Google is testing yet another variation of expandable sitelinks in search ads. In this format, sitelinks are collapsed by default. Users see a small indicator showing how many additional links are available, and must actively click to expand them. It is the latest in a series of sitelink format experiments Google has been running, and it is worth paying attention to - not just as a UI curiosity, but because it changes the conditions under which your sitelinks actually get seen.
What the Collapsed Format Actually Changes
In a standard sitelink presentation, multiple links are visible at a glance below the main ad copy. Users can assess them passively without any deliberate action. In the collapsed format, that passive exposure disappears. Sitelinks only become visible if the user decides to expand them, which introduces a meaningful layer of friction.
That shift matters because sitelinks have historically worked partly through incidental visibility. A user scanning a search result page may notice a sitelink that catches their eye - even if it was not what they searched for - and follow it. Remove that passive exposure and you rely entirely on the user's curiosity about what is hidden behind a count indicator. That is a different behavioural dynamic entirely.
We do not yet know what click behaviour looks like in this format. Google has not published performance data from the test. But the structural implication is clear: if sitelinks are collapsed, the ones visible at the top of the expanded list carry disproportionately more weight than those buried further down.
Sitelink Order Becomes More Consequential
Most advertisers treat sitelink ordering as a secondary consideration. Google serves sitelinks dynamically based on its own relevance signals, so there is limited direct control over which appear and in what order. But in a collapsed format, the first one or two sitelinks visible when a user expands the list will receive the majority of attention. If Google surfaces weaker or less commercially relevant links at the top, you lose the benefit entirely.
This makes the quality and specificity of every sitelink more important, not just the ones you consider your priority. Google's selection algorithm considers historical performance, relevance to the query, and the landing page content behind each link. Sitelinks with thin destination pages, vague headlines, or low engagement history are more likely to be deprioritised - or worse, served first because the algorithm is still learning.
The practical response is to audit your sitelinks with this kind of format in mind. Are the landing pages behind each sitelink genuinely useful and closely matched to the link copy? Are the headlines specific enough to justify a deliberate click from someone who has already chosen to expand? Vague sitelinks like "About Us" or "Our Services" look weak in any format - in a collapsed one, they actively waste position.
Fewer, Stronger Sitelinks Versus More Coverage
There is a common instinct in account management to populate as many sitelinks as possible on the basis that more assets give the algorithm more to work with. That logic still holds in principle - but the collapsed format adds nuance. If sitelinks are hidden behind a click, quantity matters less than the quality of what a user encounters when they bother to look.
For lead generation accounts in particular, every sitelink should be doing a specific job. A contact page link, a specific service page, a case study or results page, a free consultation offer - each of these has a clear commercial intent behind it. A generic blog link or a company history page does not. In a format that requires user intent to engage, sitelinks with weak commercial relevance become noise.
This is a reasonable moment to revisit the sitelink audit process. Pull performance data from your current sitelink assets and look at which links are generating clicks and which are being ignored. In a standard format, a low-performing sitelink is a missed opportunity. In a collapsed format, it could be the one taking position from a better option.
How This Fits Into Broader Asset Strategy
Google has been testing expandable and collapsible sitelink formats on and off for some time. This particular variation - collapsed by default with a count indicator - is one of several UI experiments running simultaneously. Not all tests become permanent features, and rollout is never uniform. Some accounts will see it, others will not, and it may appear more frequently on mobile where screen space is constrained.
What these repeated format experiments signal collectively is that Google is actively rethinking how ad assets are presented rather than treating the current layout as fixed. That should inform how you build and maintain your asset library. Assets written for passive scanning may perform differently when they require active expansion to be seen. Copy that relies on the user reading several options in parallel loses that advantage in a collapsed UI.
It also reinforces why tracking sitelink-level performance in Google Ads is worth doing consistently, not just at campaign review time. If a format change affects which sitelinks get surfaced and in what order, you want baseline data to compare against. Without it, you cannot tell whether a change in click behaviour is driven by a format test, a seasonal shift, or something in your account structure.
What to Do Now
You cannot opt into or out of a format test like this. If Google decides to serve the collapsed variant on your ads, it will. What you can control is the quality of what users see when they expand. Start by reviewing your sitelink headlines - are they specific, action-oriented, and clearly differentiated from your main headline? If a user has committed the additional step of expanding the list, the copy needs to justify that.
Check the destination pages behind your sitelinks. A sitelink that points to a page with a high bounce rate or low conversion rate is not a strong asset regardless of the format serving it. If the page experience is weak, the click is wasted. For lead gen advertisers, each sitelink destination should have a clear conversion path - a form, a call option, or a specific offer - not just information.
Finally, keep an eye on your search ad asset reports over the coming weeks. If you start seeing a drop in sitelink impressions or a change in the ratio of sitelink clicks to total ad clicks, a format change may be part of the explanation. Segment by device to check whether mobile is behaving differently from desktop - format tests frequently surface on mobile first. That data will not tell you everything, but it will tell you whether something has shifted.