Redirect to http to https - Pros and Cons
-
Hi,
I know its best practice to redirect a website from http to https, instead of having many entry point to your website. When a website has been running for a long time on http and https, what are the SEO Pros and Cons of implementing a redirect from Http to Https?
-
Do you know how long it takes Google to drop pages from Google's index/cache?
-
(1) no, if you link to an insecure page it counts against you. Since a user or search engine would have to load and visit the insecure content to find the canonical (as that's where it would be), it does not mitigate this. You'll just have to hope it doesn't end up happening too much. Canonical tags only stop content duplication, they have no impact on SEO authority merging or insecure links
(2) If the HTTPS URLs are pretty much exactly the same as their HTTP counterparts and you 301 HTTP to HTTPS, the SEO authority should flow across to HTTPS instead. Canonical tags are not proven to do what 301s do, so you may end up in a mess with those. Most sites experience a slight dip moving from HTTP to HTTPS via proper 301s, however it's not large and doesn't last long if the 301s were done well. Staying on HTTP in the long term, you will lose a lot of rankings (gradually, over time). Since you will be constantly losing, it puts your site's progress 'on hold', so the small dip from moving from HTTP to HTTPS is the 'lesser of two evils' (IMO)
(3) Both. It will reduce the number of times Google crawls HTTP, but only after pages on HTTP are dropped from Google's index / recent cache
-
Thanks for the answer. However, have two more questions: (1) Will implementing canonical tags limit the temporary disruption and (2) If backlinks are pointing to http will these be lost or transferred, i.e. will https pages have less equity or inherit equity of the http pages. Finally, will redirecting to https reduce the number of times Google crawls your site or will google still crawl http until all http pages in the Google cache are removed?
-
Or in NginX format which is usually faster
-
There are no cons that I can think of, a simple script in a sites htaccess file is the best was to implement the redirection.
-
The idea of HTTPS has always been a good one, and most leading businesses implemented it a long time ago.
However, somewhat recently, Google announced that HTTPS is a ranking factor.
Obviously, that got SEOs talking about and debating the subject.
At the time, it was a very small ranking factor, affecting less than 1% of global searches. Even now, it’s not a big factor.
However, security is something that Google takes very seriously, and it’s likely to become more important in the future.
Some SEOs jumped right on it and made the switch.
-
This is a very solid answer. One additional point is that without a forced structure, Google can 'catch out' your secure site linking to your insecure site. Say you have a blog and a post in the blog links to one of your pages, that link is probably created as 'absolute' in your CMS. So suddenly, when you load that blog post on HTTPS, you can see a link pointing to HTTP. Google doesn't like links pointing to insecure content, so over time the situation snowballs and you lose a lot of trust
-
If your current pages can be accessed by http and by https, and if you don't have canonicals or redirects pointing everything to one version or the other, then one very significant "con" for that approach is that you are splitting your link equity. So, if the http page has 50 inbound links, and the https has another 50, you would do better to have one page with 100 inbound links.
Another difference is how browsers show/warn about non-secure pages. As well as any ranking factor they may associate with secure. Again, in favor of redirecting http to https. The visual handling can also impact conversion rates and bounce rates, which can in turn impact ranking.
As far as cons to redirecting, one would be that you might expect a temporary disruption to rankings. There will likely be a bit of a dip, short term. Another is that you will need to remove and then be careful about accidentally adding any non-secure resources (like images) on the https pages, which will then issue a warning to visitors as well as possibly impacting ranks. There is some consensus that redirects (and canonical links) do leak a very small amount of link equity for each hop they take. So, that's another "con". But my recent experiences doing this with two sites have been that after the temporary "dip" of a couple of months, if done properly, the "pros" outweigh the "cons".
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
-
Page redirected too many times
Hello, How can we solve the following error : This page isn't working ** redirected you too many times.** It's very frustrating. I have cleared the cookies. Still, the problem persists. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Johnroger0 -
Proper 301 redirect code for http to https
I see lots of suggestions on the web for forwarding http to https. I've got several existing sites that want to take advantage of the SSL boost for SEO (however slight) and I don't want to lose SEO placements in the process. I can force all pages to be viewed through the SSL - that's no problem. But for SEO reasons, do I need to do a 301 redirect line of code for every page in the site to the new "https" version? Or is there a way to catch all with one line of code that Google, etc. will recognize & honor?
Technical SEO | | wcksmith10 -
Google Search Console Site Map Anomalies (HTTP vs HTTPS)
Hi I've just done my usual Monday morning review of clients Google Search Console (previously Webmaster Tools) dashboard and disturbed to see that for 1 client the Site Map section is reporting 95 pages submitted yet only 2 indexed (last time i looked last week it was reporting an expected level of indexed pages) here. It says the sitemap was submitted on the 10th March and processed yesterday. However in the 'Index Status' its showing a graph of growing indexed pages up to & including yesterday where they numbered 112 (so looks like all pages are indexed after all). Also the 'Crawl Stats' section is showing 186 pages crawled on the 26th. Then its listing sub site-maps all of which are non HTTPS (http) which seems very strange since the site is HTTPS and has been for a few months now and the main sitemap index url is an HTTPS: https://www.domain.com/sitemap_index.xml The sub sitemaps are:http://www.domain.com/marketing-sitemap.xmlhttp://www.domain.com/page-sitemap.xmlhttp://www.domain.com/post-sitemap.xmlThere are no 'Sitemap Errors' reported but there are 'Index Error' warnings for the above post-sitemap, copied below:_"When we tested a sample of the URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some of the URLs were unreachable. Please check your webserver for possible misconfiguration, as these errors may be caused by a server error (such as a 5xx error) or a network error between Googlebot and your server. All reachable URLs will still be submitted." _
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence
Also for the below site map URL's: "Some URLs listed in this Sitemap have a high response time. This may indicate a problem with your server or with the content of the page" for:http://domain.com/en/post-sitemap.xmlANDhttps://www.domain.com/page-sitemap.xmlAND https://www.domain.com/post-sitemap.xmlI take it from all the above that the HTTPS sitemap is mainly fine and despite the reported 0 pages indexed in GSC sitemap section that they are in fact indexed as per the main 'Index Status' graph and that somehow some HTTP sitemap elements have been accidentally attached to the main HTTPS sitemap and the are causing these problems.What's best way forward to clean up this mess ? Resubmitting the HTTPS site map sounds like right option but seeing as the master url indexed is an https url cant see it making any difference until the http aspects are deleted/removed but how do you do that or even check that's what's needed ? Or should Google just sort this out eventually ? I see the graph in 'Crawl > Sitemaps > WebPages' is showing a consistent blue line of submitted pages but the red line of indexed pages drops to 0 for 3 - 5 days every 5 days or so. So fully indexed pages being reported for 5 day stretches then zero for a few days then indexed for another 5 days and so on ! ? Many ThanksDan0 -
Redirecting pages from a website to another
Hello Moz community, I’ve got a question and hope you can help! I’ve been working to improve my website’s ranking for the keywords “singing lessons London”. My current website url is http://www.sonic-crew-london.com and the page dedicated to the singing lessons is http://www.sonic-crew-london.com/booking/singinglessons.php I’ve recently bought the url http://www.singing-lessons-london.com which I hope will help to climb Google’s ranks a bit more easily for my chosen keywords. I thought I could redirect the old singing page to the new url. Is that something you would recommend me to do? Is there any specific procedure I should follow to make sure the transition runs smoothly? Any help really appreciated! Many thanks
Technical SEO | | SonicCrewLondon0 -
Do I need redirects for a .asp to a .htm?
We move to a new site and some of the pages were widgets.com/test.asp, do I need to redirect that to widgets.com/test.htm? It is the same url just the difference between .asp and .htm
Technical SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
301 redirect
Hi All, I have just completed a 301 redirect on my site http://www.klinehimalaya.com and I was just starting a new campaign on SEOmoz and I got this message: Roger has detected a problem:
Technical SEO | | gorillakid
We have detected that the domain www.klinehimalaya.com and the domain klinehimalaya.com both respond to web requests and do not redirect. Having two "twin" domains that both resolve forces them to battle for SERP positions, making your SEO efforts less effective. We suggest redirecting one, then entering the other here. My only other question, is my .htaccess codeing correct and how long will it take to show it is correct in SEOmoz and online? All ".htaccess" code: AddHandler php-stable .php
**_Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] RewriteRule (.*).html$ /$1.php [R=301,L]_** Lastly, I have recently changed all of my files from .html to .php is this going to hurt my SEO and is the code "RewriteRule (.*).html$ /$1.php [R=301,L]" going to fix the issue by redirecting the .html links to the .php pages? Any suggestions or help appreciated. Paul.0 -
Pros & Cons of deindexing a site prior to launch of a new site on the same domain.
If you were launching a new website to completely replace an older existing site on the same domain, would there be any value in temporarily deindexing the old site prior to launching the new site? Both have roughly 3000 pages, will launch on the same domain but have a completely new url structure and much better optimized for the web. Many high ranking pages will be redirected with 301 to the corresponding new page. I believe the hypothesis is this would eliminate a mix of old & new pages from sharing space in the serps and the crawlers are more likely to index more of the new site initially. I don't believe this is a great strategy, on the other hand I see some merit to the arguments for it.
Technical SEO | | medtouch0 -
302 Redirects for Minor Pages
301 redirects are clearly preferable to 302 redirects for pages that need to be indexed by search engines. If I have 302 redirects to minor pages not getting much traffic regardless of the code, how important (if at all) is changing the redirects to 301? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | theLotter0