A Conversation with Saad Shah

What stands out to me is the scale of the movement. We are used to seeing rankings fluctuate during confirmed Google updates, but this time the data suggests something more aggressive was happening.

According to Search Engine Land, a significant number of URLs that were previously performing in the top 10 disappeared beyond the top 100. That does not automatically mean those pages were removed from Google's index, but it does suggest that Google's systems reassessed their ability to rank for those queries.

For me, the important takeaway is that this doesn't look like ordinary ranking turbulence. When a page moves from position eight to position 15, that's one thing. Moving from the top 10 to outside the first 100 results is a completely different level of disruption.

We have to be careful about making assumptions here. We know this was officially a spam update, but the available data doesn't tell us exactly why individual URLs lost visibility.

So I wouldn't say that every website that dropped was necessarily using obvious spam techniques.

What I think is more interesting is that Google may be getting better at identifying signals that, collectively, indicate low-quality or manipulative search strategies. That could involve content quality, scaled production, link patterns, site reputation, or other signals that Google doesn't publicly disclose.

The mistake SEOs often make after an update is trying to identify one specific cause. Sometimes there isn't one.

Potentially, but I wouldn't frame it as Google simply targeting AI content.

Google has repeatedly focused more on the quality and usefulness of content than on whether a human or AI created it. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is scaled, low-value production.

AI has made it extremely easy to publish thousands of pages. The problem begins when websites use that capability to create content primarily for capturing search traffic without adding anything genuinely useful.

A page can be technically well-written and still provide very little original value. If hundreds of websites are publishing slightly different versions of the same information, Google has to determine which pages actually deserve visibility.

I think that is where the conversation becomes more interesting than simply asking whether AI content is good or bad.

I would say it's a reminder that scale doesn't replace value.

Programmatic SEO and automation are not inherently bad. There are legitimate websites that use templates and automation to organize large amounts of useful information.

The question is whether the result helps the user.

If you're creating thousands of pages because every page provides unique, useful information, that's different from creating thousands of pages that exist primarily because a keyword has search volume.

I think that distinction will become increasingly important.

It suggests that this wasn't necessarily a narrow update focused on one particular industry.

We often see updates where certain sectors appear to experience more volatility than others, especially in areas involving sensitive information. But in this case, the movement was broad.

That doesn't necessarily mean Google applied the exact same criteria to every industry. Different search results have different ranking environments.

But it does suggest that whatever Google changed had a wide-reaching impact on how URLs were evaluated.

For website owners, that's important because you can't always assume, "My industry isn't affected by this kind of update."

The first thing I would recommend is: don't panic and don't immediately start changing everything.

Check whether the decline actually aligns with the update's rollout period. Look at Google Search Console and identify which pages and queries were affected.

Then start asking better questions.

Were the affected pages providing something genuinely original? Are there large sections of content that are repetitive? Are you publishing pages simply to target keyword variations? Are there technical or indexing issues?

You should also compare the pages that lost visibility with the pages currently ranking.

But I would avoid blindly copying competitors because Google's results may still be changing while the update settles.

I think the approach can be different because the underlying problem may be different.

With a broader quality-related update, you might spend more time looking at overall content quality, usefulness, expertise, and how well your site satisfies search intent.

With a spam-related update, I would also closely examine whether there are patterns across the site that could look manipulative or low-value at scale.

That could include thin pages, automatically generated pages without meaningful review, aggressive keyword targeting, questionable link practices, or other tactics designed primarily to influence rankings.

The key point is that recovery shouldn't be based on guessing what Google's algorithm changed. It should be based on identifying weaknesses that genuinely need to be fixed.

That is probably one of the most important parts of the update.

When we talk about ranking losses, we sometimes forget that every page that disappears creates opportunities for another page.

If Google removed or suppressed certain URLs, it had to replace them with something.

The increase in URLs moving into the top positions suggests that Google wasn't simply reshuffling rankings slightly. There may have been a meaningful reassessment of which pages deserved visibility.

For SEOs, that also creates an opportunity.

Sometimes an algorithm update is not just about protecting existing rankings. It can create openings for websites that have been sitting outside the top positions.

My biggest takeaway is that rankings can be more fragile than they appear.

A website can sit comfortably in the top 10 for months and assume that its strategy is working perfectly. Then an update happens, and suddenly those assumptions are tested.

That's why I think SEO needs to move beyond simply asking, "How do we rank?"

The better question is, "Why does this page deserve to rank?"

If your answer is just keywords, backlinks, and optimization, I don't think that's enough anymore.

You need originality. You need usefulness. You need a clear reason for the page to exist.

And especially now, when AI makes content production easier than ever, the ability to produce content is becoming less valuable than the ability to produce something worth finding.

Yeah, I was going to talk about that, and you have asked so...

Don't treat every Google update as something you need to outsmart.

Instead, use moments like this to audit your website honestly.

Look for pages that you wouldn't be proud to recommend to a real person. Look for content that exists only because a keyword tool suggested it. Look for areas where you're publishing at scale without maintaining quality.

At the same time, don't assume that every ranking loss means your website is spam.

The data surrounding this update tells us that the volatility was significant, but it doesn't explain every individual ranking change. So the best response is evidence, patience, and a proper audit and don't panic.

I think the websites that will remain resilient are the ones building something beyond search traffic. Search rankings can change overnight. Real usefulness, trust, and an audience are much harder to replace.