HTTPS/SSL and Backlinks
-
I am planning on moving my site to HTTPS. I brought an expired domain and wondering if moving to HTTPS will affects the previous backlinks? Will I need to do a redirect? Will I lose any link juice?
Thanks
-
Thanks for the response.
I used MOZ open site explorer and Majestic and it showed the domain 10+ and page 25+ with backlinks. In Majestic, it showed the current backlinks, TF and CF which is why I got it. I'm wondering if adding SSL then redirecting to the new domain address will the link juice carry over?
-
Hello,
Moving to HTTPS on an existing website involves setting up 301 re directs on all pages. Each page should re-direct when accessed directly to it's relevant page in HTTPS only and not any other page.
Not sure about some bits of your question.."I brought an expired domain and wondering if moving to HTTPS will affects the previous backlinks?"...
If a domain has expired already and assuming it was offline, then more than likely all link juice would have dissappeared anyway. or did you meant something else?
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
-
SSL Certificate with Adobe Business Catalyst
We moved to Adobe BC CMS and added an SSL cert. The way BC sets their SSLs up, the certificate hostnames don't match the site hostnames as the alternative names are in fact businesscatalyst.com and worldsecuresystems.com. My IT department thinks this will cause SEO issues. Any one know anything about this? I would think that the protocol change to https is what they are keying in on even if they don't admit it. IT found this site, SSLlabs.com that states after an SSL server test that the certificate is not trusted due to this configuration. Help!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Jeanne_FBG0 -
How/why is this page allowed to get away with this?
I was doing some research on a competitor's backlinks in Open Site Explorer and I noticed that their most powerful link was coming from this page: http://nytm.org/made-in-nyc. I visited that page and found that this page, carrying a PageRank of 7, is just a long list of followed links. That's literally all that's on the entire page - 618 links. Zero nofollow tags. PR7. On top of that, there's a link at the top right corner that says "Want to Join?" which shows requirements to get your link on that page. One of these is to create a reciprocal link from your site back to theirs. I'm one of those white-hat SEOs who actually listens to Matt Cutts, and the more recent stuff from Moz. This entire page basically goes against everything I've been reading over the past couple years about how reciprocal links are bad, and if you're gonna do it, use a nofollow tag. I've read that pages, or directories, such as these are being penalized by Google, and possible the websites with links to the page could be penalized as well. I've read that exact websites such as these are getting deindexed by the bunches over the past couple years. My real question is how is this page allowed to get away with this? And how are they rewarded with such high PageRank? There's zero content aside from 618 links, all followed. Is this just a case of "Google just hasn't gotten around to finding and penalizing this site yet" or am I just naive enough to actually listen and believe anything that comes out of Matt Cutts videos?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Millermore0 -
Huffingtonpost selling anchor text backlinks?
I found this article on huffingtonpost.co.uk http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-maclachlan/top-5-most-influential-ma_b_3682369.html In the 2nd paragraph it has the words "mannequin retail displays", linked to a site that sells mannequins. The link has nothing to do with the story and it seem ( to me a least) its been paid for. Looking at other old posts by the same author its does not seem to be a one off: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-maclachlan/celebrity-honeymoons_b_3962560.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PaddyDisplays
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-maclachlan/cruise-holidays_b_3898661.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-maclachlan/five-of-the-worlds-most-important-rivers_b_3761599.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-maclachlan/the-top-4-manliest-jobs-in-the-world_b_3694431.html I'm just surprised that a site as big as the huffington post selling back links in this way0 -
A client/Spam penalty issue
Wondering if I could pick the brains of those with more wisdom than me... Firstly, sorry but unable to give the client's url on this topic. I know that will not help with people giving answers but the client would prefer it if this thread etc didn't appear when people type their name in google. Right, to cut a long story short..gained a new client a few months back, did the usual things when starting the project of reviewing the backlinks using OSE and Majestic. There were a few iffy links but got most of those removed. In the last couple of months have been building backlinks via guest blogging and using bloggerlinkup and myblogguest (and some industry specific directories found using linkprospector tool). All way going well, the client were getting about 2.5k hits a day, on about 13k impressions. Then came the last Google update. The client were hit, but not massively. Seemed to drop from top 3 for a lot of keywords to average position of 5-8, so still first page. The traffic went down after this. All the sites which replaced the client were the big name brands in the niche (home improvement, sites such as BandQ, Homebase, for the fellow UK'ers). This was annoying but understandable. However, on 27th June. We got the following message in WMT - Google has detected a pattern of artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site. Buying links or participating in link schemes in order to manipulate PageRank are violations of Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | GrumpyCarl
As a result, Google has applied a manual spam action to xxxx.co.uk/. There may be other actions on your site or parts of your site. This was a shock to say the least. A few days later the traffic on the site went down more and the impressions dropped to about 10k a day (oddly the rankings seem to be where they were after the Google update so perhaps a delayed message). To get back up to date....after digging around more it appears there are a lot of SENUKE type links to the site - links on poor wiki sites,a lot of blog commenting links, mostly from irrelevant sites, i enclose a couple of examples below. I have broken the links so they don't get any link benefit from this site. They are all safe for work http:// jonnyhetherington. com/2012/02/i-need-a-new-bbq/?replytocom=984 http:// www.acgworld. cn/archives/529/comment-page-3 In addition to this there is a lot of forum spam, links from porn sites and links from sites with Malware warnings. To be honest, it is almost perfect negative seo!! I contacted several of the sites in question (about 450) and requested they remove the links, the vast majority of the sites have no contact on them so I cannot get the links removed. I did a disavow on these links and then a reconsideration request but was told that this is unsuccessful as the site still was being naughty. Given that I can neither remove the links myself or get Google to ignore them, my options for lifting this penalty are limited. What would be the course of action others would take, please. Thanks and sorry for overally long post0 -
Ask Bloggers/Users To Link To Website
I have a web service that help bloggers to do certain tasks and find different partners. We have a couple of thousand bloggers using the service and ofcourse this is a great resource for us to build links from. The bloggers are all from different platforms and domains. Currently when a blogger login to the service we tell the blogger that if they write a blog post about us with their own words, and tell their readers what they think of our service. We will then give them a certain benifit within the service. This is clearly encouraging a dofollow-link from the bloggers, and therefore it's not natural link building. The strategy is however working quite good with about 150 new blog posts about our service per month, which both gives us a lot of new visitors and users, but also give us link power to increase our rankings within the SERP. Now to my questions: This is not a natural way of building links, but what is your opinion of this? Is this total black hat and should we be scared of a severe punishment from Google? We are not leaving any footprints more than we are asking the users for a link, and all blogposts are created with their own unique words and honest opinions. Since this viral marketing method is working great, we have no plans of changing our strategy. But what should we avoid and what steps should we take to ensure that we won't get in any trouble in the future for encouraging our users to linking back to us in this manner?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | marcuslind0 -
"Unnatural Linking" Warning/Penalty - Anyone's company help with overcoming this?
I have a few sites where I didn't manage the quality of my vendors and now am staring at some GWT warnings for unnatural linking. I'm assuming a penalty is coming down the pipe and unfortunately these aren't my sites so looking to get on the ball with unwinding anything we can as soon as possible. Does anyone's company have experience or could pass along a reference to another company who successfully dealt with these issues? A few items coming to mind include solid and speedy processes to removing offending links, and properly dealing with the resubmission request?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | b2bmarketer0 -
750,000 pv/month due to webspam. What to do?
Let's say your user-generated content strategy is wildly successful, in a slightly twisted sense: webspammers fill it with online streaming sports teasers and the promise of "Weeds season 7 episode 11." As a result of hard SEO work done to build the profile of the domain, these webspam pages seem to rank well in Google, and deliver nearly 750k pageviews, and many many unique visitors, to the site every month. The ad-sales team loves the traffic boost. Overall traffic, uniques, and search numbers look rosy. What do you do? a) let it ride b) throw away roughly half your search traffic overnight by deleting all the spam and tightening the controls to prevent spammers from continuing to abuse the site There are middle-ground solutions, like using NOINDEX more liberally on UGC pages, but the end result is the same as option (b) even if it takes longer to get there.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mcglynn0 -
404checker.com / crawl errors
I noticed a few strange crawl errors in a Google Webmaster Tools account - further investigation showed they're pages that don't exist linked from here: http://404checker.com/404-checker-log Basically that means anyone can enter a URL into the website and it'll get linked from that page, temporarily at least. As there are hundreds of links of varying quality - at the moment they range from a well known car manufacturer to a university, porn and various organ enlargement websites - could that have a detrimental effect on any websites linked? They are all nofollow. Why would they choose to list these URLs on their website? It has some useful tools and information but I don't see the point in the log page. I have used it myself to check HTTP statuses but may look elsewhere from now on.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Alex-Harford0