Drupal, http/https, canonicals and Google Search Console
-
I’m fairly new in an in-house role and am currently rooting around our Drupal website to improve it as a whole. Right now on my radar is our use of http / https, canonicals, and our use of Google Search Console. Initial issues noticed:
- We serve http and https versions of all our pages
- Our canonical tags just refer back to the URL it sits on (apparently a default Drupal thing, which is not much use)
- We don’t actually have https properties added in Search Console/GA
I’ve spoken with our IT agency who migrated our old site to the current site, who have recommended forcing all pages to https and setting canonicals to all https pages, which is fine in theory, but I don’t think it’s as simple as this, right? An old Moz post I found talked about running into issues with images/CSS/javascript referencing http – is there anything else to consider, especially from an SEO perspective?
I’m assuming that the appropriate certificates are in place, as the secure version of the site works perfectly well.
And on the last point – am I safe to assume we have just never tracked any traffic for the secure version of the site?
Thanks
John
-
OK I gotcha now. You can submit the sitemap in all versions of Search Console, won't hurt anything to have it referenced in multiple profiles of SC.
Another thing you can do to make sure crawlers find your XML is add this line to your robots.txt file:
Sitemap: http://yoursitecom/sitemap.xml
-
Thanks so much, this is so helpful!
About the search console question, I may have confused you. This is what I mean: I have a www and non-www property of the website in Search Console (from before my time), which looks like this:
|
property
|
Sitemap
|
http://www.mysite.com/sitemap.xml
|
NO SITEMAP LINKED
|
(apologies that has not formatted well, I hope you can decipher!)
With a sitemap linked to the www version and nothing to the non-www version. The sitemap is located on the non-www version of the site, so I was just wondering if the above scenario has essentially meant we've had no sitemap submissions to date (that said, the sitemap appears to be pulling through despite being the "wrong" address, so I can only think there are either 2 separate sitemap files, OR the redirect we have set from www to non-www is having an effect?)
-
Hi John, always glad to help!
For your Search Console question: When you get the redirects setup and have committed to your site being all HTTPS, you'll want to move the location of your XML sitemap to https://yoursite.com/sitemap.xml. As Cyrus mentions in that article, don't update the URLs in the sitemap yet, let search engines hit them as non-secure for a while, I think he recommends 30 days, to give them a chance to learn your new protocol and for them to hit your redirects multiple times.
For your www question: There's no difference in SEO-value whether you choose www or non-www, simply a preference. The only thing that matters here is that you pick one and stick with it.
For your GA question: That is correct, you are seeing traffic from both in GA. GA will collect and report on any page/URL/website that your UA-ID is on. If someone scraped your site and took the GA script with it, you'd start seeing their traffic in your reporting view (that's why appending hostname is always a good idea ). You can specify in the View Settings of GA what your protocol is.
-
Hi Logan,
Thanks for your quick response, that’s very helpful and the article you provided is great.
I hadn’t thought of the purpose of self-referring canonicals, thanks for clarifying.
Re: Search Console: I’ve just noticed we only have a sitemap linked for the http://www property. Currently, all www. traffic is redirected to the non-www version of any given page (forgetting https for a second). Is this an issue in terms of pagerank?
And my last question, I promise! If our UA tag is firing on both http and https versions of the site, should we be seeing traffic from both in GA, if the property/view default url is set to http:// ? By my understanding, that setting is just a vanity thing for reporting purposes, but I’m not sure where, if anywhere, I need to specify in a particular view that http:// and https:// traffic should be treated as the same thing?
-
Hi John,
For the most part, your IT partner is correct, 2 of the most important things are to 301 all HTTP requests to HTTPS and to update canonicals. I often refer to people with questions about HTTPS to this post written by Cyrus Shepard, he covers all the bases needed for an SEO-friendly secure migration: https://moz.com/blog/seo-tips-https-ssl.
Regarding your specific comments:
- We serve http and https versions of all our pages - A 301 redirect rule will correct this
- Our canonical tags just refer back to the URL it sits on (apparently a default Drupal thing, which is not much use) - Self-referring canonicals like this serve plenty of purpose, they just need to match your preferred version www/non-www http/https, etc. etc. Self-referring canonicals help prevent duplicates caused by parameters, case-sensitive URLs, and the aformentioned HTTP/S and www/non-www.
- We don’t actually have https properties added in Search Console/GA - You should add another profile for HTTPS, verification should be simple since you've already proven you're the site owner. You want to have both profiles in GSC so you can monitor the shift of indexed URLs from HTTP to HTTPS. Also good for future troubleshooting should you see and issue with indexing of HTTP in the future for some reason.
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 Sites website https://www.opcfitness.com/ title NOT GOOD FOR SEO
We set up a website https://www.opcfitness.com/home on google sites. but google sites page title not good for SEO. How to fix it?
Technical SEO | | ahislop5740 -
Moz/Google does not recognize text on Wix website
My client's website was built on Wix and despite having substantial content on web pages, Moz is claiming that there is very little-to-no content: Sufficient Characters/Words in Content. Does anyone know how to fix this issue? I've run a word count tool and it gives the same results. Website: pesclinical.com
Technical SEO | | Perfect-Pixel1 -
How to remove Parameters from Google Search Console?
Hi All, Following are parameter configuration in search console - Parameters - fl
Technical SEO | | adamjack
Does this parameter change page content seen by the user? - Yes, Changes, reorders, or narrows page content.
How does this parameter affect page content? - Narrow
Which URLs with this parameter should Googlebot crawl? - Let Googlebot decide (Default) Query - Actually it is filter parameter. I have already set canonical on filter page. Now I am doing tracking of filter pages via data layer and tag manager so in google analytic I am not able to see filter url's because of this parameter. So I want to delete this parameter. Can anyone please help me? Thanks!0 -
404 or rel="canonical" for empty search results?
We have search on our site, using the URL, so we might have: example.com/location-1/service-1, or example.com/location-2/service-2. Since we're a directory we want these pages to rank. Sometimes, there are no search results for a particular location/service combo, and when that happens we show an advanced search form that lets the user choose another location, or expand the search area, or otherwise help themselves. However, that search form still appears at the URL example.com/location/service - so there are several location/service combos on our website that show that particular form, leading to duplicate content issues. We may have search results to display on these pages in the future, so we want to keep them around, and would like Google to look at them and even index them if that happens, so what's the best option here? Should we rel="canonical" the page to the example.com/search (where the search form usually resides)? Should we serve the search form page with an HTTP 404 header? Something else? I look forward to the discussion.
Technical SEO | | 4RS_John1 -
Google webmaster showing 0 indexed, yet I can see them all them Google search?
I can see them all the pages showing up in Google when i search for my site. But in webmaster tools under the sitemaps section in the indexed pages - the red bar is showing 0 indexed pages, even though they seem to be indexed. Any idea why is this showing like this? I don’t really think it’s that important as the pages are still indexed, but it just seems odd. Please see in the image.
Technical SEO | | Perfect0070 -
IP canonization
Hi, I need your opinions about IP canonization. Site www.peoplemaps.com is on 78.136.30.112 IP. Now we redirect that IP to the main page (because of possible duplicate content). But, we have more sites on the same IP address. How can that affect on their SEO? Before redirecting, when we visit that IP address, the browser showed mainpage of www.peoplemaps.com, not any other site. Thanks, Milan edit: We have used 301 redirect.
Technical SEO | | MilanB.0 -
Does having a page (or site) available on HTTP and HTTPS cause duplication issues?
Say I've got a site that can be accessed using either protocal (i.e. HTTP and HTTPS), but most (if not all of the links) are pointing to the HTTP versions. Will it cause a problem if I start link building to HTTPS versions? In other words does google see http://mysite.com as the same page as https://mysite.com? Thanks
Technical SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0 -
Duplicate Homepage: www.mysite.com/ and www.mysite.com/default.aspx
Hi, I have a question regarding our client's site, http://www.outsolve-hr.com/ on ASP.net. Google has indexed both www.outsolve-hr.com/ and www.outsolve-hr.com/default.aspx creating a duplicate content issue. We have added
Technical SEO | | flarson
to the default.aspx page. Now, because www.outsolve-hr.com/ and www.outsolve-hr.com/default.aspx are the same page on the actual backend the code is on the http://www.outsolve-hr.com/ when I view the code from the page loaded in a brower. Is this a problem? Will Google penalize the site for having the rel=canonical on the actual homepage...the canonical url. We cannot do a 301 redirect from www.outsolve-hr.com/default.aspx to www.outsolve-hr.com/ because this causes an infinite loop because on the backend they are the same page. So my question is two-fold: Will Google penalize the site for having the rel=canonical on the actual homepage...the canonical url. Is the rel="canonical" the best solution to fix the duplicate homepage issue on ASP. And lastly, if Google has not indexed duplicate pages, such as https://www.outsolve-hr.com/DEFAULT.aspx, is it a problem that they exist? Thanks in advance for your knowledge and assistance. Amy0