Why Google’s Removal of the @NUM=100 Parameter Matters for Your SEO Reporting
- Chris Vale
- Sep 23
- 5 min read
Description: Google quietly disabled the #100 parameter that allowed SEOs to see 100 organic results at once. This change may sound technical, but it reshapes how impression and ranking data is collected. In this blog, I explain what happened, why it matters, and how I’m adapting my reporting and strategy.
Google Drops the #100 Parameter: What It Means for Your SEO and Reporting
You may have heard murmurs in the SEO community about Google “killing” the #100 parameter. If that sounds like jargon, here’s the gist: for years, appending &num=100 to a Google search URL forced the engine to display 100 organic results on a single page. This trick was never officially supported, but it became a standard tool for rank‑tracking software and analysts who needed to see positions beyond page one.
In mid‑September 2025, Google quietly removed support for that. It now serves only ten results per page and has said the # flag is not formally supported. The news flew under the radar outside of SEO circles, yet it has huge implications for how we measure organic performance. As someone who spends hours poring over Search Console and rank‑tracking reports, I felt the effects almost immediately.
Understanding the @NUM=100 Parameter and Its Demise
Why did the #100 trick matter? When a tool (or a person) could fetch 100 results in one request, it meant positions 1–100 all counted as impressions. Bots scraping the full list would generate “impressions” for each listing, even if no human user ever scrolled that far. This inflated impression counts and skewed the “average position” metric because low‑ranking impressions dragged the average down.
Google’s quiet removal of the parameter shut that door. Rank‑tracking providers must now paginate through ten pages to collect the same data, increasing costs ten fold. More importantly, Search Console no longer registers impressions for results that appear on pages 2–10. That change explains why you may have seen your impressions plummet and your average position soar overnight. An analysis of 319 websites found that 87.7 % of sites saw impressions decline and 77.6 % lost unique ranking terms after the changes. The drop is not a penalty, but it is a by‑product of Google no longer counting bot‑generated impressions.
The Immediate Impact on Search Console and Rank Tracking
As soon as the change rolled out, my Search Console dashboards looked like roller‑coasters. Impressions fell off a cliff on desktop queries while average positions improved dramatically. This is because Search Console only logs an impression when a result appears on the current page of results. When bots stopped pulling up pages 3–10, those “phantom” impressions vanished. The math behind average position improved because the calculation is now based on fewer, more realistic impressions.
At the same time, some of our rank‑tracking software started showing gaps. Tools that used to provide daily position data down to #100 were suddenly limited to the top ten, or reported “N/A” for deeper positions. Providers like Semrush and Ahrefs hinted that they may eventually only track the top 20 positions. SpyFu’s founder even published a plea to the industry to help fund expensive crawling efforts to preserve top‑100 data.
For SEOs and clients, this means reports will look very different. You might have delivered spreadsheets full of rankings down to position 100. Going forward, many tools either will not provide that data or will charge much more for it. Internally, you may need to reset your baselines: those big impression numbers and low average positions you celebrated may have been inflated. That is a tough conversation to have if stakeholders do not follow SEO news, but it is necessary to avoid panic.
Why This Change Matters to SEOs and Clients
At first glance, losing access to positions 11–100 sounds like we are flying blind. I initially felt the same way. After thinking through the implications, I realized that the change is not all doom and gloom:
Cleaner data: The old system counted every low‑ranking result scraped by bots as an impression. Those impressions never represented real users. Now, impressions mostly reflect results that appear on page one, which aligns with how people actually search.
Refocused priorities: Ranking on page three rarely drives meaningful traffic. This update forces us to focus on the top ten or twenty, where clicks happen. It also encourages a shift toward metrics like clicks, traffic and conversions rather than vanity impressions.
Cost and complexity: For agencies and in‑house teams, budgeting for rank‑tracking tools may need to change. Third‑party providers will pass on the cost of crawling ten pages instead of one. Some may drop top‑100 tracking entirely, so choose vendors wisely.
Reporting education: Clients who watch their Search Console charts will see dramatic dips. It is our job to explain why that happened, reassure them that visibility has not tanked, and set new benchmarks for performance.
There are also broader industry questions. Some speculated that Google removed #100 to reduce scraping load or even to thwart AI models training on search results. Google has not confirmed the motivation, but it did post a job listing for an anti‑scraping engineering analyst, hinting at a larger focus on protecting search data.
How I’m Adapting My Reporting and Strategy
I always prefer to control what I can rather than stress over what I cannot. Here are the practical steps I have taken since the change:
Reset baselines: I marked the week of September 12th as a “line in the sand” and created new benchmarks for impressions and average position. Comparing data before and after the change without context would be misleading.
Educate stakeholders: In client reports, I added a section explaining the @num=100 retirement. I referenced Search Engine Land’s coverage so clients could see it is a verified change. I also shared Brodie Clark’s analysis because it provides deeper context about the so‑called “Great Decoupling” and why impressions were inflated.
Focus on meaningful metrics: I shifted my reporting to emphasize clicks, click‑through rate and conversions. Because impression counts are cleaner, CTR is more reliable. I also pay closer attention to on‑page metrics like dwell time and bounce rate.
Re‑evaluate rank trackers: I’m reviewing the tools I use for daily position data. Some vendors still provide top‑100 rankings by crawling multiple pages, but the costs are rising. For many projects, tracking the top 20 is sufficient.
Invest in fundamentals: Ultimately, this change does not affect how we rank – only how we measure. That means the usual best practices still apply: technical health, quality content, relevant keywords, internal linking and user experience. If anything, the shift away from vanity metrics is a good reminder to focus on delivering real value.
Key Takeaways and Next Steps
Google’s removal of the &num=100 parameter is a behind‑the‑scenes update with front‑and‑center consequences. It will make impression and ranking data leaner and more accurate, but it will also disrupt long‑standing reporting habits. In my view, SEOs should welcome the cleaner dataset even though it requires re‑education and new baselines. We have relied on inflated impressions for too long; now we can measure what actually matters.
If you manage SEO for clients, open a dialogue about this change. Explain why their Search Console numbers have shifted and reassure them that their organic visibility has not disappeared overnight. Use this as an opportunity to focus on higher‑value metrics and to refine your reporting. And if you need to see positions beyond page one, evaluate whether the cost and complexity of deep rank tracking are worth it for your business.
Change in search is constant. The deprecation of #100 may feel like a curveball, but it is also a chance to improve how we measure and communicate SEO success. I’m choosing to embrace it and hope this breakdown helps you do the same.