Should you still optimize infinite scroll for Google indexing?

Why does Google still insist on dynamic URLs during scrolling?

Infinite scroll poses a structural problem for Googlebot: without a page reload, the robot only sees one state of the content. If the URL remains static while the user scrolls and loads 50 additional products, the bot only indexes the first batch visible at the initial load.

Updating the URL via pushState or replaceState (History API) allows Google to understand that a new section of content has appeared. Each segment becomes an independently indexable resource. This is the only reliable way for Googlebot to discover and crawl the entirety of a paginated infinite scroll catalog.

What does the abandonment of rel-next and rel-previous signify?

These HTML tags were meant to indicate to Google the pagination structure of a series of pages. Google has ignored them since March 2019, but Mueller here reminds us that they are also useless in the context of infinite scroll.

If you had implemented these attributes thinking they would help Google understand your dynamic pagination, you can safely remove them. Googlebot no longer uses them to consolidate signals or understand content hierarchy. The focus must be on managing unique and crawlable URLs.

Which recommendations remain practically valid?

Google's official documentation on infinite scroll — published several years ago — remains relevant. It advocates three technical points: generate unique URLs for each content segment, ensure that these URLs are directly accessible (not just via JavaScript), and allow Googlebot to discover these URLs via traditional internal links.

In short: your infinite scroll must function like classic pagination for bots, while also providing a smooth experience for human users. It's a delicate balance that requires a hybrid implementation — often through a fallback to standard pagination for crawlers.

• Unique and crawlable URLs for each dynamically loaded content segment
• URL updating via History API (pushState) during user scrolling
• Fallback to classic pagination with <a href> links to each page for Googlebot
• Complete abandonment of rel-next/prev: these tags have been useless since 2019
• Regular testing via Search Console to ensure Google indexes all sections properly

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Yes, but with important nuances. E-commerce sites that have implemented pure infinite scroll without dynamic URLs actually see a drop in the number of indexed pages. Audits regularly show catalogs of 5000 products where only 300-400 appear in Google's index.

On the other hand, hybrid implementations — client-side infinite scroll with a classic pagination fallback — work very well. The problem is that Mueller does not specify this nuance in his statement. He says, 'have updated URLs,' but does not detail how to manage the conflict between smooth user experience and optimal crawlability. [To be verified] in contexts of websites with a very high volume of pages.

What implementation errors are most commonly observed?

The first mistake: updating the URL via pushState, but without making these URLs directly accessible. You type the URL for page 3 in your browser, and you land on page 1 because JavaScript has not managed the direct entry case. Googlebot is faced with a wall.

The second classic trap: generating unique URLs but never linking to them anywhere. Googlebot therefore never discovers them. You need either a comprehensive XML sitemap or classic internal links (often hidden in CSS for humans), or ideally both. Without this, indexing remains random and incomplete.

The third often neglected point: crawl budget. On a large site, multiplying URLs by 10 or 20 due to fine-grained infinite scroll can saturate the budget allocated by Google. You need to balance between the granularity of indexing and crawl efficiency. Not all segments necessarily deserve a distinct URL — sometimes grouping by batches of 20-30 items is sufficient.

In which cases does this recommendation not apply?

If your infinite scroll only loads duplicate or low-value content — for example, redundant comments, minor product variations, or automatically generated content — it is not always relevant to create distinct URLs. Google may consider them as noise and penalize the overall quality of the site.

Editorial content sites with infinite scroll on a homepage or category can also skip this. If each article already has its own URL indexed via the sitemap and internal linking, infinite scroll becomes merely a UX element. No need to create intermediate URLs for 'Home — loading 2', 'Home — loading 3', etc. This adds nothing in terms of SEO and may lead to cannibalization or weak content.

What should be prioritized when auditing an infinite scroll site?

First reflex: open Search Console, Coverage section, and compare the number of indexed pages with the actual volume of content. If you have 2000 products and only 400 indexed pages, it's probably a problem of improperly configured infinite scroll. Then check via a Screaming Frog or OnCrawl crawl whether the dynamic pagination URLs are being discovered correctly.

Second simple test: disable JavaScript in Chrome DevTools and refresh a page with infinite scroll. If you no longer see any pagination links or if the URL never changes while scrolling, Googlebot is in the same situation. It will only see a fraction of the content. You need to implement a fallback to classic pagination with <a href> tags to each segment.

How to correctly implement URL updates during scrolling?

Use window.history.pushState() to modify the URL without reloading the page. Trigger this update as soon as a new content segment becomes visible in the viewport (using IntersectionObserver, for example). The URL should accurately reflect the displayed content: if the user is on page 3, the URL should include ?page=3 or an equivalent parameter.

Then ensure that this URL is directly accessible: a user or Googlebot loading example.com/category?page=3 must see exactly items 41-60 (or your specific segment), without going through pages 1 and 2. This often involves managing server-side rendering or smart JavaScript pre-filling during the initial load.

What errors must be absolutely avoided?

Don’t fall into the trap of using fragment identifiers (#) to manage pagination. URLs like example.com/category#page3 are not crawlable by Google — everything following the # is ignored by the bot. Use query string parameters (?page=3) or path segments (/category/page/3/).

Also avoid creating non-canonical URLs for each loading. If you generate ?page=2&scroll=1, ?page=2&scroll=2, etc., you multiply unnecessary variations. One URL per distinct content segment is sufficient. And don’t forget to disallow or noindex the unwanted parameters via robots.txt or meta tags if necessary.

• Ensure every content segment has a unique and crawlable URL
• Implement pushState to update the URL as the user scrolls
• Create a fallback to classic pagination with <a href> links for Googlebot
• Test the direct accessibility of each URL (disable JS, test in incognito mode)
• Remove all rel-next and rel-previous tags if still present
• Monitor indexing via Search Console and compare it with the actual volume of content