Official statement
Other statements from this video 28 ▾
- □ Pourquoi le trafic n'est-il pas un facteur de classement dans Google ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment mettre tous vos liens d'affiliation en nofollow ?
- □ Les Core Web Vitals mesurent-ils vraiment ce que vos utilisateurs vivent ?
- □ Le JavaScript est-il vraiment compatible avec le SEO ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment éviter les redirections progressives pour préserver son SEO ?
- □ Peut-on vraiment déployer des milliers de redirections 301 sans risque SEO ?
- □ Pourquoi Googlebot ignore-t-il vos boutons 'Charger plus' et comment y remédier ?
- □ Pourquoi les pages orphelines tuent-elles votre SEO même indexées ?
- □ Les pop-ups bloquants peuvent-ils vraiment compromettre votre indexation Google ?
- □ Pourquoi votre contenu géolocalisé risque-t-il de disparaître de l'index Google ?
- □ Faut-il abandonner le dynamic rendering pour Googlebot ?
- □ L'index Google a-t-il vraiment une limite — et que faire quand vos pages disparaissent ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment vérifier tous vos domaines redirigés dans Search Console ?
- □ Comment Google pondère-t-il ses signaux de ranking via le machine learning ?
- □ Pourquoi votre site a-t-il disparu brutalement de l'index Google ?
- □ Les avertissements de sécurité dans Search Console affectent-ils vraiment vos rankings SEO ?
- □ Les liens affiliés avec redirections 302 posent-ils un problème de cloaking pour Google ?
- □ Les Core Web Vitals d'AMP passent-ils par le cache Google ou votre serveur d'origine ?
- □ Pourquoi Search Console n'affiche-t-il aucune donnée Core Web Vitals pour votre site ?
- □ Le trafic est-il vraiment sans impact sur le classement Google ?
- □ Le JavaScript pour la navigation et le contenu nuit-il vraiment au SEO ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment s'inquiéter du nombre de redirections 301 lors d'une refonte de site ?
- □ Pourquoi les redirections en chaîne sabotent-elles vos restructurations de site ?
- □ Le lazy loading est-il vraiment compatible avec l'indexation Google ?
- □ Google crawle-t-il vraiment votre site uniquement depuis les États-Unis ?
- □ Faut-il abandonner le dynamic rendering pour l'indexation Google ?
- □ Pourquoi les pages orphelines détectées uniquement via sitemap perdent-elles tout leur poids SEO ?
- □ Les pop-ups partiels peuvent-ils ruiner votre SEO autant que les interstitiels plein écran ?
Google confirms that About and Contact pages linked throughout the site are not seen as important just because they receive many internal links. Algorithms distinguish these structural pages from editorial content. Adding nofollow to these links has become unnecessary since Google treats this type of structure as a normal web convention.
What you need to understand
Why does Google specify that these pages are considered 'normal'?<\/h3>
Google is responding here to an outdated SEO practice<\/strong> that involved adding nofollow attributes to all links to About, Contact, Legal Notices, and other utility pages located in the footer or main navigation. The underlying idea was to avoid 'wasting' internal PageRank<\/strong> by diluting it to pages that add no value to rankings.<\/p> But Google's algorithms have evolved. They now integrate a contextual understanding<\/strong> of site architecture. When a page receives links from every page on the site but is located in the footer with a label like 'About' or 'Contact', Google recognizes this structure as a standard web convention — not as a signal that this page is central.<\/p> For many modern SEOs, this confirmation doesn’t revolutionize anything. Since Google transformed nofollow into a hint rather than a strict directive<\/strong>, the tactical need for nofollow to sculpt PageRank has largely vanished. Most practitioners haven’t bothered to nofollow these links for several years.<\/p> But the reminder is useful for teams still following SEO guidelines from before 2019<\/strong>. Some agencies or developers maintain templates where these links are systematically in nofollow 'just in case.' Google is clearly stating: this is unnecessary, stop.<\/p> This statement reveals that Google has developed structural recognition heuristics<\/strong>. Algorithms do not simply count links — they analyze their position, their semantic context, and the recurrence of the pattern across pages. A link present on 100% of the pages but found in the footer with an anchor 'Legal Notices' will be treated differently than a contextual link in the editorial content.<\/p> This also confirms that Google applies a variable weighting<\/strong> to internal links based on their nature. An editorial link in an article to another content page will have a different weight than a structural navigation link. This nuance is crucial for strategic internal linking.<\/p>Does this statement really change anything on the ground?<\/h3>
What does this teach us about how Google analyzes internal links?<\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?<\/h3>
Yes, and it's even one of the rare Google statements that perfectly aligns with empirical observations<\/strong>. Internal linking tests have long shown that a footer link to an About page does not have the same effect as a contextual editorial link. Sites that have stopped using nofollow on their utility pages have noticed no drop in performance<\/strong> on their strategic pages.<\/p> But be cautious: this consistency applies to truly structural pages. If you create an 'About' page that is actually a disguised commercial page<\/strong> with dense content and targeted keywords, the treatment might be different. Google analyzes content as much as the link’s position.<\/p> First case: a site with an abnormal architecture<\/strong>. If your About page receives not only footer links but also dozens of contextual links from your articles, Google might treat it differently. The algorithm detects patterns, but it remains sensitive to statistical anomalies.<\/p> Second case: sites with hybrid structures<\/strong>. Imagine an 'About' page that also serves as a hub for category pages or resources. It then accumulates both a structural and an editorial role. Its treatment becomes less predictable. [To be verified]<\/strong>: Google has never specified how it handles edge cases where a page serves multiple functions.<\/p> Yes and no. The crude version of PageRank Sculpting — the one that involved massively using nofollow on 'useless' links — is indeed obsolete. Google killed this practice by transforming nofollow into a hint<\/strong>, and then confirming it detects structural patterns.<\/p> However, strategic internal linking<\/strong> remains crucial. Having contextual links from strong pages pointing to pages you want to boost is still effective. What no longer works is believing that by removing links you are 'magically' concentrating juice. The game is no longer about restriction but about optimizing natural flow.<\/p>In what cases might this rule not apply?<\/h3>
Should we conclude that PageRank Sculpting is definitively dead?<\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What should you do concretely on your site?<\/h3>
If you still have nofollow attributes<\/strong> on your footer links to About, Contact, Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy — remove them. It’s unnecessary code that adds no value and can cause confusion during audits. A clean footer with standard links is easier to maintain and perfectly understood by Google.<\/p> Next, take the opportunity to audit your internal link architecture<\/strong>. If you had implemented a complex nofollow system 'just in case', it’s time to simplify. Focus your optimization efforts on contextual editorial links that truly impact crawling and ranking.<\/p> Use a crawler (Screaming Frog, Oncrawl, Botify) to map your internal link profile<\/strong>. Identify which pages receive the most links and ensure they are indeed your strategic pages — not just your About or Legal Notices pages. If the latter appear in the top 10 most linked pages but your commercial pages are far behind, your editorial linking is too weak.<\/p> Also calculate the click depth<\/strong> of your important pages. A strategic page accessible in 1-2 clicks from the homepage is more likely to be crawled and valued than a page buried 5-6 clicks deep. It’s this structural proximity that matters, not whether the footer links use nofollow or not.<\/p> Don’t fall into the extreme opposite: removing all your nofollows without consideration<\/strong>. Some links still deserve a nofollow — for example, user links (comments, forums), sponsored links, links to non-indexable member areas. The nofollow remains useful in these cases; Google has confirmed this.<\/p> Another mistake: believing that this statement means that internal links no longer matter<\/strong>. On the contrary. Google is simply saying it does not consider About pages important just because they are linked everywhere. But contextual links to your key pages remain a major lever for indexing and ranking. Don’t confuse the two.<\/p>How to check if your internal linking is optimal?<\/h3>
What mistakes should you avoid after this statement?<\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Dois-je retirer tous mes attributs nofollow immédiatement ?
Une page About bien optimisée peut-elle quand même ranker sur des requêtes ?
Le maillage interne a-t-il encore un impact après cette déclaration ?
Comment Google détecte-t-il qu'une page est structurelle ?
Faut-il supprimer les pages About ou Contact pour optimiser le crawl budget ?
🎥 From the same video 28
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 07/05/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →Related statements
Get real-time analysis of the latest Google SEO declarations
Be the first to know every time a new official Google statement drops — with full expert analysis.
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.