Here’s how Google broke the news:
Google Webmasters✔@googlewmc
Spring cleaning!
As we evaluated our indexing signals, we decided to retire rel=prev/next.
Studies show that users love single-page content, aim for that when possible, but multi-part is also fine for Google Search. Know and do what’s best for *your* users! #springiscoming pic.twitter.com/hCODPoKgKp
Just prior to that, Google’s John Mueller laid this detail on us:
Glenn Gabe@glenngabe@johnmu Can you comment on this? Using the correct combination of rel next/prev with rel canonical has been the way that Google has recommended setting up pagination for a very long time. This impacts so many sites across the web. Would be great to have a Googler chime in. 🙂
John
✔@JohnMu
We noticed that we weren’t using rel-next/prev in indexing for a number of years now, so we thought we might as well remove the docs :).
Why you mad, though? Notable SEOs like Alan Bleiweiss and Jenny Halasz are pushing back.
Alan Bleiweiss@AlanBleiweissSo let’s recap. @googlewmc officially retires their use of Link Relationship tags for pagination.
A tag set that reinforces multi-page relationships.
We know, for a fact, that Google needs all the reinforcing signals they can get. 1/
Alan Bleiweiss@AlanBleiweissAlways have, always will. Nobody there knows what the ENTIRE system does, or how it does it. Too many moving parts. So they need reinforcing signals. This is not rocket science understanding of the flaws in their system. 2/
While Bleiweiss insists that Google needs reinforcing signals like link relationship tags to effectively index, Halasz points out that there are other search engines out there and (perhaps more importantly) that these tags may provide support for users who rely on technology such as screen readers to navigate.
Jenny Halasz #BlackLivesMatter #MasksForAll✔@jennyhalasz
Please don’t change standard WCAG practices just b/c “Google said”! There are other search engines and other reasons (like accessibility) you should do things on websites that have nothing to do with Google!
I’m upset with Google for not mentioning the accessibility standard. https://twitter.com/rustybrick/status/1109062138432237570 …
Barry Schwartz✔@rustybrick
Now that we know Google no longer supports rel=next/prev – here is Google’s latest advice on what to do https://www.seroundtable.com/googles-advice-on-pagination-page-series-post-rel-next-and-rel-prev-27297.html …
Others are highlighting the hypocrisy.
Kevin_Indig@Kevin_IndigIf users love single-page content, why aren’t Google search results on a single page?
People aren’t just upset that Google stopped supporting these tags, they feel betrayed because they’ve invested resources into making this a part of their user interface on the belief that it’s a best practice.
Paul Thompson@thompsonpaulSo what other expensive processes have your engineers been instructing us to use *for years* that you’ve been ignoring *for years*?
And, of course, there are the memes.
Screaming Frog✔@screamingfrog
Translation: the joke here is that the “hreflang” attribute (which tells Google which language a page uses) is next to get the axe. (It is just a joke.)
Why you should care. As search systems evolve, the ways they use or rely on markup changes, too. This won’t be the last subtraction or addition. Google apologized for the lapsed communication and expressed it would communicate markup changes when they happen going forward.
The reactions underscore that just because Google cuts support for something doesn’t mean it may not still be valuable for user experience or recognized by other platforms. Google apologized and maintains that webmasters should use it for reasons other than indexing. Just be sure to consider the broader impact the markup might have before deciding whether or not to stop using it themselves.
