What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Building more than 175 browser-only tools with Next.js was the easy part. Getting their pages into Google Search was not. In a September 30, 2026 account, PlainToolbox developer Ajay Kanani says Google briefly indexed several tools, then dropped nearly all of them; at publication, he reported that the homepage was indexed while most tool pages showed “Crawled, currently not indexed” in Search Console. That is Kanani’s site-specific report, not an independently verified status or a diagnosis from Google.
How PlainToolbox’s tools were built
Kanani describes PlainToolbox as a collection of more than 175 free calculators, converters, text utilities, and generators. The tools run in visitors’ browsers, without a backend or signup. The count and architecture are the author’s descriptions of his own project, not independently audited facts.
One configuration definition, reused across the site
In Kanani’s account, each tool is defined by a configuration object containing its inputs, logic, and FAQs. A shared engine uses that definition to generate the tool page, JSON-LD schema, sitemap entry, and llms.txt content. The approach aims to make each tool a variation on a common implementation rather than a wholly separate page and code path.
Give the page a result, not just an empty form
Kanani says each server-rendered page included a default example result, so a visitor or crawler would encounter a worked answer as well as an interactive form. He also describes tool logic as pure functions that could be checked against expected outputs, including for business-day calculations. These are reported implementation choices; the architecture and its effect on indexing have not been independently verified.
#1 Best Overall
Next.js’s App Router caching guide explains framework behavior, but it does not verify PlainToolbox’s implementation or show that rendering a sample result changes search visibility. A page can be technically rendered and crawlable without being selected for indexing.
What happened in Google Search, according to the author
Kanani says Google initially indexed several tool pages and later dropped nearly all of them. At the time of his article, he reported that only the homepage was indexed and that Search Console classified most tool URLs as “Crawled, currently not indexed.” The account is based on the author’s report: the Search Console records and site crawl were not independently available to confirm it.
Rank #2
“Crawled, currently not indexed” describes a reported Search Console status, not a public explanation of why Google did not include those pages in results. The available account does not establish that Next.js, client-side interactivity, a sitemap, or any single content choice caused the outcome.
Changes Kanani tried—and what they do not prove
Kanani describes several adjustments to the site. His article gives their rationale, but no controlled comparison or quantified results for each one. It therefore does not show that any particular change improved indexing.
Recommended Free Tools
- Remove commodity pages from search: He says he noindexed generic tools such as an RGB-to-HEX converter. This reflects a choice to avoid pursuing pages he considered undifferentiated, not proof that noindexing those pages helped other tools.
- Answer a query plainly: He added a short “Quick answers” block shaped around search phrasing, using “how long is 5 business days?” as an example. The phrase illustrates wording, not measured search volume or performance.
- Use review dates honestly: He displayed a “Last reviewed” date only when a page had actually been reviewed, rather than automatically making every page look current.
- Organize sitemap URLs by section: He split the sitemap by site section. The article does not show that this changed Google’s indexing decisions.
- Build for a query he found in search data: He added a tool to address a query his own data surfaced. No query volume or resulting indexing outcome is supplied.
What Google’s guidance can—and cannot—explain
Google’s people-first content guidance says its automated systems aim to prioritize helpful, reliable information created to benefit people. Its self-assessment questions include whether a page offers original information or analysis, substantial value, first-hand expertise, and usefulness to an intended audience. Google also recognizes interactive features such as calculators as possible main content.
That guidance is useful context for evaluating utility pages: an interactive tool can be the main offering, but the existence of a tool alone does not answer whether a page provides distinctive value to its intended users. It does not explain why PlainToolbox pages were or were not indexed. Google’s guidance is general; Kanani’s indexing account is specific to his project.
Google’s crawler overview describes multiple crawlers and fetchers, distributed infrastructure, and Googlebot’s ability to crawl over HTTP/2. It also says HTTP/2 does not itself provide a Google Search ranking boost. Nothing in Kanani’s account links his reported indexing outcome to a protocol choice, so it would be unwarranted to do so.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The practical lesson: build useful pages, not just more pages
Kanani’s conclusion from PlainToolbox is that technical SEO can make a page eligible to appear, but cannot ensure that it will be indexed or rank. In his words, “Technical SEO makes you eligible, but it does not make you rank.” That is the developer’s assessment of his own experience, not a Google statement.
He says backlinks and genuine mentions mattered more to his project than adding another hundred pages, while acknowledging that he was still early in that effort. The article supplies no controlled evidence that backlinks caused a change, or a measurement that would establish how much they mattered. The useful distinction is between implementation and value: reusable code can make it easier to publish tools, but each page still has to serve a distinct need. Choosing focused, differentiated tools over a larger set of commodity pages is a product decision Kanani discusses, not a proven ranking formula.
Kanani also reports that his first traceable visits came from an AI assistant. He provides neither a traffic count nor an attribution method, so this is an observation about his own early traffic—not evidence of a wider AI-referral trend.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
