Google indexing https sites by default now, where's the Moz blog about it!
-
Hello and good morning / happy Friday!
Last night an article from of all places " Venture Beat " titled " Google Search starts indexing and letting users stream Android apps without matching web content " was sent to me, as I read this I got a bit giddy. Since we had just implemented a full sitewide https cert rather than a cart only ssl.
I then quickly searched for other sources to see if this was indeed true, and the writing on the walls seems to indicate so.
Google - Google Webmaster Blog! - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.in/2015/12/indexing-https-pages-by-default.html
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-to-prioritize-the-indexing-of-https-pages/147179/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-indexing-https-by-default,30781.html
https://hacked.com/google-will-begin-indexing-httpsencrypted-pages-default/
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-app-indexing-documentation-updated-21345.html
I found it a bit ironic to read about this on mostly unsecured sites.
I wanted to hear about the 8 keypoint rules that google will factor in when ranking / indexing https pages from now on, and see what you all felt about this.
Google will now begin to index HTTPS equivalents of HTTP web pages, even when the former don’t have any links to them. However, Google will only index an HTTPS URL if it follows these conditions:
- It doesn’t contain insecure dependencies.
- It isn’t blocked from crawling by robots.txt.
- It doesn’t redirect users to or through an insecure HTTP page.
- It doesn’t have a rel="canonical" link to the HTTP page.
- It doesn’t contain a noindex robots meta tag.
- It doesn’t have on-host outlinks to HTTP URLs.
- The sitemaps lists the HTTPS URL, or doesn’t list the HTTP version of the URL.
- The server has a valid TLS certificate.
One rule that confuses me a bit is :
- **It doesn’t redirect users to or through an insecure HTTP page. **
Does this mean if you just moved over to https from http your site won't pick up the https boost? Since most sites in general have http redirects to https?
Thank you!
-
Can you please make a concrete example of a key-word for that you do not rank nicely. Please also specify the thing which in your opinion need to appear nicely inside the serch and the object for the blog of nextgenapk .
-
Thanks for your response, Peter! As I said, I could be totally wrong - glad I asked this question
Cheers!
-
-
_"Or you can leave but change their links to pass some URL shortener - bit.ly or t.co until they comes with HTTPS version." _
looking at it from technical standpoint, these shortners are also not https (when crawling. Would they not have the same effect as other non https links?
Sorry, I could be going totally wrong about this and this question doesnt make sense at all.
-
Touche, good sir, these are certainly some great ways to go about this. Especially number 3.
Thanks!
Wonder how long we got until http2 implementation...
-
Or you can leave but change their links to pass some URL shortener - bit.ly or t.co until they comes with HTTPS version.
Or you can also make some page as "partners" where you can link only HTTP external sites.
Or you can also make internal page redirector to HTTP site. Like HTTPS -> HTTPS (inside redirector and dummy page) -> HTTP. On this case redirector won't be indexed and that's why it's dummy.
And this is just three ideas that i think for one minute. Probably mine favorite is #3. But it's IMHO.
-
So if my manufacturers don't have https sites, I should remove the links to them since it's going to hinder indexing?
Thanks for the http redirecting to https response.
-
Some sites comes with redirectors or "beacons" for detecting user presence. Example i'm on site X page A and there i click on link to go on page B. But due marketing department this pass via HTTP redirector or pure HTTP (and there 301 redirect to HTTPS). Then this page B can be not indexed.
This mean that once you set sitewide 301 redirect to encrypted connection you must make few more steps:
- you must check all resources to pass via this encrypted channel. Images, CSS, JS - just anything.
- you must check canonical to be set to HTTPS
- you must check that link between pages to be also HTTPS
- you must see any 3rd party tools for encrypted connection. Can be analytics software or "tracking pixels" or heat maps or ads.
- you must check if outgoing links from your site can be via other sites with encryption. Can be Wikipedia, Moz, Google. Since everything there is already encrypted you will skip frustrating HTTPS -> HTTP -> HTTPS jump too.
So then your site can be indexed in HTTPS. It's tricky procedure with many traps.
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
-
Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?
So I just had this thought, Google returns information boxes for certain search terms. Recently I noticed one word searches usually return a definition. For example if you type in the word "occur" or "happenstance" or "frustration" you get a definition information box. But what I didn't see is a reference to where they are getting or have gotten this information. Now it could very well be they built their own database of definitions, and if they did great, but here is where it seems a bit grey to me... Did Google hire a team of people to populate the database, or did they just write an algorithm to comb a dictionary website and stick the information in their database. The latter seems more likely. If that is what happened then Google basically stole the information from somebody to claim it as their own, which makes me worry, if you coin a term, lets say "lumpy stumpy" and it goes mainstream which would entail a lot of marketing, and luck. Would Google just add it to its database and forgo giving you credit for its creation? From a user perspective I love these information boxes, but just like Google expects us webmasters to do, they should be giving credit where credit is due... don't you think? I'm not plugged in to the happenings of Google so maybe they bought the rights, or maybe they bought or hold a majority of shares in some definition type company (they have the cash) but it just struck me as odd not seeing a reference to a site. What are your thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | donford1 -
Google Index
Hi all, I just submit my url and linked pages along with xml map to index. How long does it take google to index my new pages?
Algorithm Updates | | businessowner0 -
Who's doing canonical tags right, The Gap or Kohls?
Hi Moz, I'm working on an ecommerce site with categories, filter options, and sort options – teacherexpress.scholastic.com. Should I have canonical tags from all filter and sort options point to the category page like gap.com and llbean.com? or have all sort options point to the filtered page URL like kohls.com? I was under the impression that to use a canonical tag, the pages have to have the same content, meaning that Gap and L.L. Bean would be using canonical tags incorrectly. Using a filter changes the content, whereas using a sort option just changes the order. What would be the best way to deal with duplicate content for this site? Thanks for reading!
Algorithm Updates | | DA20130 -
Google has indexed a lot of test pages/junk from the development days.
With hind site I understand that this could have been avoided if robots.txt was configured properly. My website is www.clearvisas.com, and is indexed with both the www subdomain and with out. When I run site:clearvisas.com in Google I get 1,330 - All junk from the development days. But when I run site:www.clearvisas.com in Google I get 66 - these results all post development and more in line with what I wanted to be indexed. Will 1,330 junk pages hurt my seo? Is it possible to de-index them and should I? If the answer is yes to any of the questions how should I proceed? Kind regards, Fuad
Algorithm Updates | | Fuad_YK0 -
Google site links on sub pages
Hi all Had a look for info on this one but couldn't find much. I know these days that if you have a decent domain good will often automatically put site links on for your home if someone searches for your company name, however has anyone seen these links appear for sub pages? For example, lets say I had a .com domain with /en /fr /de sub folders, each seoed for their location. If I were to then have domain.com/en/ as no1 in Google for my company in the UK would I be able to get site links under this or does it only work on the 'proper' homepage domain.com/ A client of mine wants to reorganise their website so they have different location sections ranking in different markets but they also want to keep having sitewide links as they like the look of it Thanks Carl
Algorithm Updates | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
Does google have the worst site usability?
Google tells us to make our sites better for our readers, which we are doing, but do you think google has horrible site usabilty? For example, in webmaster tools, I'm always being confused by their changes and the way they just drop things. In the HTML suggestions area, they don't tell you when the data was last updated, so the only way to tell is to download the files and check. In the URL removals, they used to show you the URLs they had removed. Now that is gone and the only way you can check is to try adding one. We don't have any URL parameters, so any parameters are as a result of some other site tacking on stuff at the end of our URL and there is no way to tell them that we don't have any parameters, so ignore them all. Also, they add new parameters they find on the end of the list, so the only way to check is to click through to the end of the list.
Algorithm Updates | | loopyal0 -
Google above the fold update
Hi everyone, Ever since the Jan 19th Google 'above the fold update' I have noticed some strange ranking changes in some of my sites. 1. rankings increased dramatically (not in top 50 to page 2) on Jan 19th for about 5 days then dropped out completely from the top 50. 2. our rankings then did the same thing again around Feb 2nd for about 5 -6 days then has bottomed out ever since. We do not have any ads on the site but our pages are dominated by images for most of the 'above the fold' section then followed by the content down the page. Any insight into this would be much appreciated. Cheers, Andrew
Algorithm Updates | | jay.raman0 -
What is the difference between Bing and Google ranking factors ?
I know basic SEO factors and i understand On Page SEO title/meta/content optimzation and Off Page backlinking factors. Yet we see different ranking on both SEs so I want to know what are those? Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | NiceGuy1