Dealing with non-canonical http vs https?
-
We're working on a complete rebuild of a client's site. The existing version of the site is in WordPress and I've noticed that the site is accessible via http and https. The new version of the site will have mostly or entirely different URLs.
It seems that both http and https versions of a page will resolve, but all of the rel-canonical tags I've seen point to the https version.
Sometimes image tags and stylesheets are https, sometimes they aren't.
There are both http and https pages in Google's index.
Having looked at other community posts about http/https, I've gathered the following:
- http/https is like two different domains.
- http and https versions need to be verified in Google Webmaster Tools separately. Set up the preferred domain properly.
- Rel-canonicals and internal links should have matching protocols.
My thought is that we will do a .htaccess that redirects old URLs regardless of the protocol to new pages at one protocol. I would probably let the .css and image files from the current site 404.
When we develop and launch the new site, does it make sense for everything to be forced to https? Are there any particular SEO issues that I should be aware of for a scenario like this?
Thanks!
-
Thank you Michael.
-
You're on the right track. Force it all to https, and keep the rel=canonical pointing to https versions.
Check out this thread of questions to Google's John Mueller on this topic:
Make sure you test very thoroughly before launching the https-only version: you'll run into issues with things like images, CSS, Jscript referenced via http instead of relative or protocol-free referencing. Same goes for your internal links: you don't want to throw away a ton of link juice (even if only 5% at a time) because of 301 redirects from http to https that you could have fixed :-).
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
-
How to Evaluate Original Domain Authority vs. Recent 'HTTPS' Duplicate for Potential Domain Migration?
Hello Everyone, So our site has used ‘http’ for the domain since the start. Everything has been set up for this structure and Google is only indexing these pages. Just recently a second version was created on ‘httpS’. We know having both up is the worst case scenario but now that both are up is it worth just switching over or would the original domain authority warrant just keeping it on ‘http’ and redirecting the ‘httpS’ version? Assuming speed and other elements wouldn’t be an issue and it's done correctly. Our thought was if we could do this quickly it would be easier to just redirect the ‘httpS’ version but was not sure if the Pros of ‘httpS’ would be worth the resources. Any help or insight would be appreciated. Please let us know if there are any further details we could provide that might help. Looking forward to hearing from all of you! Thank you in advance for the help. Best,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ben-R1 -
Switching site from non-www to www
Howdy folks, I've got a website that is roughly 3 months old. I created it as a naked URL as I often prefer the look but I've noticed that a lot of my competition has www and also some of my clients seem to prefer it as well. I feel like switching it to www will be of long-term benefit for my site. The problem is that I currently have several pages with first page rankings and a backlinks. I am wondering what the negative effects of switching it to www would be, and how I can minimize any issues. I am guessing I should do a redirect, and I have access to some of the backlinks so I can change those as well, but is there anything else? Thoughts? I appreciate the feedback!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jameswesleyhunt1 -
Description vs meta description
I have an e-commerce website and am trying to create product category pages. I am under the impression that Description is the text that would appear under the title on a google search and I believe the meta description is just what google reads? Is having BOTH important or just description? Is it ok to duplicate the description for the meta description? I know its not good to duplicate descriptions on other products and pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchachula0 -
Affiliate & canonicals
Hi, any help with this one would be great.... www.example.com sells widgets online. They are also promoted on a 3rd party website www.partner.com. Currently www.partner.com links to a page on www.example.com that is completely branded with the 'partners' design, style and unique copy (you would think you were still on 'partner' website). I saw this interesting article from 2011: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/getting-seo-value-from-your-affiliate-links (in particular idea 1) Do you think adding a rel=canonical on www.example.com's partner page is still safe? All the best & thank you, Richard
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Richard5550 -
Local results vs Normal results
Hi everyone, I am currently working on the website of a friend, who's owning a French spa treatment company. I have been working on it for the past 6 months, mostly on optimizing the page titles and the link building. So far the results are great in terms on normal results : if you type most of the keywords and the city name, the website would be very well positioned, if not top positioned. My only problem is that in the local results (Google Maps), nothing has improved at all. In most of the same keyword where the website is ranking 1st on normal results, the website doesn't appear at all on the same keywords in local results. This is confusing as you would think Google think the website is relevant to the subject according to the normal results but it doesn't show any good ones in a local matter. The website is clearly located in the city (thanks to the pages titles and there's a Google Map in a specific page dedicated to its location). The company has a Google Places page and it has positive customers reviews on different trusted websites for more than a year now (the website is 2 years old). I focused my work concerning the link building on the local websites (directories and specialized websites) for the past 2 months. The results kept improving on normal results but still no improvement at all in the local ones. As far as I know, there is no mistakes such as multiple addresses for the same business etc. Everything seems to be done by the rules. I am not sure at all what more I can do. The competitors do not seem to be working their SEO pretty much and in terms of linking (according to the -pretty good- Seomoz tools), they have up to 10 times less (good) links than us. Maybe you guys have some advice on how I can manage this situation ? I'm kind of lost here 😞 Thanks a lot for your help, appreciate it. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Pureshore
Raphael0 -
Blocking HTTP 1.0?
One of my clients believes someone is trying to hack their site. We are seeing the requests with a server protocol or HTTP 1.0 so they want to block 1.0 entirely. Will this cause any problems with search engines or regular, non-spamming visitors?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BryanPhelps-BigLeapWeb0 -
Cross-Domain Canonical and duplicate content
Hi Mozfans! I'm working on seo for one of my new clients and it's a job site (i call the site: Site A).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
The thing is that the client has about 3 sites with the same Jobs on it. I'm pointing a duplicate content problem, only the thing is the jobs on the other sites must stay there. So the client doesn't want to remove them. There is a other (non ranking) reason why. Can i solve the duplicate content problem with a cross-domain canonical?
The client wants to rank well with the site i'm working on (Site A). Thanks! Rand did a whiteboard friday about Cross-Domain Canonical
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1