HTTPS in Rel Canonical
-
Hi,
Should I, or do I need to, use HTTPS (note the "S") in my canonical tags?
Thanks
Andrew
-
Thanks Alan all done so far so good thanks for your help
-
Yeah, definitely agree - the how/why of using https in general is a much broader and more difficult question.
You said the first link was http (not secure), but it looks like it redirects to a secure page? I'm not seeing any crawl issues, although I wonder if the combination of a footer link and the page looking like a lead-gen page is causing Google to ignore it. Honestly, though, it feels more like a technical issue. I'm not seeing any red flags, though.
-
in iis cp find the folder secure, slect ssl settings from the mail window, and tick "require https", they will now be forced to use https for that folder.
Next if you haven't already, using web platform installer, install url rewrite in IIS, best grab SEO toolkit while you are there. Restart IIS cp after install
Select the site then go to url rewrite,
click add rule
Select blank rule
fill in as per screen shots here
http://screencast.com/t/6qUxduZ7UxWz
http://screencast.com/t/cvivbdFsm
If any problems get back to me. I did this without testing.
If you installed seo toolkit also, you will see there are some ready built rules at bottom, see tutorials here if needed.http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials
Note with the rule remove append trailing slash, I always select remove as when people type out your url they never put a slash on the end.
When your done select the site again and have a play with the SEO toolkit, do a scan on your site.
let me know how you went
-
-
-
Hi Alan,
Thanks, we are using IIS, could you please explain how to do this further please. Do you think this maybe the cause of google not seeing and indexing HTTPS page?
Thanks
Andrew
-
In Microsoft IIS server you can require uses use https on a folder basis, you seem to want to force to not use https, this can be done by writing a urlrewrite rule.
If your site does not use https at all, then just remove the binging for SSL. If you have some https pages and some without then you need to do the above.
If you are using a lynix type server then you will have to look it up, if you are using
IIS I can show you how to do this. -
Hi
Thank you both for your responses. Alan your point is very interesting. The main reason for asking the question is because we are desperately trying to find a solution to why our HTTPS page is not being indexed by google 6 weeks after going live. There are 2 other SEOMoz posts by us that have not been able to answer this "Mystery"
www.seomoz.org/q/why-isn-t-google-indexing-our-site
www.seomoz.org/q/why-is-our-page-will-not-being-found-by-google
The HTTPS page in question HTTPS://www.invoicestudio.com/Secure/invoiceTemplate is in fact references via a link at the bottom of HTTP://www.invoicestudio.com (note no "S").
Alan could you please explain your answer further as I do not fully understand what you are saying but it sounds like the HTTP link to HTTPS maybe causing the issue and would like to explore further to solve this long standing issue that is very important to us.
Thanks
Andrew.
-
Dr Pete as usual is correct here, but I would ask a further question, is your page accessed from both http and https? if so I would make the page "https required" so it is not, and use a 301 if you all ready have links to http.
I work on Microsoft IIS servers this is very easy to do, not sure how you do it on lynix
-
If the canonical version of your URLs is secure (HTTPS), then yes - you should use absolute paths with "https://" in the them for your canonical tags.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google ignoring Canonical and choosing its own
Hey Mozzers, We have several products that all have upto 6 different versions, they are the same product but in a different specification. As users search via these specifications (within our website) it is beneficial to keep all 6 products as different listings on the website. In google however it is not. So we kept all 6 listing but chose 1 to be the google landing page, the only different between them all is the technical specification + occasionally size. But 95% of the pages are the same. Let call the products A, B, C, D, E, F, we made all the canonicals point to C because this is out best selling version of the product. However, google has chosen E to rank instead. What is my best move here? Should i accept the page google has chosen and change the canonicals the point to that version or should I be stubborn and try to get google to change which version it ranks. As always many thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATP0 -
Strange Cross Domain Canonical Issue...
We have 2 identical ecommerce sites. Using 301 is not an option since both are major brands. We've been testing cross domain canonicals for about 2 dozen products, which were pretty successful. Our rankings generally increased. Then things got weird. For the most part, canonicaled pages appeared to have passed link juice since the rankings significantly improved on the other site. The clean URLs (www.domain.com/product-name/sku.cfm) disappeared from the rankings, as they are supposed to, but some were replaced by urls with parameters that Google had indexed (apparently duplicate content). ex: (www.domain.com/product-name/sku.cfm?clicksource?3diaftv). The parametered URLs have the correct canonical tags. In order to try and remove these from Google's index, we: 1. Had the pages fetched in GWT assuming that Google hadn't detected the canonical tage. 2. After we discovered a few hundred of these pages indexed on both sites, we built sitemaps of the offending pages and had the sitemaps fetched. If anyone has any other ideas, please share.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Canonical and Rel=next/prev Implementation
Hi, I have an ecommerce site that allows users to view numerous pages and sort by a number of options on categories. I've read numerous posts around my issue but am still a little confused on what is best practice with regards to the canonical tag and rel=next and prev. Below is an example of the various page/sort by URL's: Paginated URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?p=3 Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price Paginated & Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price&p=3 It is not viable for us to use a canonical tag to the view all page as some of the categories contain a large number of products and therefore would not have the best load speeds. Is it best to use the below structure when it comes to the canonical tag and rel=next and prev? Paginated URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?p=3 Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price Paginated & Sort by URL: http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price&p=3 http://www.example.co.uk/category/subcategory.html?dir=desc&order=price&p=2" /> Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GrappleAgency0 -
Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0 -
Canonical tag
Hi all, I have an ecommerce client and on the pages they have a drop down so customers can view via price, list etc. Natrurally I want a canonical tag on these pages, here's the question. as they have different pages of products, the canonical tag on http://www.thegreatgiftcompany.com/occassion/christmas#items-/occassion/christmas/page=7/?sort=price_asc,searchterm=,layout=grid,page=1 is to http://www.thegreatgiftcompany.com/occassion/christmas#items-/occassion/christmas/page=7. now, because the page=7 is a duplicate of the main page, shouldn't the canonical just be to the main page rather than page=7? Even when there is a canonical tag on the /Christmas/page=7 to the /Christmas page? hope that makes sense to everyone!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KarlBantleman0 -
Large site rel=can or no-index?
Hi, A large site with tens of thousands of pages, but lots of the pages are very similar. The site is about training courses, and the url structure is something like: training-course/date/time I only really want the search engines to index the actual training course pages, which is the better option for me and why?: a) rel=canonical b) noindex, nofollow Thanks, Gary.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cottamg0 -
Rel=alternate to help localize sites
I am wondering about the efficiency of the rel=alternate tag and how well it works at specifically localizing content. Example: I have a website on a few ccTLD's but for some reason my .com shows up on Google.co.uk before my .co.uk version of my page. Some people have mentioned using rel=alternate but in my research this only seems to be applicable for duplicate content in another language. If I am wrong here can somebody please help me better understand this application of the rel=alternate tag. All my research leads me to rel=alternate hreflang= and I am not sure that is what I want. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
Chris Birkholm0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0