When SEO consultant Neil McCarthy noticed that French-language pages intended for Belgian users were appearing in Google search results for France, he knew something was off. His hreflang tags were implemented properly. Everything had been coded to international SEO best practices. But somehow, Google’s search algorithm had other plans.
What followed was a brief exchange between McCarthy and Google’s John Mueller on Bluesky. The thing is that Google does not treat hreflang as a strict instruction. Instead, it considers hreflang a helpful suggestion.
A Glitch That Sparked a Bigger Revelation
McCarthy’s issue arose from the handling of French-language content meant for two different regional audiences: fr-be (French for Belgium) and fr-fr (French for France).
Despite using hreflang correctly to guide search engines on regional content relevance, Google was showing the Belgian version to users in France.
A screenshot McCarthy shared revealed Google’s rationale:
- Contains the search terms
- Is in French
- Seems coherent with this search, even if it usually appears in searches outside of France
Hey @johnmu.com, is Google ignoring HREFLANG instructions? For an international client I am seeing links to French belgian pages showing up in searches from France with this explination. HREFLANG indicates that these pages are for fr-be audience only. Any similar experiences @aleyda.bsky.social ?
— Neil McCarthy (@goodnessneil.bsky.social) May 9, 2025 at 10:56 AM
In simpler terms, Google believed the Belgian French page was relevant enough to show to a French audience, despite what the hreflang instructions said.
The response from John Mueller was this: “Hreflang doesn’t guarantee indexing.”
That single sentence prompted SEO professionals to reassess the way they think about international search visibility.
Similar Content, Different Countries—Same Result?
The problem lies in how Google processes near-identical content. Even if two pages are regionally targeted, Google might determine that the content is too similar to merit separate indexing. When this happens, Google groups those pages together and selects one to be the canonical version, the one it believes should be prioritized in search results and reporting.
Mueller explained further:
“If they are the same (e.g. fr-fr, fr-be), it’s common that one is chosen as canonical. Often, hreflang will still swap out the URL, but reporting will be on the canonical URL.”
This means Google may still show the localized URL in search results, but only if it’s indexed, and indexing itself is never guaranteed. Moreover, Search Console will report data only for the canonical URL, making performance analysis for regional pages more difficult.
Canonical Conflicts and Invisible Pages
The interaction between hreflang tags and canonical tags is more complicated than it appears. Ideally, they complement each other; canonical tags guide duplicate handling, while hreflang helps distribute search visibility across languages and regions.
But when two versions of a page are written in the same language and only slightly adapted, say, French content for France and Belgium, Google often decides they’re functionally the same. In such cases, one version is chosen as canonical, and the other effectively disappears from visibility and performance reports.
Even without an explicit canonical tag, Google’s algorithm may assign canonical status on its own.
This automatic merging can be particularly frustrating for international sites with lightly customized pages. If only minor differences exist, those changes might not be enough to convince Google that the pages are unique.
Hreflang’s Limits: What the SEO Community Now Knows
The biggest misunderstanding around hreflang has been its perceived authority. Many site owners assumed that implementing hreflang tags ensured regional targeting would work as intended. Mueller’s remarks correct that assumption.
Here’s what SEO teams need to internalize:
- Hreflang is suggestive, not definitive. It helps Google interpret your intent, but it doesn’t override other ranking signals.
- Indexing is conditional. Pages must be sufficiently distinct and of high enough quality to be indexed in the first place.
- Canonicals can dominate. If two pages are too similar, one may be treated as the main version, regardless of hreflang.
- Reporting is affected. Even when hreflang swaps out the displayed URL, all performance data is tied to the canonical version.
- Duplicate filtering is aggressive. For same-language regional variants, Google frequently filters out what it sees as redundant content.
What SEO Teams Can Do Now
This clarification from Google doesn’t mean hreflang is useless. It still plays an important role. But relying on it alone is no longer enough for sites targeting multiple regions with the same language.
Here are several steps teams can take to regain control over their international presence:
1. Create Truly Unique Regional Content
Avoid shallow changes like swapping currencies or adding local phone numbers. Use region-specific vocabulary, cultural references, product variations, and local customer stories. The more differentiated the content, the more likely it is to be treated as a standalone page.
2. Use the URL Inspection Tool
In Google Search Console, check whether your regional pages are being indexed and what URL is considered canonical. This helps you catch issues early and track how Google is treating each version.
3. Adjust Canonical Tags Where Needed
If you’ve manually set canonical tags across pages that are too similar, reconsider your approach. In many cases, it’s better to let Google determine the canonical if regional intent is clear and content is unique.
4. Monitor Hreflang Effectiveness Regularly
Use tools like Screaming Frog or Sitebulb to audit the hreflang setup and identify whether Google is honoring your tags. Cross-reference this with search result visibility to understand what’s really happening.
5. Track Regional Performance Differently
Since Google may report only on canonical URLs, isolate regional performance using location-based analytics, such as country-level sessions in Google Analytics or regional rank tracking tools.
The SEO Industry’s Response
Mueller confirmed that hreflang isn’t a command, which may not sit well with everyone, but aligns with Google’s philosophy that ranking depends on multiple factors. Signals like user relevance, indexing efficiency, and content distinctiveness all play a role.
For international SEOs, this is a turning point. Lazy localization won’t cut it. Google expects real variation if you’re asking it to treat regional pages as separate entities.
The good news? If you provide that variation, Google will usually respect it. But it’s on you to make it matter.
Key Takeaways
- Hreflang tags do not guarantee visibility. They act as helpful clues, not strict instructions.
- Similar pages may be collapsed into a single canonical version, even across different countries.
- Reporting in Google Search Console may not show localized data if a page is considered a duplicate.
- Unique, well-localized content is essential to ensure each page stands on its own.
- Regular audits are key to understanding whether your hreflang implementation is working as expected.
Dileep Thekkethil
AuthorDileep Thekkethil is the Director of Marketing at Stan Ventures, where he applies over 15 years of SEO and digital marketing expertise to drive growth and authority. A former journalist with six years of experience, he combines strategic storytelling with technical know-how to help brands navigate the shift toward AI-driven search and generative engines. Dileep is a strong advocate for Google’s EEAT standards, regularly sharing real-world use cases and scenarios to demystify complex marketing trends. He is an avid gardener of tropical fruits, a motor enthusiast, and a dedicated caretaker of his pair of cockatiels.