> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.boldoutlook.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Google’s Odd Redirect Loop After Pulling Structured Data Docs Raises Eyebrows - URL: https://www.boldoutlook.com/googles-odd-redirect-loop/ - Published: 2025-09-10T14:49:46.000Z - Updated: 2025-09-10T14:49:46.000Z - Description: After removing obsolete structured data docs, Google 301-redirected the dead URLs to its changelog—which links back to those pages—creating a loop. We explain what happened, why it’s odd SEO practice, and better fixes (404/410 or a stable explainer). - Author: Brandon Himpfen - Tags: Google Search, Structured Data, SEO, 301 Redirects, Soft 404, Technical SEO, Search Console, Web Crawling, User Experience, Site Architecture, Deindexed Pages, Webmaster Guidelines, #Import 2026-10-18 13:20 **TL;DR:** After removing several obsolete structured data pages on September 9, [Google](https://www.boldoutlook.com/tag/google-seo/) set the old URLs to 301-redirect to its documentation changelog—where those same dead links still appear—creating a loop. It’s not a “soft 404,” but it is confusing UX and unusual for SEO best practices. A cleaner approach would be to 404/410 the pages or redirect to a stable explainer (like the June 12 [blog post](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2025/06/simplifying-search-results) announcing the deprecation). ## What happened On **September 9, 2025**, Google updated its “Latest documentation updates” page to note it had **removed documentation** for five structured data types—**Course info, Estimated salary, Learning video, Special announcement, and Vehicle listing**—because those features no longer appear in Search. The changelog still lists the titles as links. Clicking them sends you to the old URLs, which now **301-redirect right back to the changelog**, forming a loop between the two pages. This looping behavior was spotted and reported in the SEO press today, complete with examples of the old URLs and the changelog target. ## Why the docs vanished in the first place None of this is happening in a vacuum. Back on **June 12, 2025**, Google announced it was **retiring a handful of structured data features** as part of “simplifying the Search results page.” That list included the five docs removed this week and also **ClaimReview** and **Book Actions** (the latter is not part of this week’s reporting/deprecation change in tools). The June post is the authoritative background for why these features were sunset. Follow-up coverage this week clarified that Google is also **dropping reporting & testing support** for six of the deprecated types in Search Console and related tools (everything above **except Book Actions**), aligning the tooling with June’s policy shift. ## Is the loop a mistake—or a choice? From a purely technical standpoint, Google isn’t doing a “soft 404” here. A 301 is a **permanent redirect** and, in general, is exactly what Google itself recommends when a page **moves** to a more accurate destination. But that’s the rub: these pages didn’t *move* to replacements with equivalent purpose; they were **removed**. Redirecting them back to a changelog that **still links to the dead pages** creates a **circular hop** that’s awkward for humans and crawlers. Google’s own historical guidance has long said that ordinary **404s are fine** when content truly no longer exists, and site owners shouldn’t feel compelled to redirect everything. Industry best practice also warns against blanket or irrelevant 301s (e.g., redirecting all missing content to a generic page), precisely because it confuses users and systems. In this case, the changelog loop feels like a cousin of that anti-pattern. So, did Google “make a mistake”? My read: **probably an oversight** or an unintended consequence of an internal rule (“redirect deprecated doc slugs to the updates page”). It doesn’t appear malicious, but it’s **not ideal UX** and **doesn’t aid discoverability** of the rationale for removal. ## What would have been cleaner Two simpler options would have avoided the loop: 1. **Return 404/410** on the old doc URLs. That clearly signals the content is gone and lets Google (and other search engines) drop the pages naturally. This aligns with long-standing guidance that 404s for truly missing pages are acceptable. 2. **301 to a stable explainer**, not the changelog. The obvious target is the **June 12 blog post** announcing the deprecations. That preserves user context (“why can’t I find this anymore?”) and avoids bouncing people back to a page that re-links to the dead URLs. Either path would be a more typical SEO pattern than redirecting to a page that loops back. ## Does it matter for SEO? For **publishers** who implemented these now-retired types, the broader impact is already settled: those rich results/features **no longer appear**, and Google is removing associated **reporting & testing** in its tools. The **loop itself** doesn’t change rankings; it’s just a **docs-site quirk**. But it’s a great case study in status-code hygiene: - Use **301s** when content **moved** to an equivalent destination. - Use **404/410** when content is **gone** without a true replacement. - Avoid **catch-all redirects** to generic pages, which can confuse users and systems. ## The bigger storyline The real news isn’t the loop—it’s Google’s continued **pruning of niche structured data** to “simplify” Search. Google has spent 2024–2025 consolidating surfaces and clarifying when markup actually drives user value. That direction is consistent with this month’s tooling changes and the June announcement. If you rely on structured data for enhancements, expect **fewer, more opinionated** result types, not an ever-growing list. ### Bottom line The redirect loop looks like a **documentation goof**, not a policy signal. It would be better if Google either **404/410’d** the removed pages or **redirected them to the June explainer**. Meanwhile, SEOs should focus less on the loop and more on adapting to the **feature retirements** and the **tooling changes** rolling out this week.