hreflang vs the old translate/notranslate signals: what still applies

hreflang vs the old translate/notranslate signals: what still applies

Several language signals predate or sit beside hreflang, and teams sometimes deploy them expecting hreflang-like behavior. They do different jobs.

The comparison:

— hreflang governs which URL serves which language-region in search results. It is the only one of these that affects which page ranks where.
— The 'notranslate' meta tag (and class) tells Chrome and Google Translate not to offer translation of a page. It has no ranking or hreflang function whatsoever; it is purely a translate-UI suppressor.
— Content-Language HTTP header / meta is largely vestigial for Google ranking. Google has said it does not use it for hreflang purposes, though some other systems still read it.

What the data suggests:

— Relying on Content-Language as a geo or language ranking signal is a dead end; hreflang superseded it for Google.
— notranslate is occasionally useful (e.g. a page that is intentionally untranslatable, like a brand glossary) but is unrelated to international SEO architecture.

Our read: hreflang is the load-bearing signal; the others are UI hints or legacy. Do not substitute them for proper hreflang. Caveat — non-Google search engines (Yandex, Baidu) weight these differently, so a multi-engine strategy may still set Content-Language deliberately.