Ethan Lazuk

SEO Strategist & Consultant

You’ve Got Questions About Google Search’s Ranking Systems? That’s Understandable

By Ethan Lazuk

Last updated:

Puzzle pieces in the fibonacci sequence.

If you were a 90s kid, you might recall a Cartoon Network parody of a Radio Shack commercial that went, “You’ve got questions. That’s understandable.”

Personally, I was partial to Nickelodeon.

But I digress …

About 6 months ago, I began creating some new articles about SEO to revitalize my blog.

The research for those articles has been fun, but it’s also left me with some questions, including about the ranking systems behind Google’s search results.

Here are the main questions I’ve got about Google’s ranking systems:

Exploring their answers will be the goal of this article. 🙂

Now, if you know my philosophy on creating content for Search (the 11x framework, as I call it), I think of webpages as being living and evolving, so this will be a growing list of questions (and, hopefully, answers too).

You’re probably also thinking those are oddly specific questions.

That’s because they’re what I was left with after updating another article about Google SERP volatility, where I dug into Google’s official documentation plus other sources about Search ranking systems.

Now, some of the questions already may have answers available, and I just didn’t find them while updating that article. (For example, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard somewhere before why “broad core updates” are just called “core updates” now.)

So in addition to outlining what we know so far, a big part of this article also will be us going on a journey of discovering these answers together. 😉

If you’re just looking for quick answers, though, feel free to use the jump links above to visit any section. But if you’re like me and enjoy reading articles top-to-bottom to absorb the context of a topic, then buckle up!

Ok, but why do these questions even need answers?

Well, because knowing more about Google Search’s ranking systems may help us do better SEO work to benefit our users.

You’ll notice the list of questions above doesn’t include any that ask how a particular ranking system works. That’s because these questions are precursors in my journey to understand the workings of Google Search better.

But I don’t want to gain that knowledge for the reasons one might expect at first …

I think AJ Kohn might have said it best while replying to my comment on X about his What Pandu Nayak Taught Me About SEO article when he explained his intentions:

Specifically, we were discussing how having an understanding of Google Search’s ranking systems’ workings (in their pursuit to surface more helpful, reliable, people-first content) can lead to practical insights for SEO strategies that benefit users above all.

Let me go on record now as saying I’m an advocate of user-first SEO strategies. That means creating websites and content designed to help people first, make the web a better place second, and succeed at achieving Search visibility and business goals as ultimate results.

I’m an SEO who subscribes to ideas from Google like aligning with E-E-A-T and creating helpful, reliable, people-first content for SEO, at least on a philosophical level.

But just so you don’t think I’m solely a Google promoter, I also advocate for using Microsoft Clarity to improve the page experience and relevance of content for users. (And I’ve even suggested, in a mini ecommerce case study, that other search engines’ organic traffic may have more value based on revenue per session than Google’s.)

But let me also be clear, I largely support the direction Google Search is heading with its ranking systems and the types of results they surface. (Specifically, I’m talking about surfacing more “hidden gems” in a post-helpful content system environment. You’ll soon learn more about both those topics below.)

Partly this is for selfish reasons, as I believe my website’s content ranks better in Google’s search results than Bing’s or some other search engines’, at least for non-navigational queries.

But also, before doing SEO, I had a liberal arts background, which is an academic field where there’s an emphasis on research, sources, and credibility of information. If Google Search is better able to surface hidden gems, described here as “a comment in a forum thread, a post on a little-known blog, or an article with unique expertise on a topic,” I think that creates a more level playing field, where creators are competing more fairly based on the merits of how well their content satisfies the user, as opposed to more gameable ranking signals.

Am I thrilled when I see forum threads outranking web results for clients I work with? No, not totally! But also, it pushes us to rethink our content strategies, like how to deliver more value to our audience than a random Redditor or approach reaching our audience in new ways, and maybe that’s healthy.

Of course, wouldn’t knowing the details of how every Google Search ranking system works help my SEO work?

Well, yes, but only to a point …

Achieving rankings (and Search visibility generally) is only a part of an SEO’s job. There’s also audience satisfaction.

As was brilliantly phrased by Matt McGee, Google Search is not your audience:

Those organic search results on Google, they’re simply a mechanism to get your brand and content in front of your audience, ideally during key moments in their buyer’s journey.

This was a way I framed that idea:

So the goal isn’t just surfacing content on Search, but also satisfying your audience’s search intent to build trust that ultimately earns revenue from conversions.

Given its abundance of user data, I also believe Google knows our audiences better than we do oftentimes, or at least the search engine has a better understanding of their query’s intent and how it fits into a broader user journey.

This means that by understanding how Google Search’s ranking systems work, especially the criteria of your content they evaluate, at least in a general sense, we can better align our content with those ranking signals to achieve better Search visibility, sure, but more importantly to serve the needs of our audience better than anyone else.

So, that’s why it’s helpful to get answers to questions about Google Search’s ranking systems because that knowledge can translate into a better understanding of how to satisfy our users.

“Ranking systems will evolve, but the focus on users will remain.”

– John Mueller

This leads to our next question …

Wouldn’t knowing too much detail about ranking systems be a bad thing (on the whole)?

On the whole, I think, actually yes.

Competitors’ learnings aside, Google can’t reveal too much information publicly about how Search works, particularly the ranking components, because some people would focus on gaming the signals to surface their content more prominently than it deserves, at least based on the ranking systems’ designs.

If we agree, at least fundamentally, that Google Search’s ranking systems have users’ best interests in mind by design, then gaming search results wouldn’t be helpful to users.

This topic was discussed in a Search Off the Record podcast episode called Let’s talk ranking updates, which aired on August 22nd (the day the August 2023 core update rolled out), featuring John Mueller and Martin Splitt of Google’s Search Relations team with guest Danny Sullivan as Google Search Liaison:

John Mueller: “Do you think SEOs will take advantage and tweak their sites to make them, I don’t know, match what we document our algorithms to be doing?”

Danny Sullivan: “No, they would never, ever possibly try to reverse engineer a ranking system. That would be insane. They’re going to focus on building the best content that they can, helpful, people-first content. They’re going to know that it’s the long-term way to success. As many of the older SEOs who’ve been through the ropes will constantly tell them.

I mean, yeah. If you want to read the page, and it says this is what we look for and you can create content that matches the things that we look for, go for it. Because if it’s fresh, helpful, people-first content, great, that’s why we did it. So there’s nothing, I think, that we’re publishing that we’re afraid to be sharing. We think it will help people do a better job.“

Martin Splitt: “I’m just imagining someone making the website better for their users and then going like, “Ha ha, that’ll show Google.””

Danny Sullivan: “Can you imagine? That’s it. I just wrote a really authentic review in detail about this project. That’ll teach Google. [laughing]” [Highlights added.]

– Google Search Off the Record podcast episode 63, PDF transcript

When Danny Sullivan implies that creating helpful, people-first content is an instinct of “older SEOs who’ve been through the ropes,” he presumably means their level of experience, not age. 😉

In my experience doing SEO since 2015, there’s truth to that.

One factor that’s missing from that podcast discussion is client pressure.

Not to justify anything black hat, but sometimes clients, well, they don’t care about Google Search guidelines; they just want to “outrank” competitors.

In my earlier days of doing SEO, I had clients who wanted to do something against SE guidelines, and even after I shared copious documentation with them, they flat-out told me they didn’t care.

Now, these days I stand my ground more firmly and am more selective about who I work with. But my larger point is that sometimes SEOs don’t have much choice, and offering responsible counsel is the best you can do.

But, if you’re an SEO who has a choice, and still you create spam or otherwise attempt to manipulate rankings using black hat tactics, then you’re taking unnecessary risks that could hurt your clients, and that’s unethical, in my opinion.

But that’s also why Google Search has those guidelines.

If sub-par content was surfacing on Google Search at scale, suppressing content that better served users’ search intents, that would ultimately disappoint those users, who would then likely turn to alternative search engines or other solutions for information, like conversational AI chatbots. That means fewer people to click on ads. 😉 But also, as an SEO, I’m motivated by creating great content, just as I’m sure many working on Google Search want to surface the best content.

In a way, then, it’s personal — no one wants to work hard and do the right thing, only to get beat by scammers, even temporarily.

That said, knowledge of Search ranking systems, up to a point, can be a boon to Google’s mission, because it incentivizes creating the type of content their users value, and thus their systems want to rank.

The question is …

What sources can we use to find answers about Google Search’s ranking systems?

There’s no straightforward path.

One avenue is what Google reveals publicly about how Search works. We have official documentation from Google Search (accessible from the footer of the Google homepage).

We also have regular collections of information from Google Search Central, which include official documentation, blog articles, social media posts, videos, or podcasts.

That podcast episode above, from Google Search Central, also called out how there’s nothing in this documentation (and presumably other media) that Google Search is afraid to share.

Speaking about the helpful, reliable, people-first content documentation, for example, Danny Sullivan has said, on more than one occasion, that it’s not an SEO checklist, but more general guidance. From the same podcast, here’s an excerpt:

Danny Sullivan: “And I think it could be useful if somebody went through and said, “Okay, you have created this content that you’re hoping ranks well, but for this topic, because you’re selling this product, so you thought it’d be good to create some content about that product.

But as it turns out, going down the list of things that they say you should think about, it looks like you don’t do this, or maybe this, or maybe that. And it’s not that you have to do every single one of those things, but it feels like this is not as helpful overall. So maybe we want to do some work to kind of improve this sort of thing. And that can be tricky, because some of the guidelines will be like, “Do you have authorship?”, for example. “Do you show an author?” type of thing. And you could come away with that saying, “Every single one of our pages must now have an author listed. It’s like, “No!”

I mean, if it makes sense to a reader or visitor to know who authored content, great. But if it’s your product page that explains how this USB microphone works, that it’s authored by a person, no one would typically expect it there, that sort of thing there. They would expect other things that explain it.” [Highlights added.]

– Google Search Off the Record podcast episode 63, PDF transcript

That document’s self-assessment questions were a focal point in the history of people-first content guidance section of my helpful content guide.

But as mentioned earlier, the questions I want to dig into here came from when I was updating my Google ranking volatility article and investing A guide to Google Search ranking systems, a Google Search Central documentation about current and retired systems.

Here’s a reference Danny made in the podcast to that document:

Danny Sullivan: “[E]very single ranking system we have is not listed. But a lot of really interesting ones are. … A lot of people think, “Oh, there’s the Google algorithm,” and that’s it. It’s this big giant thing. And of course, as we all know, there’s multiple systems actually that all come into play. … And especially, I think, for SEOs and creators, for them to understand some of the ones that get involved with ranking on a recurring basis, stuff that they’re familiar with, like the core-system ranking systems, or the helpful content system, and so on from there.” [Highlights added.]

– Google Search Off the Record podcast episode 63, PDF transcript

The point of understanding these ranking systems isn’t to game them but to better align your content with them conceptually as part of a larger effort to satisfy your particular audience’s search intent better than what’s currently available, thus achieving Search visibility that can lead to conversions.

Going a step further, the goal isn’t just to understand particular Google Search ranking systems and align with them, but rather to have a conceptual understanding of how those ranking systems operate in pursuit of surfacing more helpful, reliable, people-first content.

Again, here’s a notable excerpt from that podcast episode:

Danny Sullivan: “So when we talk about an update, it means that this particular system has been reworked or improved in a way that we think will provide for better results. …

As a creator, none of this really should cause you to do anything different. … But, of course, if you’ve seen a change after one of these systems has been launched or an updated system has been launched, then that’s probably a sign that maybe you’re not as aligned as you should be with what these things have been looking for, what Google’s generally trying to look for. So rereview that advice, and maybe it’ll help you get aligned with those systems better.”

– Google Search Off the Record podcast episode 63, PDF transcript

In addition to what Google publicly shares, we also get trickles of information about Search from other sources. Most recently, these included transcripts and exhibits from Google’s anti-trust trial.

Those are how we ended up with AJ Kohn’s article referenced earlier, or Danny Goodwin’s How Google Search and ranking works, according to Google’s Pandu Nayak, which was published in Search Engine Land in early December.

Combining all those sources, here’s a list of notable ranking systems, with links to where to learn more about them:

I’ll add more systems plus more information about what each system does soon. But I also covered some of that here.

But remember, don’t get hung up on any one ranking system or signal. Instead, consider how these systems can play together and evolve, and new ones can appear, and how that conceptual understanding can help you to focus on benefiting your users through Search.

Now for the heart of the matter …

Questions I’ve got about Google Search’s ranking systems

In the course of exploring different ranking systems and how their updates in 2023 may have been related (or incidental) to SERP volatility on Google that year to update my ranking volatility article, I was left with several questions.

How can we describe “hidden gems”?

This question has by far the longest explanation of the bunch.

“Hidden gems” is described as “helpful information” that may “live in unexpected or hard-to-find places.” It was initially mentioned in a blog post on Google’s The Keyword called Learn from others’ experiences with more perspectives on Search by Lauren Clark, Product Manager, Google Search, on May 10, 2023.

In that article, Lauren Clark stated:

“Last year, we launched the helpful content system to show more content made for people, and less content made to attract clicks. In the coming months, we’ll roll out an update to this system that more deeply understands content created from a personal or expert point of view, allowing us to rank more of this useful information on Search.

Helpful information can often live in unexpected or hard-to-find places: a comment in a forum thread, a post on a little-known blog, or an article with unique expertise on a topic. Our helpful content ranking system will soon show more of these “hidden gems” on Search, particularly when we think they’ll improve the results.”

– Google, The Keyword, Learn from others’ experiences with more perspectives on Search

Based on that, hidden gems would surface from the helpful content system, presumably from the teased update, and “improve the results” when necessary.

A few days later, Danny Sullivan replied to a question from Glenn Gabe about this announcement, and again, it was suggested hidden gems would be shown more based on the helpful content system:

Yet, when the next helpful content update began rolling out on September 14th, 2023, we learned from Google Search Central that it didn’t contain the hidden gems “work”:

Two things are interesting here.

Saying that hidden gems “work is still continuing and is not part of this particular update” implies it presumably would happen as “part” of an update, rather than be an update itself, but it just wasn’t happening in that “particular update,” i.e., the third HCU.

Based on what we knew at that point, it sounded like hidden gems “work” would be concluded and the ranking improvement would go live as “part” of a helpful content update; since we were promised this HCU “in the coming months” in that May blog post, we could assume a fourth helpful content update was in order and would surface hidden gems.

But hold on there partner!

On November 15th, 2023, a new blog article on The Keyword called New ways to find just what you need on Search was published by Cathy Edwards, VP/GM of Google Search. This article doesn’t mention hidden gems.

However, in a section called “Even more firsthand knowledge in Search,” Cathy Edwards mentions the perspectives filter on desktop, more information about social media creators, but also that “As part of this work, we’ve also rolled out a series of ranking improvements to show more first-person perspectives in results, so it’s easier to find this content across Search.” Presumably, this last part is related to hidden gems.

So here we have hidden gems (presumably) described as “ranking improvements” that came in a series.

Barry Schwartz reported that day (November 15th) in a Search Engine Land article called Google Search ranking improvement aims to surface hidden gems that “hidden gems” had now fully rolled out but also had been live “since a few months ago”:

“Google has rolled out ranking improvements aimed at showcasing more content from social media, blog posts, forums and more that share personal insights and experiences. This is the hidden gems announcement Google made back in May, but this update is not part of the helpful content system. It is part of the Google core ranking system, Brad Kellett, Senior Director on Google Search product and engineering told us.” [Highlights added.]

– Barry Schwartz, Search Engine Land

Hidden gems being live “since a few months ago” is probably what Cathy Edwards meant by “rolled out a series of ranking improvements.”

Barry is also using a Google Search source, Brad Kellet, when saying that hidden gems is “ranking improvements” and an “update” that’s “part of the Google core ranking system,” though, as said later in the article, it’s “Not a core or helpful content update.”

So it’s safe to assume hidden gems was a series of improvements to Google Search’s core ranking systems.

But then the next day on November 16th in a Search Engine Roundtable article called Google Hidden Gems Ranking Algorithm Update, Barry linked to that article on The Keyword from the previous day as being what “announced the hidden gems ranking system or update.”

So there we have the possibility that hidden gems is its own ranking system or an update, rather than improvements.

But are ranking system improvements and updates the same thing?

In Google’s guide to ranking systems, Hummingbird’s introduction in 2013 is described as an “improvement” to “overall ranking systems,” not an update. Also, “overall ranking systems” is used instead of “core ranking systems.”

Interestingly, in that SER article from November 16th, Barry explains that “Google told me this started to roll out as part of core updates a few months ago and this is not part of the helpful content update.”

So there we have the implication that hidden gems is “part of core updates,” rather than an update itself. So maybe being “part” of an update is the same as being an “improvement” to a system.

Update from 12/28/23: In digging through part 31 of Hamsterdam, I found this exchange on X between Glenn Gabe and Danny Sullivan as Google Search Liaison where Danny describes hidden gems as being part of the design of core ranking systems:

This supports the conclusion that it was an “improvement” to those ranking systems.

As for when hidden gems rolled out, we had core updates in August, October, and November, except if hidden gems had rolled out by November 15th, and the November 2023 core update ran from November 2nd-28th, is it fair to say it wasn’t part of that core update?

If it had been rolled out over a “few months,” presumably it began with the August 2023 core update.

Or could testing of hidden gems even predate that August update, perhaps contributing to the high SERP volatility we saw in the summer of 2023?

I’m going with the following description:

Hidden gems is a cumulative improvement to Google Search’s core ranking systems designed to show more first-person perspectives, including from forum threads or posts on little-known blogs.

But, I’m not positive about it being improvements versus an update, when it began rolling out, or whether it’s limited to core ranking systems.

Is the reviews system part of the core ranking systems?

Ok, this one will be shorter, I promise. 😉

There have been eight announced updates to the reviews system on Google Search. The first started rolling out on April 8th, 2021. At the time, the system was called the “product reviews system,” and so this update was the April 2021 product reviews update. The next five were also product reviews updates.

Then in April 2023, the system’s name changed to just the “reviews system” for its seventh update, presumably because “Reviews can be about any topic,” per the documentation.

One last announced reviews update starting rolling out on November 8th, lasting 29 days.

As we learned in A Q&A on Google Search updates, posted by Danny Sullivan on November 2nd, the November 2023 reviews update would “mark a point when we’ll no longer be giving periodic notifications of improvements to our reviews system, because they will be happening at a regular and ongoing pace. We’ll be updating our page about the system to reflect this.”

We found out that hidden gems are associated with Google Search’s core ranking systems. We’ve also seen legacy systems become “part of” or “integrated into” the core ranking systems before, like with Panda in 2015 and Penguin in 2016, respectively.

Since the eighth and final announced reviews update concluded rolling out on December 7th, we know now that “reviews system” updates will be “happening at a regular and ongoing pace.”.

The reviews system still has a dedicated page of documentation, which says:

“The reviews system is improved at a regular and ongoing pace [and] Content impacted by the reviews system may recover over time, if you’ve made improvements to your content. However, note that our automated assessment of review content is only one of many factors used in ranking content, so changes can happen at any time for various reasons.”

– Google Search’s reviews system and your website

And so, here’s my conclusion:

It appears the reviews system, by having its own page of documentation, is still a standalone ranking system, albeit “one of many factors used in ranking content,” and thus not part of Google Search’s core ranking systems, despite its updates no longer being announced.

But I’m not sure.

Is it core ranking system or systems (singular or plural)?

This one will be shorter still. 😉

In the Search Engine Land article from November 15th, 2023, announcing that hidden gems had fully rolled out, Barry Schwartz says he was told by Brad Kellet, Senior Director on Google Search product and engineering, that hidden gems “is part of the Google core ranking system.”

That’s core ranking “system,” as in singular.

Yet, in A guide to Google Search ranking systems, Google’s documentation says “core ranking systems” (plural) six times, with no mentions of a singular system.

Then in the Q&A document posted by Danny Sullivan on November 2nd, 2023, he says, “We have different systems that are considered core to our ranking process; this month’s core update involves an improvement to a different core system than last month.”

Implying there are “core systems” that are part of a “ranking process.” From that, we can assume they’re “core ranking systems.”

Danny Goodwin also speaks of “core algorithms” in his SEL article about Pandy Nayak’s testimony. Goodwin also mentions how “Nayak was asked whether Navboost is “the only core algorithm that Google uses to retrieve results,” and he said “no, absolutely not.””

But then in a 2018 article in Search Engine Journal called What Is a Google Broad Core Algorithm Update?, Ryan Jones says, “The way I understand it, a core update is a tweak or change to the main search algorithm itself.”

So is it singular or plural?

Since official Google Search documentation uses “core ranking systems” or “core systems,” and the mention of a “core ranking system” was a quote, and we know from Pandu Nayak that Google Search has multiple core algorithms, I think it’s fair to assume the correct phrasing is the plural or core ranking systems.

But I’m not positive.

Do core updates only include core ranking systems?

A shorter question still!

In its documentation on core updates, Google Search Central explains that:

“Several times a year, Google makes significant, broad changes to our search algorithms and systems. We refer to these as core updates.” [Highlights added.]

– Google Search’s core updates and your website

We just got done talking about “core ranking systems.” So you’d assume core updates impact “core ranking systems” or “core systems.” Especially since we have announced updates for other systems, like the helpful content system.

Except core updates are described here as “broad changes to our search algorithms and systems.” That doesn’t sound exclusive to “core systems.”

Later on, the document says about core updates that “the changes are about improving how our systems assess content overall.”

But which systems? Core systems, or other systems, too?

In the Q&A document mentioned above, we learned the November 2023 core update involved “an improvement to a different core system than last month,” which implies core updates can impact “core systems” in isolation.

But can they also impact non-core systems, so to speak?

I’m going to say that core updates involve “broad changes” to Google Search’s ranking systems, primarily to core ranking systems, either individually or in groups.

But I’m not sure if core updates only include core systems or other non-core ranking systems.

How is a broad core update different from a core update?

This one is a little longer to explain and kind of confuses me. I’m hoping someone with more historical knowledge can help out and I can update the answer.

But here it goes …

The Google Search Status Dashboard, which lists “All incidents reported for Ranking” from 2020 to 2023 (i.e., Google Search ranking updates), mentions the word “core update” 12 times. Not once does it mention “broad core update.”

Then in Google’s core updates documentation, there are four main sections of content.

The first three sections always use the words “core update.”

The final section, however, says the following:

“Broad core updates tend to happen every few months. Content that was impacted in Search or Discover by one might not recover—assuming improvements have been made—until the next broad core update is released.”

– Google Search’s core updates and your website, How long does it take to recover from a core update?

That’s the first mention of “broad core updates,” which it says happen every few months. Presumably, that just refers to the announced core updates in the Status Dashboard.

But then in the next paragraph, the core updates documentation says:

“However, we’re constantly making updates to our search algorithms, including smaller core updates. We don’t announce all of these because they’re generally not widely noticeable. Still, when released, they can cause content to recover if improvements warrant.” [Highlights added.]

– Google Search’s core updates and your website

This implies Google Search has smaller unannounced core updates, which are distinct from broad core updates.

But if all the announced core updates are just called “core updates,” then what’s a “broad core update?”

Is any announced core update a broad core update? Or is a broad core update a core update that’s announced, but maybe involves multiple ranking systems, unlike how the October and November 2023 core update each allegedly impacted individual core systems?

The first core update listed in Google’s Status Dashboard is the January 2020 core update.

An article from mid-February 2020 on Search Engine Roundtable discusses this topic, including with a post on X from Glenn Gabe:

That implies a broad core update refers to “broadly noticeable” impacts, maybe in reference to the “broad changes” of the original definition above.

But that doesn’t mean broad core update is multiple systems. So maybe a broad core update can be a core update of a single system that’s even more broadly felt than a normally announced core update?

I’m getting more confused and probably off track …

The November 8th, 2019, update referenced in the SER story and Glenn’s post above predates the Google Search Status Dashboard’s data.

However, according to Marie Haynes, that November 2019 update may have been link-related: “Almost every site that we looked at that saw drops had issues with unnatural links pointing to their site.”

We know that Penguin focused on unnatural links and was integrated into the core ranking systems in 2016, but we also know Google has separate spam detection systems.

So maybe that November 8th, 2019, turbulence was related to historical Penguin or other link-spam detection algorithms within the core ranking systems, but this wasn’t a broadly felt update (since unnatural links are, hopefully, not a widespread issue) and thus it was an unannounced core update, but not a broad core update, which by definition is both announced and broadly noticeable.

But that still doesn’t explain is all announced “core updates” are “broad core updates.”

I’m almost certain I’ve heard Danny Sullivan say there is a distinction but it’s semantic — no pun intended 😉 — and that’s what stopped the “broad” reference.

That got me searching again, where I found this SEL article by Barry called Google releases May 2022 broad core update: “Google is now rolling out its first broad core algorithm update of 2022. It is named the May 2022 core update, Danny Sullivan of Google announced.”

That word “announced” linked to this document, May 2022 core update releasing for Google Search, which says “core update(s)” 16 times and “broad core updates” once.

Stop the madness!

“Several times per year, we make substantial improvements to our overall ranking processes, which we refer to as core updates.” Ok … “We confirm broad core updates because they typically produce some widely notable effects.” Ok … “There’s nothing wrong with pages that may perform less well in a core update.”

So that suggests the May 2022 core update was a broad core update. I also find tons of references online where broad core update and (announced) core update are used interchangeably.

My guess is that “broad core update” is an internal term used for announced core updates of a certain nature, but it’s kept out of public announcements of core updates for the sake of simplicity, and maybe its inclusion in that core update document is an oversight.

But I’m really not sure.

Update on 12/28/23: I found the original X post I was looking for!

So …

I’m still not really sure.

Update on 3/18/24:

Google Search developer documentation added a generative AI chat feature (BETA). The example in Barry’s X post below was conveniently from the core updates doc:

My first question for the AI chat was, “what’s the difference between a core update and broad core update,” and the answer given was about scale:

“A core update is a significant, broad change to Google’s search algorithms and systems. These updates are designed to ensure that Google is delivering helpful and reliable results for searchers.

A broad core update is a type of core update that affects a wide range of websites and search queries. These updates are typically larger and more noticeable than regular core updates.

The main difference between a core update and a broad core update is the scope of the changes.“ [Highlights added.]

– Google Search Ask about this page Chat (BETA) (see image below)

Here’s the full generative AI answer:

Ask about this page generative AI chat from Google Search developer documentation about core update vs. broad core update.

The question is, is it accurate?

We’ll take Google’s AI Chat’s (BETA) word for it.

“And strengthen our communication”

I’ll continue to edit this article for readability, as well as revisit these questions whenever I learn more, and add new questions over time.

I’d love to see this become a huge list of questions and a complimentary resource for SEOs and site owners looking to better understand Google Search’s ranking systems, not to fixate on individual systems or signals, but to build a conceptual understanding for doing SEO strategies that benefit their users above all. 😉

Until next time, enjoy the vibes:

Thanks for reading. Happy optimizing. 🙂

SEO Strategist & Consultant

Ethan Lazuk

Editorial history:

Created by Ethan Lazuk on:

Last updated:

Need a hand with SEO audits or content strategy?

I’m an independent strategist and consultant. Learn about my SEO services or contact me for more information!

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Ethan Lazuk

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading