Google Crawls Raw and Encoded Bracket URLs Separately

Raw square brackets in a URL and their percent encoded version, %5B and %5D, are different URLs, Google Search Advocate John Mueller said on Bluesky Monday. He wrote that he would have assumed they were equivalent and that he "probably gave people the wrong answer on this in the past." Google will crawl both versions, he said; if it finds they contain identical information it will eliminate duplication and pick one version; he recommends you choose one format to use across all links, canonical tags, sitemaps, and your structured data.

The rules for duplicate formats apply equally to spaces, plus signs, and "%20," he said.

Why Encoded Brackets Are A Different URL

Mueller traced the difference to RFC 3986, the internet standard for URI syntax, which puts brackets and plus signs in its reserved set of characters. Under Section 2.2, URIs that swap a reserved character for its percent encoded version. The practical question is what this changes in the system: the page structure, the evidence presented, the measurement habit, or the way the topic is connected to related work.

The risk is usually hidden in the execution layer. A page can look fine to a human and still fail for an automated visitor if the form, call to action, rendering path, or confirmation step is not accessible enough for the agent to complete the task.

What Google Does With Both Versions

Mueller described what Google does when a server returns the same page for the raw and encoded forms: That said, *maybe* your server makes them "soft equivalent" by serving the same content. We'd crawl both versions, if we see the same. The strategic issue is whether automated visitors can understand, trust, and complete the same journey a human visitor can. Agent readiness is partly technical, but it is also about clear tasks, accessible flows, and reliable evidence.

What Google's Documentation Already Says

Google's URL structure documentation already calls for encoding characters like brackets. It says Google Search supports URLs as defined by IETF STD 66, the standard that contains RFC 3986, and that "Characters defined by the standard as. The strategic issue is whether automated visitors can understand, trust, and complete the same journey a human visitor can. Agent readiness is partly technical, but it is also about clear tasks, accessible flows, and reliable evidence. This connects with Google Opens Search Profiles in India & Canada when the same signal needs a clearer operating decision. A useful companion note is Fix Conflicting Metadata, because it looks at a nearby part of the same system.

The useful check is whether this improves the system behind search performance, not only the words on the page. Internal links, crawlable content, clear entities, current evidence, and a sensible page structure all help the recommendation become easier to trust.

Sites Already Using Raw Brackets

Vanessa Fox responded that she was thinking about a website which uses an invalid bracket notation throughout, does seem to be indexing just fine and has decided to leave it alone because it would be too much trouble to convert it into. The practical question is what this changes in the system: the page structure, the evidence presented, the measurement habit, or the way the topic is connected to related work.

Why This Matters

Google will choose one version of the URL, Mueller said, if there are multiple versions available with the same content. If all your URLs use the same format (i.e. either raw or encoded) then this choice is more likely to go your way. The. The search implication is whether the section improves the evidence around the page, not simply whether it adds more wording. Clear entities, crawlable structure, internal links, and useful context are what make the topic easier to evaluate.

Looking Ahead

Mueller suggested checking the crawlers and fetchers that matter to you for how they deal with bracketed URLs. Mueller didn't name specifically what crawlers or fetchers could have a problem but he said that some crawlers/fetchers might. The strategic issue is whether automated visitors can understand, trust, and complete the same journey a human visitor can. Agent readiness is partly technical, but it is also about clear tasks, accessible flows, and reliable evidence.

The practical value is in connecting the idea to an observable signal. That means deciding what should be checked, what would prove the issue is real, and where the team should make the smallest useful improvement first.

Why Encoded Brackets Are A Different URL in practice

Introduction Raw square brackets in a URL and their percent encoded version, %5B and %5D, are different URLs, Google Search Advocate John Mueller said on Bluesky Monday. He wrote that he would have assumed they were equivalent and that he. Local visibility depends on whether the details across pages, profiles, categories, reviews, photos, and service descriptions reinforce the same answer for a specific location based query.

The operational question is whether the public business data is complete enough to support the query. Hours, categories, services, reviews, photos, and page content need to reinforce each other so Google can understand the business in a specific situation, not only as a generic listing.

What the visibility signal actually changes

What the visibility signal actually changes: google Crawls Raw and Encoded Bracket URLs Separately: the Practical Angle should be treated as a visibility signal, not a standalone headline. Introduction Raw square brackets in a URL and their percent encoded version, %5B and %5D, are different URLs, Google Search Advocate John Mueller said on Bluesky Monday. He wrote that he would have assumed they were equivalent and that he "probably gave.

What the visibility signal actually changes: the practical question is whether the page, brand evidence, and surrounding content make the answer easier to trust. If that support is weak, search systems can still understand the topic but fail to connect it confidently to the brand.

What the visibility signal actually changes: that is why the response should begin with an audit of the evidence already on the site before creating a new asset. The fastest improvement is often a clearer page, a better internal link, or a stronger explanation of why the brand belongs in the answer.

Where the evidence needs to be tested

Where the evidence needs to be tested: a single study or ranking observation should not become a strategy by itself. It should become a diagnostic prompt: which source is being trusted, which query pattern is affected, and which part of the site would make that trust easier to earn?

Where the evidence needs to be tested: that keeps the response grounded. The goal is to improve the evidence chain around the topic rather than publish another summary that repeats what every other page already says.

Where the evidence needs to be tested: the important distinction is between a useful signal and a fashionable talking point. A useful signal changes the brief, the page structure, the linking plan, or the measurement view.

How to avoid overreacting to one data point

How to avoid overreacting to one data point: for content teams, the strongest move is to map the claim to existing assets before creating anything new. The right page may already exist, but it may need clearer headings, stronger internal links, fresher proof, or a better explanation of why the brand belongs in the answer.

How to avoid overreacting to one data point: this is also where title rewriting matters. A title should not copy the source headline; it should frame the practical implication so readers immediately know why the topic deserves attention. The same pattern also shows up in ChatGPT’s Search Index Serves Small Sites Too, where the practical question is how the signal becomes visible.

How to avoid overreacting to one data point: the same standard should apply to every section. Each heading needs to earn its place by moving the reader through the evidence, not by repeating the outline in a more polished voice.