Official statement
Other statements from this video 25 ▾
- □ Les liens JavaScript retardent-ils vraiment la découverte par Google ?
- □ Pourquoi Google ignore-t-il vos balises canoniques quand le HTML brut contredit le rendu ?
- □ Le noindex en HTML brut empêche-t-il définitivement le rendu JavaScript par Google ?
- □ JavaScript et SEO : peut-on vraiment modifier title, meta et liens côté client sans risque ?
- □ Le JavaScript côté client est-il vraiment un frein pour vos performances SEO ?
- □ HTML brut vs rendu : Google s'en fiche-t-il vraiment ?
- □ Google AdSense pénalise-t-il vraiment la vitesse de votre site comme n'importe quel script tiers ?
- □ Faut-il s'inquiéter des erreurs 'other error' sur les images dans la Search Console ?
- □ User agent ou viewport : quelle détection privilégier pour vos versions mobiles séparées ?
- □ Les liens de navigation JavaScript affectent-ils vraiment le référencement de votre site ?
- □ Peut-on vraiment perdre le contrôle de sa canonical en laissant l'attribut href vide au chargement ?
- □ Quel crawler Google utilise vraiment ses outils de test SEO ?
- □ Les données structurées de votre version mobile s'appliquent-elles aussi au desktop ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment arrêter de craindre le JavaScript pour le SEO ?
- □ Les liens JavaScript retardent-ils vraiment la découverte par Google ?
- □ Pourquoi une balise canonical différente entre HTML brut et rendu peut-elle ruiner votre stratégie de canonicalisation ?
- □ Peut-on vraiment retirer un noindex via JavaScript sans risquer la désindexation ?
- □ Peut-on vraiment modifier les balises meta et les liens en JavaScript sans risque SEO ?
- □ Les produits Google bénéficient-ils d'un avantage SEO caché dans les résultats de recherche ?
- □ Faut-il s'inquiéter des erreurs 'other' dans l'outil d'inspection d'URL ?
- □ Google ignore-t-il vraiment vos images lors du rendu pour la recherche web ?
- □ User agent ou viewport : Google fait-il vraiment la différence pour l'indexation mobile ?
- □ Une balise canonical vide en HTML peut-elle forcer Google à auto-canonicaliser votre page par erreur ?
- □ Le Mobile-Friendly Test peut-il remplacer l'URL Inspection Tool pour auditer le crawl mobile ?
- □ Pourquoi Google ignore-t-il vos données structurées desktop après le mobile-first indexing ?
Martin Splitt argues that links added in JavaScript after the initial HTML transmit ranking signals exactly like native HTML links. The only impact is a slight delay in Google's discovery of these links. Essentially, if your architecture relies on client-side JS for internal linking, you're not losing PageRank — but you're delaying the crawling of target pages.
What you need to understand
How does this statement change the game for JavaScript crawling?<\/h3>
For years, the SEO community has debated the actual capability of Google to process JavaScript links<\/strong> similarly to raw HTML links. The primary concern: that these links might not pass ranking signals or could simply be ignored. Martin Splitt puts this uncertainty to rest by asserting that signal transmission works normally<\/strong>, without loss.<\/p>
The raw HTML is parsed first — this is the standard behavior of any browser. Then, Google executes the JavaScript and discovers the dynamically generated links. This two-step process creates a temporal delay in discovery<\/strong>, but once the link is detected, it is treated just like a link present in the initial HTML.<\/p>
The word "slight" deserves clarification. Google provides no numbers — it's a qualitative statement. In practice, this delay depends on several factors: crawl budget prioritization<\/strong>, the bot's visit frequency, and the complexity of the JavaScript execution on the source page.<\/p>
For a site with a low crawl budget, this delay can postpone the discovery of a new page linked solely via JavaScript by several days — even weeks. For a site with a comfortable crawl budget<\/strong>, the impact becomes negligible. However, "negligible" does not mean "none": if you’re launching a real-time campaign, every day counts.<\/p>
Martin Splitt refers to "links added in JavaScript after the raw HTML", a phrasing that theoretically encompasses all cases: links generated by frameworks (React, Vue, Angular)<\/strong>, links injected via AJAX, and conditional links displayed after user interaction. But beware: the claim does not cover links blocked by robots.txt, nor those added after events that Googlebot does not trigger (infinite scrolling without fallback, specific clicks, etc.).<\/p>
The devil lies in the implementation details. A link present in the DOM after standard JS execution? OK. A link that only appears after a simulated scroll that Google does not consistently reproduce? Gray area. Splitt's assertion presumes executable JavaScript and a link actually rendered in the final DOM.<\/strong><\/p>
What is the real impact of this "slight delay" in discovery?<\/h3>
Does this claim apply to all types of JS links?<\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with on-the-ground observations?<\/h3>
Yes and no. Tests conducted by various SEO experts confirm that Google follows and indexes JavaScript links<\/strong> on well-crawled sites. Frameworks like React or Vue do not pose a PageRank transmission issue if the implementation is clean. But in real life, many JS sites generate complex architectures<\/strong> where links are not always rendered predictably.<\/p>
The observed "slight delay" can range from a few hours to several weeks depending on the case. On an e-commerce site with thousands of products and a tight crawl budget, this delay becomes critical. Splitt's assertion is theoretically valid, but does not always reflect operational reality.<\/strong><\/p>
The first nuance: "no problem for signal transmission" assumes that the link is indeed discovered. However, not all JavaScript links are rendered equally.<\/strong> A conditional link depending on an application state not reproduced by Googlebot will never be discovered, hence never processed. The statement does not distinguish between a "well-implemented JS link" and a "flaky JS link".<\/p>
The second nuance: the discovery delay can disrupt real-time SEO strategies. If you publish hot content and the internal linking is generated client-side<\/strong>, you could potentially lose 48-72 hours of visibility. This is not "no impact"; it is an impact on indexing velocity. [To be verified]<\/strong>: Google does not provide any metrics on this average delay.<\/p>
There are numerous edge cases. A SPA (Single Page Application) without server-side pre-rendering may see certain URLs orphaned for days if the crawl budget is low<\/strong>. A site that employs aggressive lazy-loading without HTML fallback is exposed to the same risks. And importantly: a site with blocking JavaScript errors will never be crawled correctly, regardless of Google's assurances.<\/p>
Another case: links added after user interaction (hover, click, scroll) are not systematically detected. Google simulates a certain level of interaction, but not all. If your navigation relies on a complex dropdown menu or a carousel without basic HTML markup<\/strong>, you fall outside the scope of this statement.<\/p>
What nuances should be added to this claim?<\/h3>
In which cases does this rule not fully apply?<\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
Should you still prioritize native HTML links for SEO?<\/h3>
Yes, without hesitation. Even if Google processes JavaScript links correctly, the delay in discovery remains a measurable handicap<\/strong>. For strategic pages — homepage, main categories, priority landing pages — the native HTML link remains the best guarantee of quick indexing and immediate PageRank transmission. JavaScript should remain a complement, not the foundation of internal linking.<\/p>
Concretely: if you're developing a site in React or Vue, ensure that the critical internal linking is pre-rendered on the server<\/strong> (SSR) or generated statically (SSG). Secondary links can be JS, but not the main navigation. This is a pragmatic compromise between modern user experience and SEO robustness.<\/p>
First method: Google Search Console<\/strong>. Check the crawl logs and ensure that URLs solely linked via JavaScript are being crawled properly. If pages remain orphaned several weeks after publication, that’s a warning signal. Second method: test the URL via the URL inspection tool and examine the final rendered DOM<\/strong> — links should appear in the source code as seen by Googlebot.<\/p>
Third method: analyze your server log files. If Googlebot visits Page A but never discovers Page B linked only via JS, you have a rendering issue. Compare with a crawler like Screaming Frog with JavaScript rendering mode<\/strong> enabled: if you see the links but Google is not following them, there is a gap between theory and practice.<\/p>
Mistake number one: blocking JavaScript resources via robots.txt<\/strong>. If Google cannot execute the JS, it will never see the links — Splitt's assertion falls apart. Mistake two: generating conditional links without HTML fallback. A menu that only displays after a user click will never be crawled if Google does not trigger that event.<\/p>
Mistake three: underestimating the crawl budget<\/strong>. On a large site, the discovery delay can become critical. If you add 10,000 products linked solely via JS, Google may take months to discover all of them. Mistake four: not testing. Too many sites presume that "it works" without ever checking in GSC or logs if the pages are actually crawled.<\/p>
How can you verify that your JavaScript links are being discovered by Google?<\/h3>
What mistakes should you absolutely avoid with JavaScript links?<\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Les liens JavaScript transmettent-ils réellement le PageRank comme les liens HTML ?
Quel est le délai moyen de découverte pour un lien JavaScript ?
Faut-il encore privilégier les liens HTML pour le SEO ?
Comment vérifier que Google découvre bien mes liens JavaScript ?
Les liens ajoutés après interaction utilisateur sont-ils crawlés ?
🎥 From the same video 25
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 26/04/2021
🎥 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.