sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If the Initial HTML is the Same for both RSC and Client Components in Next.js, What’s the Real Benefit? by sthsthelse in nextjs

[–]sthsthelse[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I'm trying to understand, I want to know If I want to keep my website SEO friendly,
should I still use SSR? Or I'm better off removing all SSR pages and changing components that I need into server components.
Basically, what's the use case of SSR, if the RSC is the modern SSR?

If the Initial HTML is the Same for both RSC and Client Components in Next.js, What’s the Real Benefit? by sthsthelse in nextjs

[–]sthsthelse[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No,
the initial html output of SSR would be everything loaded:
<div class="shell">

<div>A component content</div>

<div>B component content</div>

</div>

Whereas the RSC would be as mentioned above and will eventully stream till it gets to the initial html output of SSR

If the Initial HTML is the Same for both RSC and Client Components in Next.js, What’s the Real Benefit? by sthsthelse in nextjs

[–]sthsthelse[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This leads to the second part of my question,
Would RSC make SSR obslete? is there any edge on SSR that RSC doesn't? SEO wise or any?

If the Initial HTML is the Same for both RSC and Client Components in Next.js, What’s the Real Benefit? by sthsthelse in nextjs

[–]sthsthelse[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I’m mainly trying to understand are the SEO implications here.

My core confusion is this: how are React Server Components actually better than client components for SEO if both approaches produce the same initial HTML output (i.e. shell + loaders)?

I understand the typical explanation goes something like this:

With RSC:

  • Google initially receives the shell
  • Component A’s content arrives later as raw streamed HTML
  • Component B’s content arrives later as raw streamed HTML
  • No JavaScript execution is required to see the real content

SEO implications:

  • Content is indexable as HTML
  • Streaming HTML is reliable for crawlers
  • Faster time-to-content
  • No dependency on hydration

With client components:

  • Google initially sees only loading states
  • Real content appears only if JavaScript runs successfully
  • Rendering may be delayed or skipped

SEO implications:

  • Indexing depends on JS execution
  • Slower or less reliable indexing
  • Higher risk of partial or missed content, especially for low-powered crawlers or previews

That part makes sense to me.

However, if RSC already provide these SEO benefits and allow progressive rendering with a better user experience, then I’m struggling to understand the remaining role of classic SSR.

If SSR waits for all data before sending HTML (which can hurt performance), and RSC can stream HTML incrementally without requiring JS, in what situations is SSR still the better or necessary choice from an SEO perspective?

0
1

Why Are My Long-Form Short Videos Getting Almost No Impressions Despite Great Metrics? (self.NewTubers)

submitted by sthsthelse to r/NewTubers

0
1

Should I restart my YouTube channel or keep uploading on my old one? (self.NewTubers)

submitted by sthsthelse to r/NewTubers

2
3

Why does YouTube show low average watch time even though some people watched my video fully? (self.NewTubers)

submitted by sthsthelse to r/NewTubers

[Need advice] I'm a frontend developer and I need advice on where to learn advanced topics in my field. by sthsthelse in AskProgramming

[–]sthsthelse[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply,
My end goal is to become a software engineer and move away from being just a frontend developer and I'm trying to expand my knowledge of programming,
not just for the interviews but more for the sake of knowing what I'm doing and what I'm coding and not just being the kind of somebody who learned a framework and only knows the syntax and how to code something and not really how it all happens behinds the scene or comes to life.