Desktop in http and mobile in https

[arnoldcr]

Any experience or advice you can share of having a mix set of pages/urls in one site/domain https and http

e.g. mobile in https and desktop in http ,

(desktop version) http://mydomain/product1

(mobile version)https://m.mydomain.com/product1

att the same time some mobile pages still in http://m.mydomain.com/sectionA/

thanks

[brettmandoes]

Unfortunately not, due to issues with data integrity and seasonal variations in traffic. What I can say is that it did not have a catastrophic impact on our traffic. Google still indexed both versions of the webpages if it found them, and chose to display one or the other. Since we don't have a constant to compare it with, it's difficult to ascertain the exact impact it's having. I can say that the less competitive terms with lower traffic we're ranking for just fine, but we're on page five for the most competitive term (with the most volume) we're attempting to rank for, and both an http and https page are vying for position. That's in part the structure being an issue, and also in part the content on the page is thinner than I'd like it to be.

If you run into this issue on specific pages, try adding a rel canonical tag to the page you want Google to rank. If you use this strategy only when you check your rank tracking tools to see which pages are in the SERP and having issues, you can cut down on the maintenance, and quickly determine whether or not it's the duplicate content that's preventing you from ranking or if you need to focus on other on-site or off-site signals.

[arnoldcr]

Hi Brett,
Thanks for your insights, this basically reinforce my concerns since I might be potentially deal with this landscape, would you able to share any percentile figures in terms of traffic impact by having this mixed URLs in the sitemap?

thanks again

/Arnoldo

[arnoldcr]

Hi CleverPHdthanks for your reply, yes agree and one of the reasons for this question is actually the upcoming mobile first update and how Google will behave once is live.

[brettmandoes]

This can create some real headaches. If you're going to secure a part of the site, you may as well secure the whole thing. Leaving part of the site unsecured and just securing a few pages that are transactional or used to collect customer data like physical addresses is something other sites have done, but should be considered a temporary solution while securing the rest of the site.

While I'm not sure that this implementation would create dark traffic in your Google Analytics reports, you're still leaving yourself open to MIM attacks and other SEO issues with a partial implementation, such as creating duplicate content. I'm dealing with this issue right now with a couple clients and I can share one of the headaches we're experiencing.

Mixed sitemap URLs! Some URLs are in https and others are in http, because they've managed to confuse the CMS (don't ask, I'm not sure what they did yet). On top of that, duplicate content is created with every new page, because the CMS now creates a page in http and a page in https. The dynamic XML sitemap then picks one and adds it. It gets worse, but I'll end it there.

You can avoid all this by securing everything, and you'll have the optional benefit of upgrading the site to HTTP/2 if you secure the whole thing first.

[CleverPhD]

Hello!

If you want to do this. You need to setup your rel alternate and canonical links

https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/separate-urls

I am not sure if the https vs http designation is that big of a deal as you are already setting up a separate set of URLs with the www. and the m.

What is interesting here is that with the new mobile first update occurring, I am not sure that this page will eventually be updated to have the canonicals point to the mobile version vs the desktop version as mentioned in the link above. Likewise, the https is favored for ranking so there may be another reason to canonical that direction, but you would need to test and see. You may find that due to the mobile first initiative and Googles preference for https that your m. pages might do better.

Generally, I would find a way to move away from the m. setup and simply run a responsive site on https://www - that is going to get you the best bang for your buck.