Can I leave off HTTP/HTTPS in a canonical tag?
-
We are working on moving our site to HTTPS and I was asked by my dev team if it is required to declare HTTP or HTTPS in the canonical tag? I know that relative URL's are acceptable but cannot find anything about HTTP/HTTPS.
Example of what they would like to do
Has anyone done this?
Any reason to not leave off the protocol?
-
Very good to hear, thanks Shawn! The goal is to use absolute canonicals, but for a period of time, we may have to use protocol relative. The redirects in place should avoid any duplicate content issues, which seems to be the big landmine.
-
That's good to know. Thanks for the update Shawn.
Since the initial discussion took place several Google reps. have publicly stated that there is no PageRank loss between redirects and rel ="canonical" tags. This seems to substantiate their claim.
The biggest issue with these is when giving conflicting instructions to user agents, such as a redirect to a page that rel canonicals back to the URL from which it was redirected, thus closing an infinite loop. For example, if you redirected from HTTP to HTTPS, but then the HTTPS version had a rel ="canonical" tag that was hard-coded to the HTTP version.
The above issue doesn't apply because you're redirecting from HTTP to HTTPs, which shows a relative path rel canonical tag for the HTTPs domain.
-
Now that our entire site is HTTPS, there does not seem to be any negative impact to our URL's by leaving off the HTTP protocol. If there was any traffic lost, it didn't seem significant as our reports did not indicate a decline. One year later, traffic through SEO is higher than before we implemented.
I personally agree with Everett, don't leave things to chance. I did require that the homepage did have HTTPS for the canonical though. I felt massive panic attacks while we were going through the transition. However, if you are unable to convince your developers the importance of using an absolute path for canonical this did not seem to have a negative impact on our site.
I am glad that we didn't have any noticeable impact, but I am also glad that I didn't turn it into a bigger issue within our leadership team. Since we didn't see anything negative, it could've reduced my credibility within the business which would've had made it difficult for larger SEO problems.
BTW, we are still using relative canonical tags today. (except the homepage, that still has HTTPS)
-
Hey Shawn, did using an unspecified HTTP/HTTPS protocol work for you in the canonical and/or HREF-LANG? We are going through a transition to HTTPS as well, and have multiple systems with some URLs that are hard coded. Hoping this solution would work as a short-term fix, while we update these pages to use a new, more dynamic system.
-
Shawn,
My advice would be to canonical everything to the HTTPS version using an absolute path. That would be the best practice. I understand that is not what you're doing and you aren't getting any errors, but site-wide use of rel canonicals is something that can do more harm than good if a search engine misinterprets what you're trying to accomplish.
Either way, good luck and keep us posted.
-
No worries Shawn. I also hope it doesn't cause issues down the line. Everything in me is screaming "Don't do it!"
Best of luck.
-Andy
-
I know, and that's what sucks. It appears to work, but goes against what seems to be best practice and since I cannot find other instances to state one or the other it's hard not to follow their logic.
I just hope it doesn't screw up everything in the end. Thanks for the discussion.
-
Well, if it works (which I didn't think it would!) then I guess that answers one question - and I ran that page through Screaming Frog just to confirm there are no issues and it does indeed canonical back to the https version of the page.
I just can't get out of the mindset that the format looks wrong. I haven't seen other instances of it done that way, and like you, have no documentation to suggest issues that might be caused.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
-Andy
-
Thanks Andy, I posted a reply to the other response that ties into your comment here. On the page I listed above, there are not errors if I use HTTPS and the canonical doesn't declare anything. We have SSL certs, just haven't made the big switch yet.
-
Thanks for the answers, all of which I've passed on to them.
They have attempted this on a page and have not seen any errors or issues as of yet which is problematic for me in the sense of if I cannot show where any issue results by them taking shortcuts, they will not necessarily listen to my feedback.
Here is the URL that they have left off the protocol in the canonical
http://www.alaskaair.com/content/deals/flights/cheapest-flights-to-hawaii.aspx.
I use the Chrome extension Canonical which doesn't give me the icon indicating that I am not viewing the preferred URL. When I use HTTPS and view source it looks the same as it does with HTTP. Sometimes there are parameters in the URL like ?INT=AS_HomePage_-prodID:SEO and even with HTTP missing from the canonical it still seems to work.
Since I cannot find any documentation against doing it this way I am getting strong resistance to declaring HTTP and then going back at some point when it moves to HTTPS and updating. Like I've stated above, they are using this for links and assets on the site since our site moves back and forth between HTTPS and HTTP depending on what the customer is doing and they have found leaving off the protocol it makes their life easier and limits the errors that Andy below mentions.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/deals/flights/cheapest-flights-to-hawaii.aspx
-
Hi again
To be clear, I think this would populate http://www.domain.com//www.domain.com as the where the canonical should be attributed to.
Hope this makes a bite more sense. Good luck!
-
Example of what they would like to do
That would be a no-no Shawn. If you are running over SSL, then you need to canonical back to the https version of the page. If you don't, you will end up with errors on the page (yellow warning triangle) and trust issues with Google. What they would like to do is canonical to a malformed URL which it could interpret as a file.
Try going to any URL and just entering it as //www.domain.com
-Andy
-
Hi there
According to Google...
Avoid errors**:** use absolute paths rather than relative paths with the
rel="canonical"
link element. However, they then say (under "Prefer HTTPS over HTTP for canonical URLs)...
Google prefers HTTPS pages over equivalent HTTP pages as canonical, except when there are conflicting signals such as the following:
- The HTTPS page has an invalid SSL certificate.
- The HTTPS page contains insecure dependencies.
- The HTTPS page is roboted (and the HTTP page is not).
- The HTTPS page redirects users to or through an HTTP page.
- The HTTPS page has a
rel="canonical"
link to the HTTP page. - The HTTPS page contains a
noindex
robots meta tag
Although our systems prefer HTTPS pages over HTTP pages by default, you can ensure this behavior by taking any of the following actions:
- Add 301 or 302 redirects from the HTTP page to the HTTPS page.
- Add a
rel="canonical"
link from the HTTP page to the HTTPS page. - Implement HSTS.
To prevent Google from incorrectly making the HTTP page canonical, you should avoid the following practices:
- Bad SSL certificates and HTTPS-to-HTTP redirects cause us to prefer HTTP very strongly. Implementing HSTS cannot override this strong preference.
- Including the HTTP page in your sitemap or hreflang entries rather than the HTTPS version.
- Implementing your SSL/TLS certificafe for the wrong host-variant: for example, example.com serving the certificate for www.example.com. The certificate must match your complete site URL, or be a wildcard certificate that can be used for multiple subdomains on a domain.
Since I don't know how your SSL is configured, I can't tell you one way or another, but if you have a https version of your pages, then head that direction. Having a relative protocol won't seem to work here for what you're asking.
Read the above and let me know if that helps! Good luck!
-
I did read that before I asked, it didn't really answer my question. I understand that relative URL's work, but leaving off the protocol declaration isn't relative it just leaves it up to the server to provide whether the site is secure or not.
Since we use multiple systems across our site, there isn't an easy way to implement relative or absolute canonical tags which is why the dev's want to know if they can implement without HTTP/HTTPS. They like to do this with assets on the site and have started to code links in a similar manner. What I can't determine is if this will cause issues.
-
Hi there
According to Google, they want you to either use relative URLs or use absolute URLs. You can read more here.
I recommend reading this so you can see the types of common mistakes they find and how to resolve those.
Good luck!
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
-
Whitehat site suffering from drastic & negative Keyword/Phrase Shifts out of the blue!
I am the developer for a fairly active website in the education sector that offers around 30 courses and has quite an actively published blog a few times a week and social profiles. The blog doesn't have comments enabled and the type of visitor that visits is usually looking for lessons or a course. Over the past year we have had an active input in terms of development to keep the site up to date, fast and following modern best practises. IE SSL certificates, quality content, relevant and high powered backlinks ect... Around a month ago we got hit by quite a large drop in our ranked keywords / phrases which shocked us somewhat.. we attributed it to googles algorithm change dirtying the waters as it did settle up a couple of weeks later. However this week we have been smashed again by another large change dropping almost 100 keywords some very large positions. My question is quite simple(I wish)... What gives? I don't expect to see drops this large from not doing anything negative and I'm unsure it's an algorithm change as my other clients on Moz don't seem to have suffered either so it's either isolated to this target area or it's an issue with something occurring to or on the site? QfkSttI T42oGqA
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | snowflake740 -
How Can I Safely Establish Homepage Relevancy With Internal Keyword Links?
My website has roughly 1000-2000 pages. However, our homepage is lacking relevancy as to what it is about. One way that I'd like to tackle this problem, is by updating many of our pages with internal linking. I often hear, use exact keyword links with caution, but have assumed this mainly referred to external backlinks. Would it be a disaster to set up our single most relevant keyword on about 300 pages and point it to our homepage? There are breadcrumbs on our site, but the home link uses an image (It's a picture of a house, if you're curious.) Am I better off just to change that to our most relevant keyword? I could use any advice on internal links for establishing better homepage relevancy. Thank you!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | osaka730 -
Embedded links/badges
Hi there Just picking up on something Rand said in his blog analysing his predictions for 2014. Rand predicted that Google will publicly acknowledge algorithmic updates targeting...embeddable infographics/badges as manipulative linking practices While this hasn't exactly materialised yet, it has got me thinking. We have a fair few partners linking to us through an embedded badge. This was done to build the brand, but the positives here wouldn't be worth being penalised in search. Does anyone have any further evidence of websites penalised for doing this, or any views on whether removing those badges should be a priority for us? Many thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HireSpace0 -
NoFollow tag for external links: Good or bad?
I have a few sites that have tens of thousands of links on them (most of them are sourcing images that happen to be external links). I know that it's a good thing to externally link to reputable sources, but is it smart to place the nofollow tag on ALL external links? I'm sure there is a good chance that external links from posts from years ago are pointing to sites that may now be penalized. I feel as though nofollowing all the external links could come off as unnatural. What are the pros and cons of placing the nofollow tag on ALL external links, and also if I leave it as is and don't put the nofollow tag on them. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Can I just delete pages to get rid of bad back-links to those pages?
I just picked up a client who had built a large set of landing pages (1000+) and built a huge amount of spammy links to them (too many to even consider manually requesting deletion for from the respective webmasters). We now think that google may also be seeing the 'landing pages' as 'doorway pages' as there are so many of them 1000+ and they are all optimized for specific keywords and generally pretty low quality. Also, the client received an unnatural links found email from google. I'm going to download the links discovered by google around the date of that email and check out if there are any that look specifily bad but I'm sure it will be just one of the several thosand bad links they built. Anyway, they are now wanting to clean up their act and are considering deleting the landing/doorway pages in a hope to a. rank better for the other non landing/doorway pages (Ie category and sub cats) but more to the crux of my question.. b. essentially get rid of all the 1000s of bad links that were built to those landing/doorway pages. - will this work? if we just remove those pages and use 404 or 410 codes will google see any inbound (external) links to those pages as basicly no longer being links to the site? or is the TLD still likely to be penilized for all the bad links coming into no longer existing URLs on it? Also, any thoughts on whether a 404 or 410 would be better is appreciated. Some info on that here: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=64033 I guess another option is the disavow feature with google, but Matt Cutts video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=393nmCYFRtA&feature=em- kind of makes it sound like this should just be used for a few links, not 1000s... Thanks so much!!!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | zingseo0 -
Google Penguin w/ Meta Keywords
It's getting really hard filtering through the Penguin articles flying around right now so excuse me if this has been addressed: I know that Google no longer uses the meta keywords as indicators (VERY old news). But I'm just wondering if they are starting to look at them as a bigger spam indicator since Penguin is looking at over-optimization. If yes, has anyone read good article indicating so? The reason I ask is because I have two websites, one is authoritative and the other… not so much. Recently my authoritative website has taken a dip in rankings, a significant dip. The non-authoritative one has increased in rankings… by a lot. Now, the authoritative website pages that use meta-keywords seem to be the ones that are having issues… so it really has me wondering. Both websites compete with each other and are fairly similar in their offerings. I should also mention that the meta-keywords were implemented a long time ago… before I took over the account. Also important to note, I never purchase links and never practice any spammy techniques. I am as white hat as it gets which has me really puzzled as to why one site dropped drastically.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BeTheBoss0 -
For traffic sent by the search engines, how much personalization/customization is allowed on a page if any?
If I want to better target my audience so I would like to be able to address the exact query string coming from the search engine. I'd also like to add relevant sections to the site based in the geo area they live in. Can I customize a small portion of the page to fit my visitors search query and geo area per the IP address? How much can I change a web page to better fit a user and still be within the search engine's guidelines?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Thos0030 -
How can I make use of multiple domains to aid my SEO efforts?
About an year, the business I work for purchased 20+ domains: sendmoneyfromcanada.com sendmoneyfromaustralia.com sendmoneyfromtheuk.com sendmoneyfromireland.com The list goes on, but you can get the main idea. They thought that the domains can be useful to aid http://www.transfermate.com/ . I can set up a few micro sites on them, but from that point there will be no one to maintain them. And I'm, honestly, not too happy with hosting multiple sites on one IP and having them all link to the flagship. It is spammy and it does not bring any value to end users. I might be missing something, so my question is - Can I use these domains to boost my rankings, while avoiding any shady/spammy techniques? P.S. I had this Idea of auctioning the domains in order to cover for the domain registration fees.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Svetoslav0