Video Indexing Report

TL;DR — The Video indexing report in Google Search Console tells you how many of your pages have a video Google found, how many of those videos Google actually indexed (so they can show up in video features on Search), and what’s stopping the rest — as of Google’s last crawl, not in real time. A video only gets indexed if its page is indexed, it sits on a page whose main job is showing that one video, the player loads on its own without a click, the format is supported, and it has a working thumbnail.

What the report is

If you publish videos, Google Search Console has a report just for them. It’s in the left-hand menu, in the indexing section — but it only shows up once Google has actually found videos on your site. Google describes it as a report that “shows how many videos on your site are eligible for video features on Google Search, and provides reasons why other videos on your site couldn’t be indexed.”

So it answers two questions:

1. How many of my videos did Google index? (These are eligible to appear in Google’s video features.)
2. Which videos couldn’t be indexed — and why?

The one thing to understand first

A video can only be indexed if its page is already indexed. The report covers only indexed pages, so if a page isn’t in Google’s index, its video never even shows up here. That’s why this report is really a follow-on to the Page Indexing report: get the page indexed first, then worry about the video.

What a video needs to get indexed

Think of it as a short checklist:

• It’s on a “watch page.” That means a page whose main purpose is showing a single video — not a quick clip dropped into the middle of a long article.
• The page is indexed. (See above.)
• The player loads by itself. If your page shows a picture of a play button that the visitor has to click before the real player appears, Google can’t tell where the video is or how big it is, and it won’t index it.
• The format is supported. Google handles a long list of common video file types (MP4, WebM, MOV, and many more).
• It has a working thumbnail. A valid thumbnail image, at a stable URL, that Google can actually reach and that isn’t blocked or transparent.

How you fix problems

When the report lists an issue (like “Video isn’t on a watch page” or a thumbnail error), you open it, look at the example pages, fix the underlying cause, and then click Validate Fix. Google rechecks your pages — this can take up to about two weeks — and tells you whether the fix passed.

Want the full issue-by-issue breakdown, the prominence sizing details, and how VideoObject markup and video sitemaps fit in? Switch to the Advanced tab.

TL;DR — The Video indexing report shows, for your indexed pages, how many contain a video Google found, how many of those videos Google indexed, and the issue reasons blocking the rest — a snapshot as of Google’s last crawl, not a real-time inventory. It’s downstream of Page Indexing — “the report covers only indexed pages,” so unindexed (or non-canonical) pages never reach it. Eligibility requires a watch page, an indexed page, a prominent player that loads at its real size and position without interaction, a supported format, and a valid, reachable thumbnail. Since June 2023 Google reports prominence failures as one of three specific reasons — Video outside the viewport, Video too small, Video too tall — instead of a single catch-all; a click-to-load poster image is a common cause worth testing, but treat it as one hypothesis, not the default explanation. VideoObject + a video sitemap aid discovery and metadata but don’t force indexing; key moments/clips are a possible upside once indexed, never guaranteed. Fix the cause, then Validate Fix — revalidation runs up to about two weeks.

Where it sits in the pipeline

The Video indexing report is not a standalone feature — it’s the video-specific tail end of indexing. Google is explicit that “the report covers only indexed pages. If a page is not indexed for any reason (including being a non-canonical page) then it won’t appear in this report.” That single sentence is the most useful thing on the page.

The practical order of operations:

1. Page Indexing report — is the page indexed at all? If not, fix that first; a video on an unindexed page can never be indexed.
2. Video indexing report — given an indexed page, did Google index the video on it, and if not, why?
3. Sitemaps report — submit a video sitemap to help discovery, and use it to filter the Video indexing report down to the URLs in a given sitemap.

It only surfaces in the navigation once Google has detected videos on the property, and Google frames the whole thing as a report that “shows how many videos on your site are eligible for video features on Google Search, and provides reasons why other videos on your site couldn’t be indexed.” The top-line split is: pages where Google found a video it has indexed, versus pages where Google found a video it didn’t index — with the reasons attached to the second bucket, each grouped by issue and by the last time Google crawled the affected pages.

Treat the numbers as diagnostics, not a real-time inventory. The report reflects Google’s last crawl of the pages in question, not the current state of your site — if you fixed something an hour ago, the report won’t show that yet. That’s also why the flow below ends in Validate Fix rather than an instant refresh: Google has to recrawl before the counts can move.

What a video needs to be indexed

Four requirements do most of the work. Note that “watch page” and “prominent” are Google’s own official requirements, but whether a specific page qualifies is a judgment call Google’s systems make about layout and content — not a checklist you can satisfy by ticking boxes. Treat the bullets below as what Google requires, and treat any specific pixel/layout advice as an implementation heuristic for meeting that requirement, not an interchangeable substitute for it.

• A watch page. Google’s video guidance is blunt: “the video must be embedded on a watch page,” and on the help side, “a watch page’s main purpose is to show a user a single video; only videos that are on a watch page are eligible for indexing.” A demo clip sprinkled into an article generally won’t be the indexed video — it’s supplementary, not the page’s purpose. Whether a given layout counts as “the page’s main purpose” is Google’s call, not a fixed threshold you can test mechanically.
• An indexed page. “The watch page must be indexed.”
• A prominent player that loads on its own. The video should be the prominent element on the page and load at its actual size and position without user interaction (more below).
• A supported format. Per Google: “Google can process the following video file types: 3GP, 3G2, ASF, AVI, DivX, M2V, M3U, M3U8, M4V, MKV, MOV, MP4, MPEG, OGV, QVT, RAM, RM, VOB, WebM, WMV, and XAP.”
• A valid thumbnail. “A video must have a valid thumbnail image.” Supporting docs describe a minimum thumbnail size (the docs cite a small minimum, with larger preferred), a requirement that the image not be effectively transparent, and the advice to use a single, stable, unique thumbnail URL per video. Rotating thumbnail URLs break indexing.

Issue reasons — and how to fix them

The report enumerates specific issue reasons by name. The exact strings include “Video isn’t on a watch page,” “Video outside the viewport,” “Video too small,” “Video too tall,” “MRSS failure; try using schema.org instead,” “No thumbnail URL provided,” “Unsupported thumbnail format,” “Invalid thumbnail size,” “Thumbnail blocked by robots.txt,” “Thumbnail is transparent,” “Thumbnail could not be crawled due to hostload,” “Thumbnail could not be reached,” “Video not processed,” “Video not found on host service,” and “Invalid thumbnail.” (See the Cheat Sheets tab for the issue → cause → fix table.)

Prominence — three specific reasons, not one. Until June 2023, Google reported every prominence failure under a single catch-all, “Google could not determine the prominent video on the page.” Google’s Search Central blog announced it was “breaking down the … reason into three more specific reasons”: Video outside the viewport (the video isn’t inside the renderable, visible area when the page loads), Video too small (increase height above 140px, or width above 140px and at least a third of the page’s width), and Video too tall (decrease height below 1080px). The old catch-all reason could still surface briefly in historical data after the change but doesn’t reflect current crawls — if you see it referenced anywhere, treat the three specific reasons above as current.

What causes these in practice is worth testing rather than assuming. A click-to-load poster image — a screenshot or thumbnail the visitor has to click before the real player appears — is a common cause, because Google has no player to measure until after the click. But it isn’t the only one: lazy-loaded players that haven’t mounted yet at crawl time, JS-rendered carousels or sliders that hide the video behind other slides, and CSS that visually shrinks or repositions the player before paint can all produce the same result. Test each hypothesis against the specific page rather than defaulting to “it’s the click-to-load poster” — the fix (load the real player at its actual size and position without requiring interaction) is the same regardless of which cause applies, but confirming why saves you from fixing the wrong thing.

Live streams, embeds, and third-party hosting

Three situations that don’t fit the plain “one MP4 on my own server” case, and where troubleshooting order matters:

• Live streams. VideoObject supports a BroadcastEvent sub-property, set to true “if the video is, has been, or will be streamed live” — this is what enables a LIVE badge on eligible content. It’s an addition on top of the normal requirements, not a replacement for them: a live stream still needs an indexed watch page, a prominent player, and a thumbnail.
• Embedded and third-party-hosted video. Google’s structured-data docs recommend the contentUrl property “if possible” because it’s “the most effective way for Google to fetch your video content files”; embedUrl is the documented fallback when contentUrl isn’t available. Neither property disqualifies embeds or third-party hosts by name — but you don’t control a third-party player’s uptime, format, or fetchability the way you control assets on your own server, so treat “video not found on host service” or fetch failures on embedded/hosted video as something to verify with the host, not just retry on your end.
• Diagnose the page before the video. Before troubleshooting any video-specific issue on a live, embedded, or third-party-hosted video, confirm the page itself: is it indexed, is it the Google-selected canonical, is it blocked by robots.txt or noindex? Run it through URL Inspection first. A page that’s non-canonical or excluded will never reach the Video indexing report regardless of how correct the video markup is — chasing a video issue on a page that isn’t indexed wastes time on the wrong layer.

How VideoObject and video sitemaps help

Two discovery aids, neither of which forces indexing:

• VideoObject structured data. Its required properties are name, thumbnailUrl, and uploadDate — the thumbnailUrl being “a URL pointing to the video’s unique thumbnail image file.” Markup gives Google explicit, machine-readable metadata: the watch-page URL, the thumbnail, the title, the duration, and so on.
• A video sitemap. Google notes that “if you’re using a video sitemap, this URL is the value for the <loc> video sitemap tag.” A video sitemap is submitted in the Sitemaps report, and the Video indexing report can be filtered by sitemap.

Together they reduce discovery-related and “no thumbnail URL” issues, but eligibility still comes down to the watch-page + prominence + thumbnail requirements above. Don’t treat markup as a magic indexing switch.

Beyond indexing: key moments and rich results

Indexing is the gate; rich results are the payoff. Once a video is indexed, Google “tries to automatically detect the segments in your video and show key moments to users, without any effort on your part.” You can also be explicit with two markup options on the VideoObject:

• Clip — specify the exact start and end time for each segment, and the label to display for each.
• SeekToAction — tell Google where timestamps typically go in your URL structure, so it can automatically identify key moments.

This layer is what makes video carousels, key-moment chips, and rich thumbnails possible once you’re indexed — but being indexed and having valid markup still doesn’t guarantee any specific rich result, ranking, or traffic. Google is explicit elsewhere in its structured-data docs that it “does not guarantee that features that consume structured data will show up in search results.” Treat indexing as the gate you can control and rich results as an outcome you can improve the odds of, not one you can force.

The validation flow

Same pattern as the Page Indexing report: open the issue, read the affected examples, fix the cause, then click Validate Fix. Search Console rechecks a sample and then the full set, and the status moves to Passed or Failed. Google’s expectation-setter: “Validation typically takes up to about two weeks, but in some cases can take much longer.” Don’t keep re-clicking — fix the root cause once and let it run.

The myths worth killing

• “If my page is indexed, my video is automatically indexed.” No — the video has its own requirements (watch page, prominence, thumbnail).
• “VideoObject markup guarantees indexing.” It aids discovery and metadata; eligibility still depends on watch page + prominence + thumbnail.
• “Any page with a video qualifies.” Only watch pages — single-video primary content — are eligible.
• “A click-to-load poster is fine.” If the player isn’t present at load, Google can’t determine position and size and won’t index it.
• “The report shows all my videos.” It only covers videos on indexed pages.

For the broader context, this report is a sibling of the Page Indexing report and the Sitemaps report inside Search Console — the three together describe whether a page is indexed, whether its video is indexed, and how you’re feeding Google your URLs.

AI summary

A condensed take on the Advanced version:

• What it is: a Google Search Console report showing, for your indexed pages, how many contain a video Google found, how many of those videos Google indexed, and the issue reasons blocking the rest, as of Google’s last crawl (not a real-time inventory). It appears only once Google detects videos on the property.
• Downstream of Page Indexing: “the report covers only indexed pages” — a video can’t be indexed unless its page is indexed (non-canonical pages never appear). Diagnose page indexing and canonical status with URL Inspection before treating anything as a video-specific issue.
• Eligibility: watch page (single-video primary content, a judgment call Google makes on layout/content) + indexed page + prominent player that loads at its real size/position without a click + supported format + valid, reachable, stable-URL thumbnail.
• Prominence issues (since June 2023): three specific reasons — “Video outside the viewport,” “Video too small” (needs height > 140px, or width > 140px and ≥ 1/3 of page width), “Video too tall” (needs height < 1080px) — replaced the older single “could not determine the prominent video” reason. Click-to-load posters are a common cause worth testing, alongside lazy loading, JS-rendered carousels, and CSS that hides the player — test, don’t assume.
• Other issues: “Video isn’t on a watch page” and a family of thumbnail problems (no URL, unsupported format, invalid size, robots-blocked, transparent, unreachable), plus separate fetch failures on the video/player resource itself.
• Live/embedded/third-party video: BroadcastEvent marks a live stream; contentUrl is the preferred fetch property, embedUrl the fallback; you don’t control a third-party host’s uptime or format the way you control your own.
• Markup and sitemaps: VideoObject (name, thumbnailUrl, uploadDate) and a video sitemap aid discovery and metadata but don’t force indexing.
• No guarantee: an indexed video or valid markup does not guarantee a rich result, ranking, or traffic — Google says so explicitly for structured data.
• Fixing: correct the cause, then Validate Fix — revalidation runs up to about two weeks, sometimes longer.

Official documentation

Primary-source documentation from Google.

Google

• Video indexing report (Search Console Help) — what the report shows, the issue reasons, and the validation flow.
• Video SEO best practices — watch-page requirement, supported formats, thumbnail rules, and video sitemaps.
• VideoObject structured data — required properties, and the Clip / SeekToAction key-moments markup.
• Announcing the video indexing report (Jul 2022) — the report’s launch.
• Improving prominence reporting in the video indexing report (Jun 2023) — the prominence-issue reporting update.

Quotes from the source

On-the-record statements from Google’s documentation. Each link is a deep link that jumps to the quoted passage on the source page.

Google — what the report shows

• “The video indexing report shows how many videos on your site are eligible for video features on Google Search, and provides reasons why other videos on your site couldn’t be indexed.” — Search Console Help. Jump to quote
• “The report covers only indexed pages. If a page is not indexed for any reason (including being a non-canonical page) then it won’t appear in this report.” Jump to quote

Google — what a video needs

• “The video must be embedded on a watch page.” — Video SEO best practices. Jump to quote
• “A watch page’s main purpose is to show a user a single video; only videos that are on a watch page are eligible for indexing.” — Search Console Help. Jump to quote
• “The watch page must be indexed.” — Video SEO best practices. Jump to quote
• “Google can process the following video file types: 3GP, 3G2, ASF, AVI, DivX, M2V, M3U, M3U8, M4V, MKV, MOV, MP4, MPEG, OGV, QVT, RAM, RM, VOB, WebM, WMV, and XAP.” Jump to quote
• “A video must have a valid thumbnail image.” Jump to quote

Google — prominence issue reasons

• “We are breaking down the ‘Google could not determine the prominent video on the page’ reason into three more specific reasons” — Video outside the viewport, Video too small, Video too tall. — Google Search Central Blog, “Improving prominence reporting in the Search Console video indexing report” (June 2023). Source
• “Increase the height of the video so that it’s larger than 140px or the width of the video so that it’s larger than 140px and at least a third of the page’s width” (Video too small) / “Decrease the height of the video so that it’s smaller than 1080px” (Video too tall). — reported via Search Engine Land’s coverage of the same Google Search Central announcement; corroborated independently by Rank Math’s and Sitechecker’s practitioner guides. The exact wording on Google’s own help page could not be re-fetched directly this pass (see note below) — treat this as corroborated paraphrase, not a verbatim Google quote, until directly re-confirmed. Coverage
• “Google Search tries to automatically detect the segments in your video and show key moments to users, without any effort on your part.” — Video SEO best practices. Jump to quote
• “Google does not guarantee that features that consume structured data will show up in search results.” — VideoObject structured data, Troubleshooting. Source

Google — validation

• “Validation typically takes up to about two weeks, but in some cases can take much longer.” — Search Console Help. Jump to quote

Making a video indexable — checklist

A quick pass before you expect a video to show up in the report’s “indexed” bucket:

• The page is indexed and is Google’s selected canonical (confirm in Page Indexing or URL Inspection) — nothing on an unindexed or non-canonical page reaches the Video indexing report, and this check comes before any video-specific debugging.
• robots.txt and noindex aren’t excluding the page (or, separately, the thumbnail/video resource URLs).
• The video sits on a watch page whose main purpose is that single video, not a clip embedded inside a broader article — this is Google’s judgment on layout/content, not a box you tick.
• The real player loads at its actual size and position on page load, with no click-to-play poster overlay, lazy-loaded mount, JS-rendered carousel, or hiding CSS delaying it — test each hypothesis rather than assuming one.
• The video is the prominent element — inside the renderable area, visible on load, height > 140px (or width > 140px and ≥ ⅓ of page width), height < 1080px.
• The video file itself is fetchable and in a supported format (MP4, WebM, MOV, etc.) — check this separately from the thumbnail and the player.
• The thumbnail is fetchable separately: valid image format, at or above the documented minimum size, non-transparent, at a single stable unique URL, not blocked by robots.txt.
• For live streams, BroadcastEvent is set; for embedded/third-party-hosted video, contentUrl is provided where possible (embedUrl as fallback), and you’ve confirmed with the host if a fetch keeps failing.
• VideoObject structured data is present with name, thumbnailUrl, and uploadDate at minimum.
• A video sitemap is submitted in the Sitemaps report (helps discovery; lets you filter the Video indexing report by sitemap).
• After any fix, you’ve clicked Validate Fix and allowed up to ~two weeks for revalidation — remembering the report reflects Google’s last crawl, not your last deploy.

Issue reasons → cause → fix

The left column uses Google’s exact report strings.

Fast facts

• The report covers indexed pages only, reflecting Google’s last crawl — page indexing comes first, and counts aren’t a real-time inventory.
• Eligibility = watch page + indexed page + prominent loaded player + supported format + valid thumbnail. “Prominent” has meant three specific issue reasons since June 2023 (viewport / too small / too tall), not one catch-all.
• Diagnose the thumbnail fetch, player presence, and video file fetch as three separate checks — a failure in one doesn’t imply the others.
• Live streams need BroadcastEvent; embedded/third-party video should provide contentUrl (preferred) or embedUrl (fallback) — but you don’t control a third-party host’s fetchability.
• Validate Fix revalidation: up to ~two weeks, sometimes longer.
• Markup and sitemaps aid discovery, they don’t force indexing, and an indexed video never guarantees a rich result, ranking, or traffic.

The mental models

1. The dependency chain — page → video → features. A page must be indexed before its video can be indexed, and a video must be indexed before it’s eligible for key moments and video rich results. When a video is missing, locate which link broke: Is the page indexed? Is the video indexed? Is it just not getting rich results? Fix the earliest broken link first.

2. Watch page vs. supplementary video. Ask one question of every page with a video: is this video the page’s main purpose? If yes, it’s a watch page and a candidate for indexing. If the video is a nice-to-have inside an article, it generally won’t be the indexed video — and that’s working as intended, not a bug. This is a judgment call Google’s systems make about layout and content, not a fixed rule you can satisfy mechanically — treat any specific implementation advice as a heuristic for meeting the requirement, not the requirement itself.

3. “Loaded, prominent, real” for the player. For Google to index the video it has to find a real player that is loaded at page load, prominent (inside the renderable area, visible, sized within the 140px/⅓-width/1080px range), and real (an actual player, not a screenshot you click). Click-to-load posters can fail all three at once, but so can lazy loading, JS-rendered carousels, and hiding CSS — test the specific page rather than assuming the cause.

4. Markup informs; requirements decide. VideoObject and a video sitemap tell Google about the video — URL, thumbnail, metadata. They improve discovery and reduce thumbnail/discovery issues, but they don’t override the watch-page + prominence + thumbnail requirements. Treat markup as documentation, not a switch.

5. Fix the cause, then validate once. The report’s loop is: open issue → read examples → fix root cause → Validate Fix → wait. Re-clicking validation doesn’t speed anything up; a single correct fix and patience does.

Tools for video indexing

• Video indexing report (GSC) — the report itself: found vs. indexed counts and the issue reasons, filterable by sitemap.
• URL Inspection (GSC) — check how a single watch page was crawled, rendered, and indexed, and whether Google sees the video on it.
• Page Indexing report (GSC) — confirm the page is indexed first; the video report only covers indexed pages.
• Sitemaps report (GSC) — submit a video sitemap and use it to filter the Video indexing report.
• Rich Results Test / Schema Markup Validator — validate VideoObject structured data (name, thumbnailUrl, uploadDate, plus Clip / SeekToAction for key moments).
• A crawler / site audit — Ahrefs Site Audit or Screaming Frog to find watch pages, blocked thumbnail URLs, and unindexable pages at scale.

Video indexing mistakes to avoid

Putting a video on a page where it is secondary content

Why it fails: Google expects an eligible watch page to make one video the primary reason for visiting. A video buried below an article or surrounded by unrelated content may not qualify as a watch page.

Do instead: Give the video a dedicated, indexable watch page where the player is prominent and the surrounding title and description describe that video.

Loading only a poster until the user clicks

Why it fails: If the real player is absent at initial load, Google may report the video as outside the viewport or otherwise not prominent — though lazy loading, JS-rendered carousels, and hiding CSS can produce the same result, so confirm the actual cause rather than assuming it’s always the poster.

Do instead: Load the player at its intended dimensions without requiring user interaction, then confirm the rendered page exposes it.

Treating VideoObject markup as an indexing guarantee

Why it fails: Structured data supplies discovery and metadata, but it cannot make an unindexed page, secondary video, or inaccessible thumbnail eligible.

Do instead: Treat markup as one layer after page indexing, watch-page eligibility, player prominence, and media accessibility are correct.

Reusing an unstable or blocked thumbnail URL

Why it fails: A missing, transparent, robots-blocked, unsupported, or changing thumbnail prevents Google from reliably representing the video.

Do instead: Serve a valid thumbnail at a stable crawlable URL, keep it accessible, and use the same URL consistently in markup and feeds.

Expecting the report to include every page with a video

Why it fails: The Video indexing report covers videos found on indexed pages. An unindexed or non-canonical page is upstream of this report.

Do instead: Confirm the page in Page Indexing and URL Inspection first, then debug the video-specific reason.

Prove a video indexing fix worked

Test the watch page and player in rendered output

• Test to run: Use URL Inspection’s live test and inspect the rendered page after changing the player or page layout.
• Expected result: The indexable canonical page loads the real player at its intended size and position without requiring a click.
• Failure interpretation: Client-side loading, layout conditions, or template logic still hides the player from the initial rendered experience.
• Monitoring window: Immediate for the live rendered test; indexed data updates only after Google recrawls the page.
• Rollback trigger: Roll back if the new implementation removes the player, prevents playback, or makes the primary video less accessible to users or crawlers.

Test the thumbnail and video metadata

• Test to run: Fetch the thumbnail URL directly and run the watch page through the Rich Results Test or another structured-data validator.
• Expected result: The thumbnail is reachable at a stable URL and the VideoObject includes valid name, thumbnailUrl, and uploadDate values.
• Failure interpretation: An inaccessible asset, unsupported response, or invalid property is blocking discovery or rich-result metadata.
• Monitoring window: Immediate after deployment and cache refresh.
• Rollback trigger: Revert when the new asset pipeline produces broken or blocked thumbnails across otherwise valid watch pages.

Test Search Console validation

• Test to run: Open the issue in the Video indexing report and click Validate Fix only after representative live URLs pass.
• Expected result: Validation progresses to Passed and affected videos move toward indexed as Google revisits the pages.
• Failure interpretation: A sampled page still fails, another template variant was missed, or Google has not yet reprocessed the fix.
• Monitoring window: Allow up to about two weeks for validation and longer when Search Console still shows the process in progress.
• Rollback trigger: Roll back or hotfix if the change creates a new issue across previously indexed videos; do not roll back solely because report data lags.

Resources worth your time

My related writing

• The Beginner’s Guide to Technical SEO — where indexing fits in the bigger picture.

Official (best starting points)

• Video indexing report (Search Console Help) — the report, its issue reasons, and validation.
• Video SEO best practices — watch pages, formats, thumbnails, sitemaps.
• VideoObject structured data — markup and key-moments options.

From others

• r/TechSEO — the community for indexing/video debugging.
• Search Engine Roundtable — Google Search Console improves video indexing reporting (Jun 2023) — Barry Schwartz’s coverage of the June 2023 prominence-threshold update.
• Yoast — How to use the Video indexing report in Google Search Console — practical walkthrough of the report’s interface and common issue fixes.
• Vance Bell — Troubleshoot “Google could not determine the prominent video on the page” — deep troubleshooting guide for prominence issues (predates the June 2023 split into “Video outside the viewport” / “Video too small” / “Video too tall,” but the underlying causes it walks through still apply).

Videos

• Google Search Central (YouTube) — Martin Splitt’s video SEO and structured-data explainers cover watch pages, VideoObject, and getting videos eligible for video features. Channel

Test yourself: Video indexing report

Five quick questions on page eligibility, player visibility, thumbnails, and validation. Pick an answer for each, then check your result.

Video indexing report

A Google Search Console report showing how many of your indexed pages contain a video Google found, how many of those videos Google actually indexed, and the reasons blocking the rest. It only covers indexed pages and only appears once Google detects videos on the property.

Related: Google Search Console, Index Coverage Report, Sitemaps report

Video indexing report

The Video indexing report in Google Search Console shows how many videos on your site are eligible for video features in Google Search, and the reasons why others couldn’t be indexed. It lives in the indexing section of the left navigation, but only appears once Google has detected videos on the property.

It is downstream of the Page Indexing report: the report covers only indexed pages, so if a page isn’t indexed for any reason — including being a non-canonical duplicate — it never reaches this report. A video can only be indexed if its page is indexed first.

For a video to be indexed, it should be on a dedicated watch page (a page whose main purpose is showing a single video), be the prominent element loaded at its actual size and position without user interaction, use a supported file format, and have a valid, reachable thumbnail. The report enumerates the specific issue reasons blocking indexing — from “Video isn’t on a watch page” to a range of thumbnail problems — and you resolve them with the Validate fix flow.

Related: Google Search Console, Index Coverage Report, Sitemaps report

Changelog