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
-
Canonical error from Google
Moz couldn't explain this properly and I don't understand how to fix it. Google emailed this morning saying "Alternate page with proper canonical tag." Moz also kinda complains about the main URL and the main URL/index.html being duplicate. Of course they are. The main URL doesn't work without the index.html page. What am I missing? How can I fix this to eliminate this duplicate problem which to me isn't a problem?
Technical SEO | | RVForce0 -
How long does Google/Bing take to index
Hello we have 2-3 new pages being submitted every night to google/bing via our sitemap. Two issues I am noticing. Wondering if anyone else has same issues. a) 22 URL submitted via sitemap but only 1 indexed in two weeks. there are no errors showing b) If i submit manually using "Fetch As Google" and request indexing - the page gets indexed right way but after a day it seems to be unindexed - it will show up when i search (site:domain.com) but then disappear from the results doing the same search a few days later. Is this normal or do i have a problem that needs addressing? thank you
Technical SEO | | sancarlos0 -
Would a Search Engine treat a sitemap hosted in the cloud in the same way as if it was simply on /sitemap.htm?
Mainly to allow updates without the need for publishing - would Google interpret any differently? Thanks
Technical SEO | | RichCMF0 -
Google indexing staging / development site that is redirected...
Hi Moz Fans! - Please help. We had a acme.stagingdomain.com while a site was in development, when it went live it redirected (302) to acmeprofessionalservices.com (real names redacted!!) no known external links to staging site although staging site url has been emailed from Google Apps(!!!) now found that staging site is in the index even though it redirects to the proper public site. and some (but not all) of the pages are in the index too. They all redirect to the proper public site when visited. It is convenient to have a redirect from the staging site to the new one for the team, Chrome etc. remember frequently visited sites. Be a shame to lose that. Yes, these pages can be removed using webmaster tools.
Technical SEO | | mozroadjan
But how did they get in the index to start with? And if we're building a new site, and a customer has an existing site is there a danger of duplicate content etc. penalties caused by the staging site? We had a similar incident recently when a PDF that was not linked anywhere on the site appeared in the index. The link had been emailed through Google Apps, and visited in Chrome, but that was it. So 3 questions. Why is the staging site still in the index despite the redirects? How did they get in the index in the first place? Will the new staging site affect the rank of the existing site, eg. duplicate content penalties?0 -
Redirect of https:// to http:// without SSL. Possible or not?!
Good afternoon, smart dudes : ) I am here to ask for your help. I posted this question on google help forum and stackoverflow, but looks like people do not know the correct answer... QUESTION: We used to have a secured site, but recently purchased a separate reservation software that provides SSL (takes clients to a separate secured website) where they can fill out the reservation form. We cancelled our SSL (just think its a waste to pay $100 for securing plain text). Now i have so many links pointing to our secured site and i have no idea how to fix it! How do i redirect https://www.mysite.comto http://www.mysite.com.Also would like to mention that i already have redirect from non www to www domain (not sure if that matters): RewriteEngine onRewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.com$ [NC]RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mysite.com/$1 [R=301,L]As i already mentioned....we do not have SSL!!!! None of those 301 redirect codes i found online work (you have to have SSL for the site to be redirected from https to http | currently i get an error - can't establish a secured connection to the server ). Is there anything i can do???? Or do i have to purchase SSL again?
Technical SEO | | JennaD140 -
Http and https issue in Google SERP
Hi, I've noticed that Google indexing some of my pages as regular http, like this: http://www.example.com/accounts/ and some pages are being indexed as https, like this: https://www.example.com/platforms/ When I've performed site audit check in various SEO tools I got something around +450 pages duplicated and showing me pairs of the same URL pages, one time with http and one time with https. In our site there is the possibility for people to register and and open an account, later on to login to our website with their login details. In our company I'm not the one that is responsible for the site's maintenance and I would like to know if this is an issue, and if this is an issue - to know what causing it and how to fix it so I'll be able to forward the solution to the person in charge. Additionally I would like to know in general, what is the real purpose of https vs. http and to know what is the preferred method that our website should use. Currently when URLs are typed manually to the address bar, all the URLs are loading fine - with or without https written at the start of each URL. I'm not allowed to expose our site's name, this is why I wrote example.com instead, I hope you can understand that. Thank you so much for your help and I'm looking forward reading your answers.
Technical SEO | | JonsonSwartz0 -
Http to https - is a '302 object moved' redirect losing me link juice?
Hi guys, I'm looking at a new site that's completely under https - when I look at the http variant it redirects to the https site with "302 object moved" within the code. I got this by loading the http and https variants into webmaster tools as separate sites, and then doing a 'fetch as google' across both. There is some traffic coming through the http option, and as people start linking to the new site I'm worried they'll link to the http variant, and the 302 redirect to the https site losing me ranking juice from that link. Is this a correct scenario, and if so, should I prioritise moving the 302 to a 301? Cheers, Jez
Technical SEO | | jez0000 -
Job/Blog Pages and rel=canonical
Hi, I know there are several questions and articles concerning the rel=canonical on SEOmoz, but I didn't find the answer I was looking for... We have some job pages, URLs are: /jobs and then jobs/2, jobs/3 etc.. Our blog pages follow the same: /blog, /blog2, /blog/3... Our CMS is self-produced, and every job/blog-page has the same title tag. According to SEOmoz (and the Webmaster Tools), we have a lots of duplicate title tags because of this problem. If we put the rel=canonical on each page's source code, the title tag problem will be solved for google, right? Because they will just display the /job and /blog main page. That would be great because we dont want 40 blog pages in the index. My concern (a stupid question, but I am not sure): if we put the rel=canonical on the pages, does google crawl them and index our job links? We want to keep our rankings for our job offers on pages 2-xxx. More simple: will we find our job offers on jobs/2, jobs/3... in google, if these pages have the rel=canonical on them? AND ONE MORE: does the SEOmoz bot also follow the rel=canonical and then reduce the number of duplicate title-tags in the campaigns??? Thanx........
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0