Tag: Technical optimization

Understanding Googlebot’s Crawling File Limits Explained

I recently discovered some updates that Google made to its help documents, clarifying the file limits for Googlebot’s crawling abilities. They shared insights about how much data Googlebot can process for different file types.

In these updates, Google specified the limits for crawling by file type, some of which continue from previous guidelines and aren’t entirely new. These updates cover:

15MB for web pages: According to Google, by default, their crawlers only process the first 15MB of a file. This means any content beyond that limit gets ignored.

64MB for PDF files: When it comes to PDFs, Googlebot has a larger limit, crawling up to the first 64MB. This applies when Googlebot indexes PDFs in Google Search.

2MB for supported file types: Googlebot processes the first 2MB of other supported file types, along with the 64MB limit for PDFs.

Rest assured, these limits are pretty generous, meaning most websites won’t be affected or even reach these thresholds.

Google’s documentation explains, “By default, Google’s crawlers only process the first 15MB of a file. Individual projects may have different limits, and they might differentiate between file types, providing larger limits for PDFs compared to HTML.”

Furthermore, the data beyond the specified limit doesn’t get indexed as Googlebot halts the fetch after the limit is reached. This applies to all resources referenced in the HTML, like CSS and JavaScript, except PDFs.

Why should we care? Knowing these limits can enhance your website’s SEO strategy, even though most won’t come close to these limits. Still, it’s vital to be aware of the boundaries set for Googlebot’s crawling.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

February 4, 2026
Overcoming Google’s Biggest Crawling Challenges: A Personal Review
Managing my website’s URLs efficiently is crucial to prevent crawlers from slowing it down. If you’re like me, you want your site to load fast, ensuring both visitors and search engines have a seamless experience.

Just the other day, I listened to Google’s latest insights on their year-end report for 2025. It was fascinating to hear Gary Illyes discuss on the Search Off the Record podcast about the major crawling challenges Google faces, like faceted navigation and action parameters, which make up a whopping 75% of the issues.

What’s the issue? Well, I’ve learned that crawling problems can seriously impact site performance, potentially making it unusable or inaccessible. Crawlers can sometimes get stuck in an infinite loop on a site, wreaking havoc on server performance.

According to Gary, once a set of URLs is discovered, the crawler has to check a significant portion to determine its quality. By the time this is done, the damage is done—your site slows down dramatically.

The Biggest Crawling Challenges Here’s what caught my attention as the major issues from the report:
- 50% relate to faceted navigation. These are very common in e-commerce sites where endless filtering options exist for products based on size, color, price, etc.
- 25% pertain to action parameters. These come from URL parameters that trigger actions instead of significantly changing page content.
- 10% involve irrelevant parameters like session IDs or UTMs.
- 5% are due to plugins or widgets that cause confusion by creating problematic URLs.
- 2% encapsulate other “weird stuff”, which includes strange issues like double-encoded URLs.
Why this matters to me is simple. A well-structured URL strategy keeps my server healthy, ensures quick page loads, and prevents search engines from misunderstanding which URLs should be indexed as canonical.

The Podcast: Here’s where you can listen to the discussion yourself:

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
February 3, 2026
Boosting AI Search Visibility: Avoiding Duplicate Content
Have you ever considered how duplicate content might be impacting your visibility in AI search results? Fabrice Canel and Krishna Madhavan from Microsoft recently discussed how duplicate content complicates AI search systems, reducing the chances of selecting the correct version for summarization.
Much like traditional search engines, AI search platforms such as Bing and Google rely on consistent intent signals. When your content appears in duplicate forms, it can confuse these systems, making it difficult for them to interpret signals accurately.
The Impact of Duplicate Content on AI Search. Here are key takeaways from the Bing blog about the impact of duplicate content:
AI search utilizes traditional SEO signals while also adding layers to understand user intent.
Repeated content across multiple pages weakens intent signals, complicating AI interpretation, and selection.
If several pages contain similar content, AI cannot easily identify which aligns with user intent, reducing preferred page selection chances.
Large Language Models (LLMs) cluster near-duplicate URLs, often selecting outdated versions if variations are minimal.
Campaign pages and localized versions must differ meaningfully; identical content provides less matching signal.
AI favors updates, but duplicates can slow the process of updating system information.
The Challenge of Syndicated Content. Many might not realize syndicated content—articles republished on various sites—can also be problematic. Microsoft considers this duplicate content because identical articles across domains make it difficult for search engines and AI to identify the original source.
Strategies to Minimize Duplicate Content. If you deal with syndicated content, ask partners to:
- Use canonical tags directing to the original version on your site.
- Rework content for uniqueness.
- Noindex republished articles to prevent search engine indexing.
Organizing Campaign Pages for Clarity. Microsoft warns that campaign pages with only minor changes can still be considered duplicates. To manage this:
- Designate a primary campaign page for interaction.
- Apply canonical tags to variations without unique intent.
- Maintain separate pages for distinct intents like seasonal offers or local pricing.
- Redirect outdated or redundant pages to consolidate content.
Handling Localization Pages. Localization can also produce duplicate content if differences are minimal. Microsoft suggests:
- Introduce meaningful local variations with examples, terminology, or regulations.
- Avoid multiple same-language pages for identical purposes.
- Use hreflang to define language and regional targeting accurately.
Addressing Technical SEO Concerns. Technical issues can lead to URL duplication, often managed automatically by search engines. However, it’s best to prevent this by maintaining a single URL per content piece. Common problems include:
- Utilize 301 redirects for URL consolidation.
- Apply canonical tags when accessible versions are necessary.
- Ensure consistent URL structures site-wide.
- Restrict crawler access to staging or archived URLs.
Why This Matters. While duplicate content is not a new issue in SEO, its importance extends into AI search. Familiarity with its impact on indexing and ranking can guide strategies for improved visibility.
For more insights, visit the Bing Webmaster blog.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
December 19, 2025
Understanding Google’s JavaScript Execution on Non-200 Pages

As I delve into the intricacies of JavaScript and SEO, I came across a fascinating update from Google that caught my attention. It’s about how Google handles JavaScript execution on pages that don’t return a typical 200 HTTP status code.

Google recently updated their JavaScript SEO documentation to shed light on this topic. They explained that all pages with a 200 HTTP status code are automatically queued for rendering, irrespective of the presence of JavaScript.

However, if a page returns a non-200 status code, like a 404 error page, rendering might be bypassed, which is something Google emphasized in their updated guidelines.

Diving deeper, I discovered that Googlebot efficiently queues all pages with a 200 status code for rendering. This clarification came as a pleasant surprise to me as it paints a clearer picture of how Google handles such pages.

In fact, the specific section in the documentation that got an update provides a visual explanation, and I appreciated the added clarity it brings.

Google explained further that while pages with a 200 status code head to rendering, pages with other status codes might not meet the same fate.

Google’s weekly updates to the JavaScript SEO documentation also included other significant changes. Notably, they clarified aspects like JavaScript’s role in canonicalization and cautioned against using JavaScript for noindex tags directly in the original page code.

Why do we care about these updates? Well, understanding these nuances ensures I make informed decisions about my web pages. Ensuring my pages return a 200 status code is crucial; otherwise, Google might skip rendering them, which could negatively impact my website’s search ranking.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

December 18, 2025