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
-
Reviews - Google & Third Party
Hi We have reviews on our product pages & service reviews on Feefo, but how important is it to also drive customers to review your company on Google? I'm guessing we should be doing both, but it proves difficult when you already ask them to review your company through a third party? Any tips moz?
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
Google's Presentation Yesterday
We hired a new website/marketing company that is a Preferred Google Partner (one of two in Charlotte according to them) and they hosted a presentation by Google at the Google Fiber office in Charlotte yesterday. As expected, there were lots of self-promotion by Google, accompanied with a plethora of data they created to support their PPC Marketing. It was an impressive performance with Molly Dince and Celena Fergusson, presenting Google Marketing Solutions: "Making the Web Work For You" and the keynote speaker Tim Reis, Director of Performance Agencies at Google: speaking on "Mobile Micromoments: Why Your Biggest Opportunities Are In The Smallest Moments" They ended with 15 minutes of Q&A and my question was answered with "I don't know" which I found surprising. So, here it is Thursday morning and I'm asking the same question to my Moz Family for some feedback: "Since the removal of Ads from the right column of a SERP, what percentage of Google traffic comes from Ads vs. the Organics?" I look forward to your comments. TY,
Algorithm Updates | | KevnJr
KJr0 -
Are SEO Friendly URLS Less Important Now That Google Is Indexing Breadcrumb Markup?
Hi Moz Community and staffers, Would appreciate your thoughts on the following question: **Are SEO friendly URLS less important now that Google is indexing breadcrumb markup in both desktop and mobile search? ** Background that inspired the question: Our ecommerce platform's out of the box functionality has very limited "friendly url" settings and would need some development work to setup an alias for more friendly URLS. Meanwhile, the breadcrumb markup is implemented correctly and indexed so it seems there's no longer an argument for improved CTR with SEO friendly URLS . With that said I'm having a hard time justifying the URL investment, as well as the 301 redirect mapping we would need to setup, and am wondering if more friendly URLs would lead to a significant increase in rankings for level of effort? Sidenote: We already rank well for non-brand and branded searches since we are brand manufacturer with an ecommerce presence. Our breadcrumbs are much cleaner & concise than our URL structure. Here are a couple examples. Category URL: http://www.mysite.com/browse/category1/subcat2/subcat3/_/N-7th
Algorithm Updates | | jessekanman
Breadcrumb: www.mysite.com > category1 > subcat2 > subcat3 Product URL: http://www.mysite.com/product/product-name/_/R-133456E112
Breadcrumb: www.mysite.com > category1 > subcat2 > subcat3 > product name The "categories" contain actual keywords just hiding them here in the example. According to my devs they can't get rid of the "_" but could possible replace it with a letter. Also they said it's an easier fix to make the URLs always lower case. Lastly some of our product URLS contain non-standard characters in the product name like "." and "," which is also a simpler fix according to my developers. Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic! Jesse0 -
Question: About Google's personalization of search results and its impact on monitoring ranking results
Given Google's personalization of search results for anyone who's logged into a Google property, how realistic and how actually meaningful/worthwhile is it to monitor one's ranking results for any keyword term these days?
Algorithm Updates | | RandallScrubs0 -
What is this new feature on Google?
Hey everyone, I typed "Vancouver Colleges" into Google and this new feature came up which I have never seen. It displays popular schools. Could someone tell me what this is called? And how do I get our college on here? Thank you! 4hnT7bV.png
Algorithm Updates | | jhinchcliffe0 -
Is Google Rotating Good Matches?
I have a theory that Google may be trying to be fair to white-hat-seo sites that are doing the right things with blogging, linking, social media, etc. [ie that deserve equal good positioning] are being cycled to and from the first page, perhaps in a weekly or monthly basis. My theory would be that they are purposefully doing it to give those sites more equal exposure. My case: I've had top rankings for http://thedogbitelawyer.com for almost all of the important terms for dog bite lawyers for a couple of years now. When Penguin came out we lost some ground across the board, and identified that perhaps there was too much duplicate content left over from when I inherited the site. I reworked the site wording and link structure a bit and gained back positioning. Since that time we are up and down like a yo-yo on the top terms! Anybody else have this suspicion? If it's true, I don't need to stress, if we are bouncing around for other reason's I'd better keep stressing!
Algorithm Updates | | JCDenver0 -
Site Speed
I was wondering what benefits there are to investing the time and money into speeding up an eCommerce site. We are currently averaging 3.4 seconds of load time per page and I know from webmaster tools they hold the mark to be at closer to 1.5 seconds. Is it worth it to get to 1.5 seconds? Any tips for doing this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | MichealGooden0 -
How do I get the expanded results in a Google search?
I notice for certain site (ex: mint.com) that when I search, the top result has a very detailed view with options to click to different subsections of the site. However for my site, even though we're consistently the top result for our branded terms, the result is still only a single line item. How do I adjust this?
Algorithm Updates | | syount1