making a helpful site - content is one part, and more content is not necessarily more helpful. Think about how you use the web.".

This morning on X, he commented, "Yes, sites can rebound after being impacted by the 'HCU' (now referred to as a core update). This setback isn't permanent. Recovery could require considerable effort, time, and possibly several update cycles. Additionally, an updated site will also appear differently in search results." He further noted, "Permanent changes aren't very practical in a dynamic world, so yes. However, 'recover' suggests a return to the exact previous state, which in my opinion is always unrealistic since the world, user expectations, and the web itself continue to evolve. It's never 'just-as-before'."

In conclusion, Mueller’s advice underscores the need for continuous improvements and adaptations for long-term recovery and growth in the dynamic world of web search.