At the recent Ahrefs Mini Evolve 2025 event, I had the chance to share some real-world challenges I’ve encountered around a topic that doesn’t get enough attention: how Google can misunderstand your website content — and the impact that has on your SEO.
Google’s algorithms are incredibly advanced, but they’re not perfect. Sometimes, they misinterpret schema data, page content, or even URLs — which can lead to surprising ranking drops or misleading search results. In my session, I unpacked some of these cases and the lessons they offer.
I first started by sharing 3 instances where Google completely got a page’s contents wrong.
3 Times Google Completely Misunderstood
Example 1: Date In Schema Being Prioritised Over Page Content
In my first example, we noticed a sharp ranking drop of 10-15 positions for a page that had been stable for months. Initial content audits showed no significant changes that could explain the fall, which left us puzzled.
Using Ahrefs tools, we confirmed no major content or backlink losses — the issue seemed technical.
We did however notice that on SERP, our pages’ listings suddenly had a random old date of February 14, 2013. Interestingly, this date does not exist anywhere in the main page content or metadata. This odd date likely caused Google to view the page as outdated, hurting its perceived freshness and relevance.
We inspected the page’s HTML and discovered a video testimonial schema embedded on the page. This schema had a date field set to February 14, 2013.
Google had mistakenly picked up this date as the page’s main publication date — a classic example of Google “overgeneralizing” data from structured markup.
Google uses dates to estimate how fresh and relevant your content is — especially for topics that require up-to-date information. Incorrect dates can mislead Google into thinking your content is stale.
This can cause it to demote your page in favor of fresher, more relevant content.
We updated the video schema to either remove the outdated date field or set it correctly. This clarified the page’s actual freshness to Google.
Shortly after the fix, the page’s rankings recovered and even surpassed previous positions.
Takeaways:
- Always double-check your schema markup for accurate date fields.
- Avoid placing irrelevant or outdated dates in schema that Google might confuse with page-level dates.
- Use tools like Google’s Rich Results Test and Ahrefs’ Site Audit to spot schema inconsistencies early.
- Remember: small technical details can have big impacts on rankings.
Example 2: Absence Of Time And Date Affects Course Pages
Google can sometimes misread the data on your page, especially when events, dates, or context are ambiguous or not clearly presented. In this section, I’ll walk you through a situation where Google misunderstood the content’s date, affecting how it displayed in search results.
We were optimizing a page for a multi-year course that included information about ongoing phases. However, Google displayed a date that didn’t make sense — Saturday, May 31, 2025 — which was not the actual event date.
To make things worse, unusual times like 5pm, 8pm, and 8:30pm were also showing up in the snippets, confusing users even further.
These inaccurate snippets misrepresented the course schedule and negatively impacted user experience and snippet performance.
We found that Google had pulled the date from one of four dates listed on the page.
Googlebot doesn’t just look at visible content; it also scans hidden or unstructured data on your page. If there’s no clear, structured date or time provided for events, Google might pull any available date it finds.
In this case, Google pulled a date from the course’s timeline and applied it as the course start date, confusing it with an event that wasn’t actually scheduled for that day.
Interestingly, these dates corresponded to various phases of the course, not the actual start date. Because the page didn’t specify a clear, singular start date, Google randomly chose one of these phase dates to display in the snippet.
This lack of clarity led to Google misrepresenting the course timeline, contributing to confusing and inaccurate search snippets.
The solution was to make sure the page explicitly featured the start and end dates for each phase of the course. These dates needed to be prominent and unambiguous.
By placing these details in both the page content and structured data, we helped Google understand the correct timeline for the course and associated events.
Next, we looked to analyse the tackle the timings snippets.
We found that the course page included an events section listing various phases, each with its own start time (e.g., 5pm, 8pm, 8:30pm).
Googlebot crawled this events section and pulled these timings into the search snippet, causing further confusion for users.
To quickly resolve this, we applied the data-nosnippet attribute to the events section, preventing Google from displaying these event times in snippets — helping regain control over what information appears in search results.
While applying the data-nosnippet tag helped me quickly fix confusing snippet issues, I don’t recommend relying on it as a long-term solution.
This tag blocks Google from showing parts of your content, which can limit your chance to appear in rich snippets or provide useful info to searchers.
In my experience, the better, more sustainable approach is to reformat and clarify your page content and structured data so Google understands it properly — instead of hiding content from search engines.
Example 3: URL elements can affect Googlebot Understanding
One of the most surprising SEO challenges I’ve faced is when Google misinterprets parts of your URL as meaningful data — like product prices. This can cause incorrect info to show up in search snippets, confusing users and harming your conversions. Let me walk you through a real example.
In this example, we noticed Google’s rich snippet was showing a product price of $1.53, while the actual price on the page was $199.
There was no visible price of $1.53 anywhere on the page, and the product schema markup showed the correct price. This inconsistency puzzled us.
Looking deeper, we found that the price was injected dynamically with JavaScript and wasn’t present in the static HTML source code.
Googlebot can crawl and render JavaScript, but sometimes it assigns less importance to data not found in the raw HTML. This likely contributed to the problem.
We compared this page to the equivalent product pages in other countries.
Those pages had prices plainly visible in the HTML source code and did not show incorrect snippet prices.
This comparison confirmed that the way price data was presented on the Singapore page was part of the issue.
To resolve this, we changed the template of the individual market’s pages to that of markets that were not impacted.
While changing the template resolved the issue, we wanted to know why exactly $1.53 came about. We could not find any other market prices that had a pattern in line with 1.53 or converted to that amount. As such, we started to look for elements that were not necessarily on the page’s content.
Digging further, we discovered that Google was interpreting a product code in the URL — specifically “151ksh” — as a price.
Google identified “KSh” as the currency code for Kenyan Shillings. Converting 151 KSH to Singapore dollars yields approximately $1.53, explaining the wrong snippet price.
Because the page lacked explicit price info in the HTML source, Google resorted to guessing from what it had — the URL product code combined with a nearby currency abbreviation.
This shows how Google sometimes “forces” its own interpretation when data is ambiguous or missing — which can lead to misleading search results.
The solution was simple but crucial: ensure your product prices are always included in the static HTML source, not only injected via JavaScript.
By doing this, you help Google correctly identify your pricing and prevent misinterpretations that confuse users.
Takeaways from this example:
- Don’t rely solely on JavaScript for critical info like pricing.
- Avoid embedding product codes or identifiers that look like prices or currencies in URLs without proper context.
- Regularly check your rich snippets to catch errors early.
- Use tools like Google’s Rich Results Test and URL inspection to monitor how Google sees your pages.
2 Times Google Narrowly Interpreted Content
Over time, I’ve realized that Google doesn’t just look at keywords in isolation — it interprets them within a very specific context based on what it expects users want to see.
This means Google can sometimes favor pages that match a narrow interpretation of a query, even if other pages offer relevant content. Understanding this behaviour is key to optimizing your pages effectively.
In this section, I’ll share examples where Google’s narrow view of keywords impacted rankings — and how adjusting our approach helped us win back visibility.
Example 1: Singular vs Plural
One subtle but powerful lesson I’ve learned is how Google interprets singular and plural forms of keywords differently. Even if your page content matches the topic, using the “wrong” form can affect your rankings. Let me share an example from my recent experience.
We optimised a page for the keyword “data analytics course” in singular, expecting to rank well for that term. However, the top results on the SERP used the plural form “courses” consistently in their titles and headers.
Google appeared to prefer pages using the plural “courses” — likely because search intent suggested users were looking for multiple course options rather than a single course detail page.
This showed me that Google builds a central interpretation of keywords based on aggregated user behaviour and SERP patterns.
Once we switched the page’s main keyword usage to the plural form — updating the title, H1, and meta tags to “data analytics courses” — we saw a near-instant ranking improvement.
This was despite the page still featuring details of a single course!
Google doesn’t just look at exact keyword matches — it interprets the intent behind the query. If the majority of users expect multiple options, Google will rank pages that reflect that intent, even if your page is narrowly focused.
Always analyze the SERP to see which form Google favours for your target keyword.
Align your page’s titles, headers, and content with that preferred form.
Use tools like Ahrefs’ SERP overview to identify keyword patterns quickly.
Don’t be afraid to use the plural form even if your page is about a single item — it can still improve rankings.
Takeaways from this example:
- Keyword form matters more than you might think.
- Google’s ranking algorithm prioritizes intent and user behaviour signals.
- Being flexible and adapting your content to reflect preferred forms can unlock quick wins in SEO.
Example 2: Localised vs Non-Localised
One unexpected pattern I’ve encountered is that Google doesn’t always favor localized pages — even for keywords with clear local intent. Sometimes, non-localized, international pages outrank local content, creating SEO challenges for local businesses. Let me explain with a recent case.
We published a page optimized with a local focus — including “Singapore” in the title, H1, and intro — targeting the keyword “staging for homes.”
After a month, the page remained unranked for that keyword, while overseas, non-localized pages dominated the top positions.
Upon reviewing the SERP closely, I noticed the top-ranking pages were mostly international sites with no localized terms in their titles or headers.
Despite their lack of local focus, these pages clearly matched Google’s narrow interpretation of the keyword better than our local page.
We then removed “Singapore” from the page title and H1, but kept local content within the body about Singapore’s real estate system.
Within two days, the page jumped to position 5 for the keyword, showing that Google preferred non-localized titles but still valued local content contextually.
Google’s ranking decisions are heavily influenced by what the majority of users are clicking and engaging with.
If most searchers don’t use local qualifiers or expect general info, Google will favor pages matching that behaviour — even if local versions exist.
Takeaways from the example:
- Analyze the SERP carefully to understand what Google prefers for your keyword.
- Use localized terms strategically — sometimes in body copy rather than titles or headers.
- Focus on providing strong local context that doesn’t rely solely on explicit location keywords.
- Monitor rankings and adjust titles/meta tags based on SERP trends.
Conclusion
Google’s search algorithms have come a long way, but as I’ve shared from my experience at Ahrefs Mini Evolve 2025, they still sometimes misunderstand or narrowly interpret website content in ways that can seriously impact your rankings and user experience. Whether it’s confusing schema dates, misreading URLs, or favoring very specific keyword forms, these challenges require a nuanced and vigilant approach.
From quick tactical fixes like correcting schema errors or using data-nosnippet, to strategic adjustments like aligning your keywords with Google’s preferred forms and balancing local relevance — there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The key is understanding how Google “sees” your site, and adapting your SEO practices accordingly.
At First Page Digital Singapore, we are known as a SEO agency with deep expertise in technical SEO and a track record of solving complex SEO challenges for a diverse range of clients. If you’re facing puzzling ranking issues or want to ensure your content is crystal clear for Google’s algorithms, our team is here to help you stay ahead in this ever-evolving landscape.
Remember, SEO success in 2025 isn’t just about great content — it’s about clarity, precision, and aligning with Google’s interpretation of your site.
