Google Guides on Fixing JavaScript Indexing Issues

Google’s Martin Splitt has shared an insightful guide on addressing indexing issues during a site audit, focusing on whether JavaScript could be the underlying cause. His advice is particularly valuable for webmasters and SEO professionals aiming to enhance website performance.

In a recent video published by SearchNorwich, Splitt delved into debugging crawling and indexing challenges related to JavaScript. Interestingly, he pointed out that in most cases, JavaScript is not the actual culprit behind these issues. Instead, the true cause often lies elsewhere, such as configuration errors or overlooked technical problems within the website’s setup.

What makes Splitt’s advice even more accessible is that you don’t need to have a deep understanding of JavaScript coding to follow his recommendations. His practical tips offer a clear starting point for anyone looking to identify and resolve crawl-related problems. By understanding the common pitfalls and how to approach them systematically, website owners can ensure that their content is properly indexed and visible in search results.

This guidance is a helpful reminder of the importance of conducting regular site audits and the role of debugging in maintaining optimal website functionality, especially when JavaScript elements are involved.

JavaScript Is Rarely The Cause Of SEO Issues

Martin Splitt’s SearchNorwich video was released around a month ago, offering valuable insights into debugging JavaScript-related SEO issues. Interestingly, just a few days ago, Google’s John Mueller shared advice reinforcing Splitt’s perspective. Mueller warned that excessive JavaScript could negatively impact SEO, yet he agreed that JavaScript itself is seldom the root cause of SEO problems. Instead, misuse of JavaScript or unrelated issues often lie at the heart of the problem.

Splitt elaborated on this during his talk, revealing that nearly all the suspected JavaScript-related SEO issues brought to his attention turn out to be caused by something else entirely. He attributes this to a flawed debugging approach, where many people fall into the trap of confirmation bias. This occurs when someone suspects a particular cause and then selectively searches for evidence to support that belief, ignoring any data that might contradict it.

Confirmation bias, as Splitt explains, leads to misinterpretation of evidence and can result in wasted efforts addressing the wrong problem. By understanding this common mistake, SEO professionals can adopt a more objective and effective approach to diagnosing and resolving website issues.

Martin Splitt shed light on a common misunderstanding about JavaScript and SEO during his talk. He explained how many SEOs tend to blame JavaScript whenever they encounter crawling or indexing issues. “It seems to me,” Martin said, “that SEOs look for clues that allow them to blame things they’re seeing on JavaScript. Then they show up, or someone from their team shows up, in my inbox or on my social media and says, ‘We found a bug. It’s JavaScript.'”

Interestingly, Martin revealed that, out of the hundreds of claims he receives each year pointing fingers at JavaScript as the root cause of SEO issues, only one case has ever proven to be an actual bug related to JavaScript. “Just one,” he emphasised, highlighting how rare such occurrences are.

He elaborated further, saying: “People often claim, ‘You say it works if you use client-side rendering, but clearly, it is not working. It must be a JavaScript problem and maybe even a bug in Google.’ Surprisingly, many of the people who end up in my inbox suspect it’s a Google bug. I find that interesting, especially when a small, niche website claims to be affected by a bug that doesn’t affect any other websites. Most of the time, it’s not us—it’s you.”

Splitt clarified that when JavaScript is involved in crawling or rendering challenges, the issue is rarely with JavaScript itself. Instead, the problem usually stems from how JavaScript is being implemented or misused. His insights serve as a reminder for webmasters and SEOs to critically evaluate their own practices before attributing problems to external factors like Google’s algorithms or tools.

Finding Source Of Rendering Issues

Martin Splitt advises webmasters to debug rendering issues by assessing how Google interprets and processes their web pages. In the context of Googlebot crawling, rendering involves downloading all resources required by a page—such as JavaScript, CSS, fonts, and HTML—to construct a fully functional web page that closely mirrors what a user would see in a browser.

Debugging the rendering process can uncover various scenarios. It may reveal that the page renders correctly, that certain elements fail to render, or even that the page is entirely unindexable. Understanding these nuances is key to diagnosing and resolving rendering issues effectively.

To assist with debugging potential JavaScript-related problems, Martin recommends the following tools:

Google Search Console URL Inspection Tool: This allows users to see how Google views a specific URL and identify any rendering errors or indexing limitations.
Google Rich Results Test: This tool checks whether structured data on a page can generate rich results, helping ensure that important features render as intended.
Chrome Dev Tools: A powerful browser-based toolkit that provides insights into how JavaScript and other elements behave during the rendering process.

By leveraging these tools, webmasters can identify whether JavaScript or another factor is causing rendering or indexing issues, enabling them to make targeted improvements.

Easy JavaScript Debugging

Both of the first two tools, the Google Search Console URL Inspection Tool and the Google Rich Results Test, allow users to submit a URL for immediate crawling by Google. These tools display the rendered version of the page, providing a clear view of how Google interprets the page for indexing purposes. This step is crucial for identifying potential issues with how a page is being processed.

Martin Splitt highlights the usefulness of Chrome Dev Tools for further analysis. He explains:

“There’s also more info that gives you very helpful details about what happened in the JavaScript console messages and what happened in the network. If your content is there and it’s what you expect it to be, then it’s very likely not going to be JavaScript that is causing the problem. If people were doing just that, checking these basics, 90% of the people showing up in my inbox would not show up in my inbox. That’s what I do.”

He stresses that encountering an error in the JavaScript console doesn’t necessarily mean that JavaScript itself is the root cause of the problem. For example, he cites instances where a JavaScript execution error is actually the result of an API being blocked by a robots.txt file, which prevents the page from rendering properly.

By understanding and using these tools effectively, webmasters can address most rendering and indexing issues without jumping to conclusions about JavaScript being the primary culprit. This methodical approach can significantly reduce unnecessary concerns and misdiagnoses.

Why Do So Many SEOs Blame JavaScript?

Martin suggests that JavaScript’s reputation for causing crawling and indexing issues stems largely from a lack of understanding about how to debug it effectively. This misconception often leads to misattributing problems to JavaScript itself.

For those unfamiliar with JavaScript, this can be a daunting prospect. Even seasoned professionals who learned the basics years ago, like one commentator reflecting on their experience 25 years ago, admit to having a personal dislike for the language. Despite this, Martin emphasises that mastering a few debugging techniques can make all the difference.

By acquiring some foundational knowledge and applying practical debugging methods, many common misdiagnoses can be avoided, saving significant time and effort. This approach encourages webmasters to focus on solving the actual root causes rather than misplacing blame on JavaScript.