Should you really simplify your technical SEO using new Google features?

What’s the reasoning behind this recommendation for simplification?

Google urges webmasters and SEOs to favor standardized tools and tags over specific developments. The argument is straightforward: native features are better understood by Googlebot, thus processed more effectively.

This approach aims to reduce the likelihood of implementation errors and standardize practices. Less complex JavaScript tweaks, more clear semantic markup. In theory, it makes sense: why reinvent the wheel when Google provides official tools?

Why mention rel=prev and rel=next when Google has abandoned them?

Here lies the issue. Google has officially announced that it no longer uses rel=prev and rel=next for pagination. Continuing to promote them in official communication reveals either a temporal disconnect between teams or a lack of updating resources.

For practitioners, this kind of contradiction creates confusion. Should these tags still be implemented? The answer is no for indexing, but they may be useful for other crawlers or for semantic structure. The problem: Google muddles the waters by citing them as an example of simplification.

Is Googlebot Fetch really a solution for improving indexing?

The Googlebot Fetch tool (or URL Inspection in Search Console) allows you to force a page crawl. It’s useful for checking rendering, debugging JavaScript issues, or speeding up the indexing of urgent content.

However, presenting this as a global improvement feature is misleading. It is not a scalable solution: you can't manually request indexing for thousands of pages. The tool is a diagnostic tool, not an indexing strategy.

• Prioritizing native features would theoretically reduce implementation errors
• The examples cited by Google (rel=prev/next) are partially obsolete, creating confusion
• Googlebot Fetch is a debugging tool, not a mass indexing solution
• The proposed simplification assumes that Google tools are always up to date and well-documented, which is not always the case
• This approach ignores the specific needs of complex sites that require custom solutions

Is this statement consistent with observed practices in the field?

Partially only. The idea of simplification is valid: too many sites get mired in complex JavaScript solutions that break crawling. Prioritizing static HTML and standard tags does indeed improve compatibility with Googlebot.

But the real-world scenario shows that Google’s features do not cover all use cases. E-commerce sites with thousands of facets, SaaS platforms with dynamic content, or complex international sites often require custom implementations. Saying “use our tools” without qualifications is naive. [To verify]: Google has never published data showing that sites using only their features perform better in ranking.

What are the limitations of this minimalist approach?

The main problem: Google regularly removes features without warning or with a short notice. Rel=prev/next is a perfect example. Authorship markup, structured data for certain types, meta keywords... the list goes on.

Relying solely on Google tools creates a risky dependency. A well-designed site should have a solid architecture independent of current recommendations. The fundamentals (clean URLs, consistent internal linking, content accessible in HTML) remain valid regardless of changes in tools.

In what cases should this recommendation be ignored?

For complex sites that require fine control over crawl budget. If you manage a site with millions of pages, you can’t just settle for “keeping it simple.” You need to orchestrate crawling, prioritize sections, and finely manage URL parameters.

Similarly, sites with advanced JavaScript content (SPA, modern frameworks) cannot simply “use Googlebot Fetch.” They must implement server-side rendering or pre-rendering, solutions that are not in Google's standard toolbox. Let’s be honest: this statement mainly targets small sites and beginners, not complex technical platforms.

What concrete steps should be taken following this statement?

Audit your current technical stack. Identify the complex solutions you have developed: are they really necessary? A custom pagination system with AJAX when a simple HTML pagination would suffice? A complicated JavaScript routing system when static URLs would do?

Then, ensure you are properly using Search Console tools for monitoring. URL Inspection should be your first reflex for debugging indexing issues. But do not rely on it as a permanent solution: if you find yourself using it regularly for the same pages, there is a structural problem to resolve.

What mistakes should be absolutely avoided?

Do not implement rel=prev/next thinking it is still useful for Google. These tags are no longer considered for consolidating pagination signals. If you already have them, it’s not critical to leave them in place, but do not invest time in them.

Avoid oversimplifying complex issues as well. A site with user-generated content, dynamic filters, or an international architecture cannot function with just “standard features.” Simplicity is a virtue, but oversimplification is a mistake. Find the right balance between technical robustness and maintainability.

How can you check that your approach is balanced?

Systematically test with the rendering tools in Search Console. Compare what Googlebot sees versus what a user sees. If the gap is minimal and your main content is immediately accessible, you’re on the right track.

Also monitor your indexing metrics over time. A declining rate of crawled/indexed pages following a technical simplification indicates a problem. Sometimes, a “complex” solution was indeed necessary. These optimizations require specialized expertise and continuous monitoring: hiring a specialized SEO agency can help you avoid costly mistakes and provide tailored support suited to your platform's specifics.

• Audit current custom technical solutions and assess their actual necessity
• Remove rel=prev/next implementations if they were added for Google
• Favor static and accessible HTML for main content
• Use URL Inspection for occasional debugging, not as a mass solution
• Monitor indexing metrics after each technical simplification
• Document architectural choices to prevent regressions during updates