Google: Rankings Drop After Mobile Usability Fail?

Posted by

Google’s John Mueller reacted to a Reddit SEO conversation where a search console alerting about mobile use was right after followed by a rankings drop in a medical associated site.

The timing of the drop in rankings taking place not long after search console issued a cautioning about mobile use problems made the two events seem related.

The person despaired because they fixed the issue, validated the fix through Google search console but the rankings modifications haven’t reversed.

These are the prominent information:

“Around Aug. 2022, I observed that Google Search Console was saying ALL of our pages were now failing Mobile Functionality standards. I had a developer “fix” the pages …

… I resubmitted the sitemap & asked Google to “Verify” all of my repairs on Oct. 25, 2022. It has been 15 days without any motion.”

Understanding Modifications in Ranking

John Mueller responded in the Reddit discussion, observing that in his opinion the mobile usability issues were unassociated to the rankings drop.

Mueller wrote:

“I’ll go out on a limb and say the factor for rankings changing has nothing to do with this.

I ‘d check out the quality raters guidelines and the content Google has on the current updates for some ideas, especially for medical material like that.”

This is a great example of how the most obvious reason for something taking place is not always the appropriate reason, it’s only the most apparent.

Apparent is not the like accurate or proper, despite the fact that it may look like it.

When detecting a problem it’s important to keep an open mind about the causes and to not stop diagnosing a concern at the first more apparent explanation.

John dismissed the mobile usability concern as being major enough to impact rankings.

His response recommended that major content quality issues are a likelier reason for a rankings change, especially if the modification happens around the exact same time as an algorithm upgrade.

The Google Raters Standards are a guide for examining site quality in an objective manner, without subjective concepts of what makes up website quality.

So it makes good sense that Mueller recommended to the Redditor that they must read the raters standards to see if the descriptions of what defines website quality matches those of the website in question.

Coincidentally, Google just recently released brand-new documentation for helping publishers understand what Google thinks about rank-worthy material.

The document is called, Producing helpful, dependable, people-first material. The documents consists of a section that relates to this issue, Learn more about E-A-T and the quality rater standards.

Google’s assistance page describes that their algorithm uses many elements to understand whether a webpage is skilled, authoritative and trustworthy, particularly for Your Cash Your Life pages such as those on medical topics.

This section of the documents explains why the quality raters guidelines information is essential:

“… our systems provide much more weight to material that aligns with strong E-A-T for subjects that could substantially affect the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the well-being or wellness of society.

We call these “Your Money or Your Life” topics, or YMYL for short.”

Browse Console Fix Validations Are Generally Informative

Mueller next discussed the search console repair recognitions and what they really imply.

He continued his response:

“For indexing issues, “verify fix” assists to accelerate recrawling.

For everything else, it’s more about giving you info on what’s happening, to let you understand if your changes had any impact.

There’s no “the site fixed it, let’s launch the hand brake” impact from this, it’s really mainly for you: you said it was good now, and here is what Google discovered.”

YMYL Medical Material

The individual asking the concern responded to Mueller by keeping in mind that most of the website content was written by doctors.

They next discuss how they also compose content that is implied to convey knowledge, authoritativeness and reliability.

This is what they shared:

“I’ve attempted to actually write blog short articles & even marketing pages that have a gratifying answer above the fold, but then discuss the information after.

Practically whatever a person would do if they were legitimate attempting to get an answer across– which is likewise what you read to be “EAT” best practices.


They regreted that their competitors with old material surpassed them in the rankings.

Diagnosing a ranking problem is often more than just navel looking one’s own site.

It may be useful to truly go into the rival site to understand what their strengths are that might be representing their increased search visibility.

It may seem like after an upgrade that Google is “gratifying” websites that have this or that, like great mobile use, FAQs, etc.

But that’s not truly how search algorithms work.

Search algorithms, in a nutshell, attempt to comprehend 3 things:

  1. The meaning of a search inquiries
  2. The meaning of websites
  3. Website quality

So it follows that any improvements to the algorithm might likely be an improvement in one or all three (most likely all three).

Which’s where John Mueller’s support to check out the Google Browse Quality Raters Standards (PDF) can be found in.

It might also be useful to read Google’s great Browse Quality Raters Standards Summary (PDF) due to the fact that it’s much shorter and much easier to comprehend.


Read the Reddit Concern and Answer

Impact Of “Validating” A Fix In Search Console/Mobile Functionality

Image by Best SMM Panel/Khosro