SSL, www issue. Should we buy WWW license or just add redirect from www to non-www site?
-
Hi,
We've installed SSL certificate (Symantec Safe Site).
Now our site shows with https, but when someone types www before site name it leads to http and shows strikethrough https unsafe icon in the browser.As it appears, our SSL was purchased without www domain name license.
Should we buy www license or just add redirect from www to without www site? If so how to set up this redirect properly.
Thanks.
-
Yep, thanks. Content is the same. Will do redirect.
-
I did. But I bought SSL though re-sellers and they are giving me hard time. Probably will cancel the order and buy it from godaddy. Descent price, good tech support.
-
regardless of https you should redirect
choose if you want to show www or not in the url and redirect the other
that of course if the content is the same, if you are serving different content it's another story
ssl certificates come as standard or wildcard, if you need to secure a bunch of third level domains it maybe cheaper to get a wildcard
-
Also, have you checked your .htaccess redirect. This may help:
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
First rewrite to HTTPS:
Don't put www. here. If it is already there it will be included, if not
the subsequent rule will catch it.
RewriteRule .* https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]
Now, rewrite any request to the wrong domain to use www.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.
RewriteRule .* https://www.%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] -
Can you not just ask them to reissue with the WWW's? I would definitely speak to them before doing anything.
If you had purchased with the www's it should have covered both the non www, and the www version.
-
Moosa Hemani I agree with you. You are right.
-
I am not a developer myself but I can say if you have purchased HTTPs for SEO purposes, adding a redirection will help but if you have actually added https because of the visitors and providing security to the website in that case this might not help.
The best is to contact your server and discuss an issue with that and I am sure they will be able to resolve this issue.
Hope this help!
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 Deindexing Site, but Reindexing 301 Redirected Version
A bit of a strange one, a client's .com site has recently been losing rankings on a daily basis, but traffic has barely budged. After some investigation, I found that the .co.uk domain (which has been 301 redirected for some years) has recently been indexed by Google. According to Ahrefs the .co.uk domain started gaining some rankings in early September, which has increased daily. All of these rankings are effectively being stolen from the .com site (but due to the 301 redirect, the site loses no traffic), so as one keyword disappears from the .com's ranking, it reappears on the .co.uk's ranking report. Even searching for the brand name now brings up the .co.uk version of the domain whereas less than a week ago the brand name brought up the .com domain. The redirects are all working fine. There's no instance of any URLs on the site or in the sitemaps leading to the .co.uk domain. The .co.uk domain does not have any backlinks except for a single results page on ask.com. The site hasn't recently had any design or development done, the last changes being made in June. Has anyone encountered this before? I'm not entirely sure how or why Google would start indexing 301'd URLs after several years of not indexing these.
Technical SEO | | lyuda550 -
Do you still loose 15% of value of inbound links when you redirect your site from http to https (so all inbound links to http are being redirected to https version)?
I know when you redesign your on website, you loose about 15% internally due to the 301 redirects (see moz article: https://moz.com/blog/accidental-seo-tests-how-301-redirects-are-likely-impacting-your-brand), but I'm wondering if that also applies to value of inbound links when you redirect your http://www.sitename.com to https://www.sitename.com. I appreciate your help!
Technical SEO | | JBMediaGroup0 -
Redirect chains after a site migration
Hi A clients site was originally canonicalised to the www. from the non www versions Now its migrating to an international config of www.domain.com/uk and www.domain.com/us with the existing pages/urls (such as www.domain.com/pageA) 301'd to the new www.domain.com/uk/pageA for example Will this will create a 301 redirect chain due to the existence of the original canonicalised urls or is the way that works 'catch all' so to speak, and automatically update the canonical 301 redirects of the non www old architexcture url's to the new international architecture URL's ? I presume so but just want to check ? cheers dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
.htaccess Redirect 301 issues
I have completely rewritten my web site, adding structure to the file directories. Subsequently added was Redirect information within the .htaccess file. The following example ...
Technical SEO | | Cyberace
Redirect 301 /armaflex.html http://www.just-insulation.com/002-brands/armaflex.html
Returns this response in the URL bar of ...
http://www.just-insulation.com/002-brands/armaflex.html?file=armaflex
I am at a loss to understand why the suffix "?file=armaflex" is added The following code is inserted at the top of the file ...
RewriteEngine On redirect html pages to the root domain RewriteRule ^index.html$ / [NC,R,L] Force www. prefix in URLs and redirect non-www to www RewriteCond %{http_host} ^just-insulation.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.just-insulation.com/ [R=301,NC] Any advice would be most welcome.0 -
Would removing or making non relevant links no follow boost a site?
Hi, I have just been checking out the backlinks for a prospective new client. It appears they have a number of links that are totally irrelevant to their nature of business and I was wondering if they would improve in the rankings etc if I removed them or made them no follow instead? Or would I simply just be throwing away crucial link juice? Thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | Benjamin3790 -
Code for redirect
What is the code to redirect www.xyz.com/abc where abc is a folder to www.xyz.com/abc.html
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
For Google + purposes, should the author's name appear in the Meta description or title tag of my web site just as you would your key search phrase?
Relative to Cyrus Shepard's article on January 4th regarding Google's Superior SEO strategy, if I'm the primary author of all blog articles and web site content, and I have a link showing authorship going back to Google Plus, is a site wide link from the home page enough or should that show up on all blog posts etc and editorial comment pages etc? Conversely, should the author's name appear in the Meta description or title tag of my web site just as you would your key search phrase since Google appears to be trying to make a solid connection with my name, and all content?
Technical SEO | | lwnickens0 -
Using DNS & 301 redirects to gain control over a rogue site
I'd appreciate peoples' views on the following please. We have been approached by a client whose website does not rank # 1 for their own distinctive brand name due to this position being taken by a site they had developed for them by an affiliate some years back. The affiliate's site is clearly seen by Google as the definitive site for the brand - being older, having more links & in both Yahoo & DMOZ. The relationship has soured with the affiliate & the client wants to take control of the affiliate site & have it 301 redirect to the 'real' brand site. The affiliate won't cooperate (funny that). However whilst the client doesn't have control over the affiliate's website, they do own the domain. Given this, it seems that an option is to temporarily create a 1 page website on another server, change the affiliate website domain DNS settings to point to this, & in turn have that 301 re-direct to the client's website. This is a bit of a round about approach, but necessary because the affiliate won't directly 301 the site they control - despite the client owning it. (As I say the relationship has soured). If you think there's a better alternative approach to this problem (aside from litigation), I'd appreciate hearing it please. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SureFire0