Official statement
Other statements from this video 13 ▾
- □ Le rendu JavaScript de Google est-il vraiment devenu fiable pour l'indexation ?
- □ Google collecte-t-il réellement tous vos logs JavaScript pour le SEO ?
- □ Les infos de layout CSS sont-elles vraiment inutiles pour le SEO ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment bloquer les CSS dans le robots.txt pour accélérer le crawl ?
- □ Une erreur de rendu bloque-t-elle l'indexation de tout un domaine ?
- □ Pourquoi la structure de liens mobile-desktop peut-elle saboter votre indexation mobile-first ?
- □ Faut-il encore utiliser le cache Google pour vérifier le rendu JavaScript ?
- □ Les outils Search Console suffisent-ils vraiment pour auditer le rendu JavaScript de vos pages ?
- □ Google rend-il vraiment CHAQUE page avec JavaScript avant de l'indexer ?
- □ Le tree shaking JavaScript est-il vraiment indispensable pour le SEO ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment charger les trackers analytics en dernier pour améliorer son SEO ?
- □ Chrome stable pour le rendu Google : quelles conséquences réelles pour votre SEO technique ?
- □ HTTP/2 pour le crawl : faut-il abandonner le domain sharding ?
Google claims to not give preferential treatment to third-party prerendering services and crawls normally without keeping unusually long connections open. If your server returns 500 errors during crawling, the issue lies with your infrastructure, not the bot. This statement invites a review of server configuration rather than searching for a miracle solution from prerenderers.
What you need to understand
Why does Google emphasize that it does not favor any prerendering service? <\/h3>
This statement addresses a widespread belief <\/strong> in the SEO community: some think that Google gives preferential treatment to specific prerendering services, especially those recommended in its documentation. However, Martin Splitt puts this rumor to rest <\/strong>.
Prerendering services — such as Prerender.io, Rendertron, or custom solutions — are used to generate static HTML versions <\/strong> of JavaScript pages for bots. Some SEOs imagine that Google "prefers" one service over another. Splitt states that the crawler treats all implementations the same <\/strong>, without bias.
What does "without keeping connections open unusually long" mean? <\/h3>
Googlebot establishes an HTTP connection, retrieves the content, and then properly closes the connection <\/strong>. There is no aberrant behavior on the bot's side: no excessive timeout, no connections artificially kept open.
If your server experiences 500 errors (Internal Server Error) <\/strong> during crawling, it's not because Googlebot is behaving strangely. This is a clear signal: your infrastructure cannot handle the load or is misconfigured to serve the bots <\/strong>. Investigating server-side becomes a priority.
What are the risks of ignoring this recommendation? <\/h3>
Ignoring this clarification leads some SEOs to look for solutions in the wrong place <\/strong>. They test various prerenderers, adjust bot detection parameters, while the real issue lies in the server's ability to deliver content quickly <\/strong>.
A site that consistently responds with 500 errors to Googlebot sees its crawl budget decrease <\/strong>, its pages deindexed or never crawled. The time wasted searching for a "magic" prerenderer delays identifying the real issue: server bottlenecks, too aggressive rate limiting <\/strong>, or unsuitable architecture.
- Google does not favor any third-party prerendering service <\/strong> — all are treated equally.
- 500 errors during crawling <\/strong> must be diagnosed server-side, not bot-side.
- Googlebot properly closes its connections, without abnormal behavior or hanging connections.
- Trying to optimize the prerenderer before checking server infrastructure will waste valuable time <\/strong>.
- A crawl that fails consistently reduces the budget allocated to the site and impacts indexing.
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with real-world observations? <\/h3>
Yes, overall. SEOs who have tested several prerendering solutions — Prerender.io, Rendertron, Netlify Prerendering, custom solutions — observe that Google indexes without issues <\/strong> if the HTML is served correctly. No measurable advantage of one service over another in terms of indexing rate or crawling speed <\/strong>. [To be checked] <\/strong>: Google could theoretically detect certain services via their technical signatures, but no public data confirms differential treatment.
The point about open connections <\/strong> corresponds to what is observed in server logs: Googlebot behaves like a standard HTTP client. If your monitoring shows unusually long connections, it’s likely a misconfigured reverse proxy <\/strong> or middleware that is blocking.
What nuances should be added to this assertion? <\/h3>
Splitt talks about "special treatment", but he omits a reality: the quality of the implementation <\/strong> varies greatly from one prerenderer to another. A service that takes 8 seconds to generate HTML will see Google timeout or reduce its crawl, even if Google is not actively "discriminating" it. This is not special treatment, but rather a logical consequence of performance <\/strong>.
Another nuance: 500 errors can also come from a WAF (Web Application Firewall) <\/strong> that misinterprets Googlebot's requests. I have seen sites erroneously blocking Googlebot via Cloudflare or Imperva, generating 500 errors without the origin server being at fault. Investigating "server-side" therefore includes the entire CDN/WAF/load balancer chain <\/strong>.
In what cases might this rule be misunderstood? <\/h3>
Some SEOs will read this statement and deduce that they can neglect the choice of prerenderer <\/strong>. False. Google does not favor anyone, but that does not mean all prerenderers are equal. A service that generates incomplete HTML, forgets metadata <\/strong>, or injects unnecessary JavaScript will degrade the crawl — not because of discrimination by Google, but due to the quality of the delivered code <\/strong>.
Another trap: believing that 500 errors are always a "classic" server issue. Sometimes, it’s the prerenderer itself <\/strong> that crashes and returns a 500 error when it fails to render the page. In this case, investigating server-side means investigating the prerendering service — which is technically part of the server stack.
Practical impact and recommendations
What should be prioritized when Googlebot encounters 500 errors? <\/h3>
First step: analyze server logs <\/strong> to identify failed Googlebot requests. Look for patterns: errors on all pages or only on certain URLs? How often? Correlation with traffic spikes? This data will tell you if it's a capacity <\/strong> issue (server overload) or a configuration issue (a rule blocking access).
Second step: test manually with curl <\/strong> by simulating Googlebot's user agent. If the page loads without issue, the problem likely comes from middleware (WAF, reverse proxy) that handles the bot differently. If it fails as well, it’s your application or web server that cannot handle the load <\/strong>.
How do you choose a prerendering service if Google doesn't favor anyone? <\/h3>
Since Google makes no distinctions, your criteria must be purely technical and economic <\/strong>: rendering speed, ability to handle complex pages, intelligent caching, reliability, price. Test several solutions on your heaviest pages and compare response times <\/strong> and the quality of the generated HTML.
Prefer a service that offers aggressive caching <\/strong> of prerendered HTML and does not regenerate it each time Googlebot visits. A good prerenderer should serve HTML instantaneously once the cache is warm. If you are using a modern CMS (Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit), consider native SSR <\/strong> instead of an external prerenderer — it’s often more efficient and easier to maintain.
What mistakes should be avoided following this statement? <\/h3>
Do not fall into the trap of believing that "all prerenderers are equal" and choosing the cheapest without testing. A slow or unstable service will cripple your crawl <\/strong>, even if Google does not discriminate against it. Test in real-world conditions before deploying to production.
Also avoid blaming Google when 500 errors appear. Splitt is clear: the problem is server-side <\/strong>. Look first within your own logs, your rate-limiting configurations, your WAF, your CDN. If you are using a third-party prerenderer, check their service status <\/strong> and their quota limits.
- Analyze server logs to identify Googlebot requests that return 500
- Test manually with curl and Googlebot's user-agent to reproduce the error
- Check WAF configurations, rate limiting, reverse proxy that could be blocking the bot
- Evaluate server capacity to handle the crawl (CPU, RAM, simultaneous connections)
- Test several prerendering services on complex pages before making a choice
- Monitor response times of the prerenderer and the quality of the generated HTML
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Google favorise-t-il Rendertron ou Prerender.io par rapport à d'autres solutions de prerendering ?
Pourquoi Googlebot génère-t-il des erreurs 500 sur mon site alors qu'il fonctionne normalement pour les utilisateurs ?
Googlebot maintient-il des connexions HTTP ouvertes anormalement longtemps ?
Dois-je changer de service de prerendering si je rencontre des problèmes de crawl ?
Le SSR natif est-il mieux qu'un service de prerendering externe pour Google ?
🎥 From the same video 13
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 09/04/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.