A Reddit user recently raised concerns that Google’s AI had flagged their website as offline since early 2026. The user had linked to their own blog post rather than creating a full Reddit thread, which made it possible for Google’s John Mueller to review the site directly. Upon inspection, Mueller identified the real issue: it was related to how JavaScript was used on the page, and not Google’s AI.
The blog post by the Redditor suggested that Google was at fault, using technical-sounding terms like “cross-page AI aggregation” and “liability vectors.” However, these are not recognised concepts in standard computer science or SEO practice. The Redditor’s attempt to explain the problem inadvertently overcomplicated what was, at its core, a fairly straightforward technical issue.
The “cross-page” terminology likely referred to Google’s Query Fan-Out system, which breaks a single AI query into multiple searches that feed into Classic Search. Meanwhile, the term “liability vector” is not part of search engine or AI terminology. Such misuse of technical language made the blog post appear more complex than the actual problem.
The Redditor admitted they weren’t sure whether Google could actually detect if a site was offline. They noted that even if their internal service had gone down, Google would not have been able to access it because it was behind a login wall. This misunderstanding highlighted the gap in knowledge about how Google indexes and reads web pages.
Additionally, the Redditor seemed unclear about how Google’s AI summarises information. They assumed the AI had “discovered” live data rather than synthesising content from the pages that were already indexed by Classic Search. This misunderstanding led them to incorrectly conclude that Google AI was misrepresenting the website.
The blog post observed that Google reported the site as being offline since early 2026, even though the website did not exist before mid-2025. This confusion stems from a misreading of how Google collects and displays information, not an actual flaw in the AI system.
In an attempt to fix the issue, the Redditor removed a pop-up, guessing that it was causing Google to misread the site. While understandable, this approach emphasises the risks of implementing fixes without first fully diagnosing the problem. Guessing can sometimes introduce new issues without addressing the root cause.
They also expressed concern that Google might scrape irrelevant information from the site and present it in AI-generated answers. While AI search does summarise content, it does so based on indexed pages and is not simply grabbing random content. This concern reflects a misunderstanding of the AI’s operation rather than a technical fault.
Mueller responded to the Reddit post in a neutral and informative manner, explaining that the site relied on JavaScript to dynamically replace placeholder text with the actual content. This method only works for visitors whose browsers execute the JavaScript correctly. Google, however, read the original placeholder text, which included a “not available” message, and treated it as the indexed content.
The safer approach, Mueller advised, is to include the correct content directly in the base HTML of the page. This ensures that both users and search engines see the same information, avoiding misleading messages in search results. It also prevents AI search from summarising outdated or incorrect placeholder content.
This case illustrates a broader lesson: many site owners do not fully understand how Google’s AI and search indexing operate. Making assumptions without testing can complicate the issue, leading to unnecessary changes that may not solve the problem.
It also highlights the importance of technical SEO knowledge. Key page elements, such as availability messages, should be included in the HTML rather than injected via JavaScript. This ensures that Google and other search engines can correctly read and index the content.
Another key takeaway is the role of precise communication. Using overly technical or inaccurate terminology, as seen in the Redditor’s blog post, can create confusion for both the audience and the person trying to resolve the issue.
Mueller’s guidance also serves as a reminder that Google cannot access content behind login walls, and dynamic content that isn’t rendered properly may be misinterpreted. Understanding these limitations can help webmasters prevent similar misdiagnoses in the future.
Ultimately, this situation underscores the need for careful analysis and thorough testing before implementing fixes. Guesswork, while tempting, often complicates matters rather than resolving them. Site owners should verify issues methodically and consult reliable sources when uncertain.
By following best practices—serving content directly in HTML, testing JavaScript, and understanding how AI summarises search results—webmasters can avoid similar errors and ensure their sites are accurately represented online. This approach provides peace of mind and prevents confusion over AI-generated search snippets.
In conclusion, the Redditor’s experience is a valuable lesson for site owners. Misinterpreting AI search behaviour can lead to unnecessary stress, but with careful diagnosis and proper implementation, most issues can be resolved efficiently. Understanding how search engines read content is far more important than worrying about AI capabilities.
More Digital Marketing BLOGS here:
Local SEO 2024 – How To Get More Local Business Calls
3 Strategies To Grow Your Business
Is Google Effective for Lead Generation?
How To Get More Customers On Facebook Without Spending Money
How Do I Get Clients Fast On Facebook?
How Do You Use Retargeting In Marketing?
How To Get Clients From Facebook Groups