Official statement
Other statements from this video 9 ▾
- □ JavaScript et indexation : Google est-il vraiment capable de tout indexer ?
- □ Le Web Rendering Service de Google suit-il vraiment toutes les dernières fonctionnalités de Chrome ?
- □ Pourquoi Google peine-t-il à indexer correctement les sites qui utilisent des Web Workers ?
- □ Les core updates de Google sont-elles vraiment des rappels à l'ordre sur les guidelines ?
- □ Les core updates sont-elles vraiment neutres ou cachent-elles des pénalités déguisées ?
- □ Core update : pourquoi Google refuse-t-il de donner des détails spécifiques ?
- □ Les core updates de Google sont-elles vraiment conçues pour améliorer l'expérience utilisateur ou pour redistribuer les positions ?
- □ Pourquoi Google refuse-t-il de révéler ce que contiennent vraiment les core updates ?
- □ Les core updates de Google affectent-ils vraiment tous les sites ?
Martin Splitt clearly states: SEO cannot operate in silos. SEO recommendations must consider the actual technical environment, and developers need to integrate SEO from the design phase. Without this dialogue, resources are wasted and incompatibilities arise.
What you need to understand
Why does Google emphasize this collaboration so much? <\/h3>
For years, Google has observed a growing gap between theoretical SEO recommendations<\/strong> and real technical constraints<\/strong>. SEOs often propose standardized solutions without understanding the underlying architecture, while developers deliver high-performing sites... but completely invisible to search engines.<\/p> This imbalance creates absurd situations: migrations that destroy SEO, poorly implemented JavaScript frameworks, caching systems that block crawling. Splitt's message is harsh but true — the days when generic SEO recommendations could be thrown around without context are over.<\/p> An SEO who ignores the constraints of the CMS or framework will propose technically impossible<\/strong> or excessively costly changes. The result: frustration among tech teams, loss of SEO credibility, and most importantly, no improvement in SEO.<\/p> On the flip side, a developer who doesn't integrate SEO from the design phase will create an enormous technical debt<\/strong>. Redesigning an architecture to make it SEO-friendly afterwards costs ten times more than doing it correctly from the start. Not to mention the transition periods where the site loses traffic.<\/p> Google has been pushing for sites that are more technical, faster, and more structured<\/strong> for several years. Core Web Vitals, JavaScript rendering, mobile-first indexing — all of this requires sharp technical expertise. Traditional SEO, which focuses only on content and tags, is no longer sufficient.<\/p> Splitt isn't spreading knowledge out of goodwill. He knows that Google can't properly index poorly designed sites, and that degrades the overall user experience. This statement is also a warning<\/strong>: if you don't adapt, you'll lose ground to technically more mature competitors.<\/p>What are the tangible consequences of this lack of dialogue? <\/h3>
How does this statement fit into Google's overall strategy? <\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with what we observe on the ground? <\/h3>
Absolutely. Cases of failed migrations or poorly implemented JavaScript frameworks are numerous<\/strong>. I've seen sites lose 60% of their traffic overnight because no one had checked how the new CMS behaved with bots. The problem is that too many SEOs still content themselves with throwing around recommendations without ever getting their hands on the code.<\/p> What's interesting is that Splitt also reminds developers of their responsibilities. How many times do we end up with a stunning, ultra-fast site... but with unreadable dynamic URLs, non-indexable AJAX-loaded content, and zero structured data? The developer did their job — but without considering SEO.<\/p> Let's be honest: in many organizations, this dialogue is structurally impossible<\/strong>. SEO teams are outsourced or isolated within marketing, developers are overwhelmed with other priorities, and no one has the time or budget for synchronization workshops.<\/p> Moreover, some SEO recommendations are<\/strong> universal. A site without a well-configured XML sitemap will have issues, regardless of the framework. An H1 that poorly summarizes the page content will remain a problem, whether the site runs on WordPress or React SSR. The idea that everything must always be contextual is a bit excessive.<\/p> When the technical architecture is fundamentally incompatible<\/strong> with SEO requirements. Some proprietary systems or certain infrastructure choices are so rigid that no dialogue will save them. In these cases, the only solution is a complete redesign — and that requires arbitration at the management level, not just a SEO/dev workshop.<\/p> Another limit: competence. An SEO who understands nothing<\/strong> about how a CDN or JavaScript rendering engine works won't be able to engage in effective dialogue, no matter their goodwill. Similarly for a developer who has never looked at a Search Console. Dialogue assumes a shared knowledge base<\/strong> — and that's not something everyone has.<\/p>What nuances should we add to this position? <\/h3>
In what cases is this dialogue logic insufficient? <\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What practical steps should be taken to establish this dialogue? <\/h3>
First step: map the technical environment<\/strong>. An SEO must understand the CMS, framework, caching system, CDN, and server. Without this, it's impossible to propose anything relevant. This includes sharing sessions with developers, technical documentation, and sometimes limited access to the code.<\/p> Second step: involve SEO from the design phase<\/strong>. Not after development or during testing — from the specifications. A good reflex: each new feature should go through an SEO review before validation. This prevents discovering three months later that a module blocks all crawling.<\/p> Third step: train both parties. SEOs need to upskill in technical knowledge (HTML, JavaScript, web architectures), and developers should understand the basics of SEO (crawling, indexing, rendering, structure). This doesn't make each an expert in the other's field, but it creates a common language<\/strong>.<\/p> First mistake: proposing SEO recommendations that are out of touch<\/strong>. “We need to move to SSR” without knowing if the current framework allows it, “we need to migrate to Gatsby” without assessing development costs. This type of advice destroys the credibility of the SEO and ruins any future collaboration attempts.<\/p> Second mistake: ignoring the business constraints of developers. They have deadlines, priorities, and limited resources. Throwing a list of 50 recommendations without prioritization or impact estimation is the best way to get ignored. A good SEO prioritizes<\/strong> and argues in terms of ROI.<\/p> Third mistake: from the developers' side, considering SEO as a waste of time<\/strong>. Some still view this as unnecessary marketing. The problem is that a site invisible on Google is useless, no matter how beautiful the code is. Integrating SEO from the start saves time and money — it’s not luxury, it’s pragmatism.<\/p> A simple indicator: the frequency of back-and-forth discussions<\/strong>. If every SEO recommendation prompts a discussion about feasibility, that's a good sign. Conversely, if the recommendations are applied without question or systematically rejected, there’s no real dialogue happening.<\/p> Another indicator: the number of SEO regressions<\/strong> after a technical update. If every deployment breaks something on the SEO side, it means that SEO isn't integrated into the process. A good setup includes automated tests (sitemaps, canonical tags, redirects) before each production deployment.<\/p>What mistakes should be absolutely avoided? <\/h3>
How can we check if this collaboration is working? <\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Un SEO doit-il savoir coder pour dialoguer efficacement avec les développeurs ?
À quel moment faut-il impliquer le SEO dans un projet de refonte ?
Comment convaincre une équipe de développeurs de prendre en compte le SEO ?
Google pénalise-t-il les sites où SEO et développeurs ne collaborent pas ?
Peut-on externaliser ce dialogue SEO/dev à une agence ?
🎥 From the same video 9
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 11/01/2022
🎥 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.