Official statement
Other statements from this video 2 ▾
Martin Splitt emphasizes that Googlebot only crawls standard HTML links with the <a> tag and href effectively. JavaScript links, buttons without HTML anchor, or custom navigation systems can block crawling. For SEO, it means systematically auditing the technical architecture of internal links and favoring native HTML over JavaScript solutions, even when the latter appear to work visually.
What you need to understand
What does Splitt really mean by "properly anchored internal links"?
This phrasing may seem basic, but it conceals a precise technical reality. A "properly anchored" link for Google is a tag with a href attribute pointing to a valid URL. Not a with an onClick, not a clickable
The catch? Many modern frameworks — React, Vue, Angular — generate navigation systems that don’t always produce standard HTML at the time of the initial crawl. If the link only exists in the DOM after JavaScript execution, Googlebot may miss it, even if it eventually executes the JS. The latency and resource consumption are not the same.
Why emphasize the "descriptive text" of anchors alongside crawling?
Splitt connects two distinct issues: technical crawlability and semantic understanding. A link with href="/product-page" and anchor "click here" is technically crawlable, but it doesn’t help either the user or the engine understand the content of the target page.
The link anchor remains a signal of thematic relevance — less powerful than before Penguin, certainly, but still active in the context of internal linking. A descriptive anchor "men's running shoes" explicitly indicates the subject of the destination page, facilitating semantic ranking by Google. The engine doesn’t need to guess.
Is this statement a response to a specific problem observed by Google?
Hard to confirm without public data, but the timing and the deliberate simplicity of the message suggest that Google still sees too many sites with non-crawlable links. Poorly configured SPAs (Single Page Applications), hidden hamburger menus in pure CSS, aggressive lazy loading systems — all patterns that block crawling.
The explicit mention of the HTML tag is not incidental. It’s a wake-up call: semantic HTML remains the standard reference, not JavaScript hacks that "work" superficially but create blind spots for the crawler. Google increasingly tolerates JS, but guarantees nothing.
- Only the tag guarantees immediate crawlability without reliance on JavaScript
- Informative link anchors enhance the contextual understanding and ranking of target pages
- Modern JS frameworks require increased vigilance on server-side HTML rendering or static pre-rendering
- A link that is visually functional for the user isn’t necessarily crawlable by Googlebot
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with field observations?
Yes, but with a significant nuance: Google is improving its crawling of JavaScript, and many poorly configured SPA sites still end up indexed. Splitt's message remains valid in theory, but practice shows that Google often compensates for developers' mistakes. The real issue isn’t so much "crawled or not crawled", it’s the delay and cost in crawl budget.
A site that forces Google to execute JS to discover its internal links consumes more resources. The result: fewer pages crawled per session, slower indexing of updates, reduced priority on deep pages. For a small blog, it’s manageable. For e-commerce with 50,000 products, it’s a structural bottleneck.
What nuances should be added regarding descriptive anchors?
A "descriptive" anchor doesn’t mean over-optimized. Stuffing an internal link with "cheap men's running shoes free shipping" is counterproductive — it reeks of manipulation and degrades user experience. A natural and contextual anchor is more than sufficient.
A second point: the anchor alone doesn’t do everything. If 90% of your internal links to a page use the same exact anchor, you’re creating an artificial pattern. Vary your formulations, alternating exact anchors with semantically close anchors. Google has the means to understand that "running sneakers" and "running shoes" point to the same thematic universe.
In which cases does this rule not strictly apply?
For certain interface elements — filters, sorting, pagination — JavaScript links with client-side state management remain relevant, provided there’s a crawlable HTML fallback. A pure JS pagination link with no HTML alternative is a mistake. A hybrid system with by default and progressive enhancement in JS is the right approach.
[To be verified]: Google claims to crawl JS "like a modern browser", but indexing delays remain opaque. No public metrics allow precise quantification of the crawl budget penalty related to JS-only links. Field tests show enormous variations based on sites, their authority, and update frequency.
Practical impact and recommendations
What should be prioritized in auditing your internal linking?
First step: crawl your site with JavaScript disabled. Use Screaming Frog in classic mode, or check the "text only" view in your browser. All pages you can’t see in this configuration are potentially invisible to Googlebot on the first pass — or crawled with a delay.
Next, inspect the raw source code (View Source, not Inspect) of your key pages. Internal links should appear directly in the initial HTML, not only after JavaScript execution. If you have to open DevTools to see your links, that’s a bad sign. Google Search Console can also reveal pages discovered but not crawled, an indicator of malformed or inaccessible links.
How can you fix a non-crawlable link system without a complete overhaul?
If you’re using a modern JS framework, switch to Server-Side Rendering (SSR) or Static Site Generation (SSG). Next.js for React, Nuxt for Vue, Angular Universal — all offer turnkey solutions to generate pre-rendered HTML with native links. The implementation cost is real, but the impact on crawling is immediate.
Intermediate solution: implement a dynamically pre-rendering system (Rendertron, Prerender.io) that serves static HTML to bots and JS to users. It’s less clean conceptually, but it works if your architecture doesn’t allow for a quick overhaul. Ensure that the content served to bots and users remains identical to avoid any suspicion of cloaking.
What best practices should be adopted for internal link anchors?
Favor contextual and natural anchors, integrated into a complete sentence rather than isolated. "Check out our complete guide on internal linking" is better than "click here" or a keyword-stuffed anchor. The context around the anchor also matters — Google analyzes adjacent words to refine thematic understanding.
Vary your formulations: if you are linking 10 times to your page /seo-technique/, alternate "technical SEO optimization", "on-site optimization techniques", "advanced technical SEO", etc. Avoid generic anchors ("learn more", "read more") unless the surrounding context compensates. And most importantly, ensure that the anchor truly reflects the content of the target page — no surprises for the user who clicks.
- Crawl the site with JavaScript disabled to identify invisible links
- Check that all critical links use tags in the source HTML
- Implement SSR/SSG or dynamic pre-rendering for JS frameworks
- Audit the link anchors: ban "click here" and favor varied descriptive formulations
- Check in Google Search Console for discovered but not explored pages
- Test crawlability with GSC's URL inspection tool
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Les liens en JavaScript sont-ils complètement ignorés par Google ?
Peut-on utiliser des boutons <button> pour le maillage interne si on ajoute un attribut href ?
Les ancres de liens internes influencent-elles encore le ranking des pages cibles ?
Comment vérifier si mes liens sont bien crawlés par Googlebot ?
Faut-il éviter les liens en nofollow dans le maillage interne ?
🎥 From the same video 2
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · duration 5 min · published on 13/03/2019
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.