Do URLs with fragments (#) in Search Console mean you need to rethink your tracking and analysis strategy?

Why does Google treat fragments differently based on the type of result?

In traditional organic search results, Google has always ignored URL fragments (the part after the #). If you have example.com/page and example.com/page#section2, Search Console normalizes these two URLs into one: example.com/page. All metrics aggregate together.

Let’s be honest: this logic makes sense to avoid artificial data duplication. But here’s the catch — sitelinks and FAQ rich results work differently. When Google displays a sitelink pointing to example.com/page#contact or a structured FAQ pointing to example.com/faq#question-3, Search Console treats these URLs as distinct. Each fragment generates its own line of statistics.

The problem is that this distinction wasn’t clearly documented before this statement by 金谷武明. Many practitioners are discovering unexplained fragmentation of their data without understanding where it comes from.

What types of sites are affected by this particularity?

All sites using HTML anchors for internal navigation or structured FAQ pages with Schema.org are directly impacted. If you have a product page with tabs (description, reviews, specs) accessed via #description, #reviews, #specs, and Google generates sitelinks to these sections, you will see three distinct URLs in Search Console.

E-commerce sites with tab navigation, blogs with clickable tables of contents, corporate sites with detailed FAQs — all these cases potentially create dozens of variations of fragmented URLs. And that’s where it gets tricky: your click, impression, and CTR data gets scattered across multiple lines instead of being consolidated.

Does this fragmentation pose a data reliability issue?

Not reliability in the strict sense — the numbers remain accurate. But analysis becomes significantly more complex. Imagine wanting to measure the overall performance of your /services page: you now need to manually aggregate /services, /services#advice, /services#audit, /services#training if all appear as sitelinks.

What does it mean in practice? Exports become less readable, automated dashboards may display misleading data if you don’t filter correctly, and comparing month-over-month performance requires increased Vigilance. For a site with hundreds of pages and dozens of sitelinks, it’s a considerable operational headache.

• Fragments (#) in sitelinks and FAQ rich results generate separate statistics in Search Console
• Traditional organic results always normalize fragments (unchanged historical behavior)
• No impact on indexing or ranking — this is purely a reporting issue in GSC
• The fragmentation of data complicates analysis and requires adjustments in reporting workflows
• Impossible to force normalization from the webmaster side — it's a system behavior of Google

Is this statement consistent with what we observe in the field?

Yes, and it finally explains some anomalies reported for months by several practitioners. I have personally noticed this mysterious multiplication of URLs with fragments in performance reports on client sites, without immediately understanding that it was related to sitelinks. The statement by 金谷武明 confirms an empirical behavior.

What remains unclear, however — and frankly frustrating — is why Google made this technical choice. Why not also normalize fragments in sitelinks and FAQs, as with organic results? No official explanation. [To be verified] whether this distinction serves an internal measurement objective at Google or if it's simply a technical limitation they didn’t consider a priority to fix.

What nuances should be added to this rule?

First point: this fragmentation only concerns Search Console. In Google Analytics or any other web analytics tool, the behavior depends on your tracking configuration. If you’ve set up GA to ignore fragments (default behavior in most cases), you won’t see this multiplication of URLs. The discrepancy between GSC and GA can therefore be bewildering.

Second nuance: not all sitelinks point to fragments. Google sometimes generates sitelinks to distinct full URLs (/contact, /about, /services). In those cases, obviously, there's no artificial fragmentation — these are truly different pages. The issue only affects sites where Google decides to create sitelinks to anchors within the same page.

And that’s where it gets tricky: you have no direct control over Google's decision to generate a sitelink to a fragment rather than to a distinct page. You can influence it with HTML markup (id= on your sections, clear structure), but the final decision remains algorithmic.

In what cases does this rule not apply or become problematic?

If your site uses no fragments in its URLs and all your important sections are separate pages, this statement simply doesn’t concern you. No fragments = no fragmentation in GSC. Simple.

However, be cautious of single-page applications (SPAs) that heavily use fragment routing (even though this is becoming less common with modern pushState). If your SPA still relies on #/route for navigation and Google indexes these variations, you risk massive data fragmentation in Search Console. [To be verified] in this context whether Google properly respects canonical tags for consolidation — but field experience suggests this isn’t always the case.

What concrete actions should you take to manage this fragmentation?

First action: audit your Search Console reports to identify all URLs with fragments that appear. Export performance data, filter for URLs containing #, and analyze how many distinct lines you have for the same base page. This will give you a clear view of the extent of the phenomenon on your site.

Next, adjust your reporting workflows. If you produce monthly dashboards, add a manual aggregation step for fragmented URLs before calculating KPIs. In Data Studio, Looker, or Excel, create a calculated column that extracts the base URL (before the #) to group metrics. It’s tedious but essential for reliable analyses.

On the technical side, assess whether your fragments are really necessary. If you are using anchors solely for user convenience but these sections could be distinct pages without harming UX, consider a redesign. Fewer fragments = less fragmentation in GSC. Let’s be pragmatic: sometimes the simplest solution is the best.

What mistakes should be avoided when managing these fragmented URLs?

Don’t try to block fragments via robots.txt or disavow them — it won’t work and could even break the display of your rich sitelinks. Fragments are managed client-side (browser), not server-side, so robots.txt doesn’t even see them. And Google needs these anchors to generate relevant sitelinks.

Another trap: don’t confuse GSC data fragmentation with duplicate content issues. Fragments do not create duplication in Google's eyes (it normalizes for indexing), so there’s no need to place canonical or noindex tags on them. You’d be addressing a false problem while potentially ruining your rich results.

Finally, avoid overreacting by removing all your HTML identifiers (id=) to prevent anchors. These identifiers are useful for accessibility (keyboard navigation, skip-to-content links) and for UX. The fact that GSC fragments stats is a reporting drawback, not a reason to degrade user experience.

How can you ensure your tracking remains consistent despite this peculiarity?

Set up a monthly reconciliation between your Search Console data and your Analytics data. For each important page, check that the sum of GSC clicks (base URL + all its fragments) approximately matches the organic sessions in GA. Significant discrepancies can indicate a configuration issue.

Use UTM parameters or GA4 events to specifically track clicks on your internal anchors if you have many. This will give you an extra layer of data to cross-reference with GSC and validate that user behavior corresponds well with the impressions/clicks reported by Google.

For complex sites with potential hundreds of fragments, consider developing an automated monitoring script that regularly scrapes your SERPs to identify which sitelinks Google is actually displaying, with which fragments. Compare this list to your GSC data to quickly detect new fragmented URLs that appear. These optimizations and monitoring processes can quickly become time-consuming and technical — if you lack internal resources or expertise to manage them effectively, hiring a specialized SEO agency will allow you to benefit from tailored support and proven tools.

• Export and audit the URLs with fragments (#) present in Search Console
• Create aggregation rules in your reporting tools (Data Studio, Excel, Looker)
• Evaluate the relevance of converting certain sections into separate pages rather than anchors
• Implement a monthly reconciliation between GSC and Analytics data
• Do not block fragments via robots.txt or add unnecessary canonical tags
• Monitor the appearance of new fragmented sitelinks after each content update