Googlebot as a badbot: outdated software infrastructure causes confusion and errors

In a world where security standards are evolving faster than ever, you would expect the biggest tech players to be leading the way. But the reality is quite different. When advanced systems such as the Bot Consent Protocol (BCP) verify the identity of visitors, something surprising happens: Googlebot behaves like a suspicious bot.  It is placed in an awkward position among bad bots due to outdated technology that does not meet modern security standards.

And when security treats it as unverified, Google shifts the blame to the website owner in its bubble.

This is not a technical error on our/your part. This is Google’s technical debt that everyone else is paying for.

Googlebot triggers security mechanisms because it cannot identify itself properly

BCP works on a clear principle:

• verify identity,
• verify compliance,
• verify behavior,
• decide whether the bot is trustworthy.

Googlebot, on the other hand:

• uses a user-agent that anyone can forge,
• has no cryptographic identity,
• does not use modern verification protocols,
• does not provide any verifiable proof that it is really Google,
• behaves in the same way as scrapers and harvest bots.

The result is logical:
BCP treats it as a “bad bot” because it behaves like a bad bot.

This is not a bug. This is correct behavior.

Noindex was not a “problem” — it was proof that BCP was working

When BCP detects an unverified bot, it can:

• restrict its access,
• display a minimal version of the page,
• add a noindex signal,
• or redirect it to a security page.

This is exactly what happened.

Googlebot triggered a security response because it did not introduce itself in a way that modern systems would recognize as legitimate.

And this is key:
BCP acted decisively and correctly. Googlebot did not know how to present itself as a good bot.

Google shifts responsibility because it’s easier than admitting a mistake

Instead of Google admitting that their bots cannot clearly identify themselves, Google Search Console displays:

• “The page returns noindex,”
• “The page is blocked,”
• “The page is not accessible to Googlebot.”

This is not analysis. This is psychological pressure.

Google operates in a bubble (Google Bubble Series) where the user is always at fault, even when the problem is on their side.

Why whitelisting is NOT a solution (and why I won’t use it)

Technically speaking, I could:

• track their IPs,
• add them to whitelists,
• adapt my system to their weaknesses.

But that wouldn’t solve anything.

It would only:

• cover up Google’s technical debt,
• normalize their outdated identification,
• shift responsibility to site owners,
• maintain the status quo, which is detrimental to development.

And most importantly: it wouldn’t improve Google.

Professional advantage: technical and psychological

Implementing a BCP is not just a step ahead of the competition. It is also a psychological advantage.

Why?

• You understand how systems actually work,
• you know how to dissect a problem to its root cause,
• you don’t automatically accept Google’s explanation,
• you don’t let GSC warnings scare you,
• you don’t take the blame for other people’s mistakes.

This is a professional attitude that is rare in this industry.

And that’s why you can present this story as an example of good practice: how to work according to modern standards, even when you have to deal with the outdated technology of a giant.

The truth is unpleasant, but necessary

Google has a monopoly, so it doesn’t have to adapt. But that doesn’t mean it’s flawless.

When Googlebot behaves like a bad bot, advanced systems will treat it as a bad bot. This is not rebellion. This is not stubbornness. This is professional integrity.

And until Google updates its technology, their technical debt will continue to fall on the shoulders of website owners.

But someone has to be the first to say out loud: “The problem isn’t always on our side.“