HTML Still Wins for SEO: Markdown Has No Edge

Reading time: 2 min

HTML Remains the Standard—Markdown Is a Distraction

During a recent Off The Record podcast, Google’s John Mueller and Martin Splitt made it crystal clear: HTML is still the foundation for SEO. Markdown offers zero ranking advantage. I’ve seen this play out before. Every time a new format trend appears—RSS, AMP, now Markdown—people chase the shiny object. But search engines have been optimized for HTML since the 1990s. Their crawlers strip out text from HTML efficiently. Markdown? Not the same. Here’s what actually happened: some publishers started creating parallel Markdown versions of their sites, hoping LLM crawlers would prefer them. That’s a double workload, higher technical complexity, and a real risk that a broken Markdown version gets indexed without human visitors to flag the error. Slow down. Think. HTML is the one format that serves both search engines and human users. It’s not broken. Don’t fix it.

Let me show you the data: Google’s own documentation and every major search engine rely on HTML parsing pipelines. Source reference. The playbook changed? No, it stayed the same. Markdown has its use cases—docs, READMEs, internal notes—but for public web pages visible to Google, stick with well-structured HTML. Nobody talks about this part: creating a “Markdown version” also bypasses all the accessibility benefits of HTML, like semantic tags and ARIA labels. That’s a loss for users and a potential red flag for accessibility scanners. The bottom line: if you want Google to find, crawl, and rank your content, serve it in HTML.

Localized Subdirectories: No SEO Lift, Just Different Filtering

Another question I get all the time: should I use /en-us/blog/ or just /blog/ for targeting the US market? According to John Mueller, there’s zero practical difference for SEO. I’ve tested both structures at startups where budget meant we could only pick one. The result: no ranking shift. The real value of localized subdirectories? Analytics. With a /en-us/ prefix, you can quickly filter your Google Analytics or Search Console data by market. That’s it. So choose what’s simplest to manage. If your engineering team is small and maintenance overhead matters—and it always does—go with generic names like /blog/. This isn’t a take—it’s a pattern I’ve seen work repeatedly.

Here’s where people slip up: copying the same text across countries and adding hreflang tags. Google can usually serve the correct URL with hreflang, but there’s a catch. When the content is identical, Google may treat one URL as canonical and merge the reports in Search Console. That defeats the purpose of separate country versions. I’ve seen this play out before. A startup I worked with had /en-us/ and /en-gb/ with 90% identical product pages. The US page kept outranking the UK one. Hreflang couldn’t fix poor localization. The implication? Either keep a single global English version for truly generic content, or invest in full localization—different copy, currencies, product availability. Half-measures just confuse the system. Source reference.

The Real Lesson: Fundamentals Over Hype

Every week I hear someone pitch a “new SEO secret.” 90% of the time, it’s a rebrand of something that already worked—or didn’t work—a decade ago. HTML-first sites, clean URL structures, and meaningful localization aren’t flashy. They’re boring. They’re also what compound over time. I’ve been doing this since 1997, and the sites that survive algorithm updates aren’t the ones chasing every format fad. They’re the ones with solid HTML, clean information architecture, and content that genuinely matches user intent. This isn’t a take—it’s a pattern.

So stop worrying about Markdown. Stop wondering if /en-us/ will get you a ranking boost. Spend that energy on writing content your audience actually needs, structuring it with proper HTML headings, and making sure every page earns its place in the index. That’s what actually moves the needle. That’s the playbook that’s been the same since before Google was born.