Http > https Switch Before Platform Migration?
-
We are planning a series of large site migrations over the next 12-18 months, moving from one platform to another. It's likely the first will be completed by around Aug this year, with the process running until the back end of 2018.
The sites are currently on http, and the plan is to first of all migrate all sites to https in the next couple of months. The concern is that, due to the http>https 301 redirects that will be in place, are we putting ourselves at unnecessary risk by effectively carrying out 2 migrations in the space of a year (in terms of loss of potential authority caused by redirects)? Would we be better to wait, and implement https at point of platform migration instead?
Thoughts appreciated.
-
"The concern is that, due to the http>https 301 redirects that will be in place, are we putting ourselves at unnecessary risk by effectively carrying out 2 migrations in the space of a year (in terms of loss of potential authority caused by redirects)?"
In February 2016, Google’s John Mueller announced that SEO equity or PageRank will no longer be lost when a 301 or 302 redirect is used in conjunction with an HTTP to HTTPS migration. While some of us doubted this statement, Gary Illyes tweeted the same thing in July 2016 and Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Land confirmed it. There is no loss of authority caused by redirects when you implement HTTPS.
"Would we be better to wait, and implement https at point of platform migration instead?"
I think the approach you're taking (convert to https first) is a good one. It affords you better control and is a good use of available resources.
-
Do you have a list of all links pointing to the webpages you are trying to redirect on the new launch? If the structure of your website changes, I would use my remaining development time to minify the time you are going to invest in changing them. So 301 is good, but it is better if you can change the external and internal links that you can to point to the new pages. After that, do the 301s. The migration will take development changes but also a lot of link fixing. Although https is a ranking factor, I don't see it as an urgent move. It is your call but I would use the time to prepare a really good migration. Good luck!
-
Thanks for the responses both.
The only reason we are splitting is because the new platform is still being completed (custom built), whereas we have spare development resource on the legacy platform. From that point of view, it would appear to make sense to complete the http>https migration now. Of course, the earlier we implement, the earlier we stand a chance of seeing a positive impact.
I am just slightly wary of the potential for ranking losses, based off migrating our URLs twice in one year. What would be your thoughts on this?
We do process sensitive data, but on those relevant pages we do already implement secure protocol. The above relates to site wide pages.
-
Hi Nicola! What are your reasons for splitting the migration? Is your site processing sensitive data? If yes, https is an ASAP problem for you since Chrome will already give your users some trouble when navigating your website. If not, I think you will be better of with a single migration. But again, could you give some details regarding your thoughts and reasoning about this? There could be multiple aspects that influence this decision.
-
Hey Nicola,
I'll share my thought about this issue. However, I'm sure there are many approaches to that.
I would suggest to do firstly the HTTP -> HTTPS migration as far as it's one of the ranking factors according to Google - see the official Google blog here: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html
You'll save the precious time, Google will see that you "upgraded" your website and that you keep pace with the trends. If you would start firstly with the platform migration, you would loose several months waiting for this to be done before starting HTTP -> HTTPS.
Hope you get my idea. Cheers, Martin
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
-
Ecommerce Migration - Criteria To Redirecting Products
Hi Guys, We have an e-commerce migration of a site moving from Magento to Shopify. The URL stuctures are changing so we will need redirects in place. They have over 50,000 skus/products. We need to setup redirect mapping - from old to new pages. Now setting up redirects for every single product seems overtop. Thus what is a good minimum requirement to determine if its worth redirecting a product page? We are thinking about going based on referring domains and google analytics data (for the last 12 months). If any product page has 1+ referring domain or more then 50 organic sessions during 12 months then setup a redirect otherwise no redirect required. Thoughts? Thankyou.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brandonegroup0 -
301 redirect hops from non-https and www
It's best practice to minimize the amount of 301 redirect hops. Ideally only one redirect hop. It's also best practice to 301 redirect (or at least canonical) your non-https and/or your non-www (or www) to the canonical protocol/subdomain. The simplest (and possibly the most common) way to implement canonical protocol/subdomain redirects is through a load balancer or before your app processes the request. Both of which will just blanket 301 to the canonical domain/protocol regardless if the path exists or not In which case, you could have: Two hops. i.e. hop #1 http://example.com/foo to https://example.com/foo, hop #2 https://example.com/foo to https://example.com/bar 301 to a 404. Let's say https://example.com/dog never existed, but somebody for whatever reason linked to it (maybe a typo). If I request https://www.example.com/dog, the load balancer would 301 to a 404 page. Either scenario above should be fairly rare. However, you can't control how people link to you. Should I care about either above scenario? I could have my app attempt to check if the page exists before forwarding, but that code could be complicated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dsbud0 -
URL Migration: Better to have .301s processed or 200s?
I'm migrating sub-domains to sub-folders, but this question is likely applicable for most URL migrations. For example: subdomain1.example.com to example.com/subdomain1 and any child pages. Bear with me as it may just be me but I'm having trouble understanding whether internal links (menu, contextual etc and potentially the sitemaps) should be kept as the pre-migration URL (with .301 in place to the new URL) to give Google a chance to process the redirects or if they should be updated straight away to the new URL to provide a 200 response as so many guides suggest. The reason I ask is unless Google specifically visits the old URL from their index (and therefore processes the .301), it's likely to be found by following internal links on the website or similar which if they're updated to reflect the new URL will return a 200. I would imagine that this would be treated as a new page, which is concerning as it would have a canonical pointing toward itself and the same content as the pre-migrated URL. Is this a problem? Do we need to allow proper processing of redirects for migrations or is Google smarter than this and can work it out if they visit the old URL at a later date and put two and two together? What happens in-between? I haven't seen any migration guides suggest leaving .301s in place but to amend links to 200 as soon as possible in all instances. One thought is I guess there's also the Fetch as Google tool within Search Console which could be used with the old URLs - could this be relied on? Apologies if this topic has been covered before but it's quite difficult to search for without returning generic topics around .301 redirects. Hope it makes sense - appreciate any responses!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AmyCatlow0 -
Http vs. https - duplicate content
Hi I have recently come across a new issue on our site, where https & http titles are showing as duplicate. I read https://moz.com/community/q/duplicate-content-and-http-and-https however, am wondering as https is now a ranking factor, blocked this can't be a good thing? We aren't in a position to roll out https everywhere, so what would be the best thing to do next? I thought about implementing canonicals? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Migrating From Parameter-Driven URL's to 'SEO Friendly URL's (Slugs)
Hi all, hope you're all good and having a wonderful Friday morning. At the moment we have over 20,000+ live products on our ecomms site, however, all of the products are using non-seo friendly URL's (/product?p=1738 etc) and we're looking at deploying SEO friendly url's such as (/product/this-is-product-one) etc. As you could imagine, making such a change on a big ecomms site will be a difficult task and we will have to take on A LOT of content changes, href-lang changes, affiliate link tests and a big 301 task. I'm trying to get some analysis together to pitch the Tech guys, but it's difficult, I do understand that this change has it's benefits for SEO, usability and CTR - but I need some more info. Keywords in the slugs - what is it's actual SEO weight? Has anyone here recently converted from using parameter based URL's to keyword-based slugs and seen results? Also, what are the best ways of deploying this? Add a canonical and 301? All comments greatly appreciated! Brett
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brett-S0 -
Wix.com ...what if any issues are there with this platform and SEO?
I have a client that would like me to support them with SEO on a Wix.com site. I was hoping to get some feedback from the community to see if there were people who had experience int he following areas: Supporting the day to day operation of a WiX site? Specifically are there any issues I need to watch out for or be aware of if I choose to support this site? From and SEO perspective is this platform OK or are there some issues I need to be made aware of? I would sincerely appreciate any input or comments on this platform.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ron_McCabe0 -
Troubled QA Platform - Site Map vs Site Structure
I'm running a Q&A forum that was built prioritizing UX over SEO. This decision has cause a bit of a headache as we're 6 months into the project with 2278 Q&A pages with extremely minimal traffic coming from search engines. The structure has the following hiccups: A. The category navigation from the main Q&A page is entirely javascript and only navigable by users. B. We identify Google bots and send them to another version of the Q&A platform w/o javascript. Category links don't exist in this google bot version of the main Q&A page. On this Google version of the main Q&A page, the Pinterest-like tiles displaying individual Q&As are capped at 10. This means that the only way google bot can identify link juice being passed down to individual QAs (after we've directed them to this page) is through 10 random Q&As. C. All 2278 of the QAs are currently indexed in search. They are just indexed very very poorly in SERPs. My personal assumption, is that Google can't pass link juice to any of the Q&As (poor SERP) but registers them from the site map so it gets included in Google's index. My dilemma has me struggling between two different decisions: 1. Update the navigation in the header to remove the javascript and fundamentally change the look and feel of the Q&A platform. This will allow Google bot to navigate through Expert category links to pass link juice to all Q&As. or 2. Update the redirected main Q&A page to include hard coded category links with 100s of hard coded Q&As under each category page. Make it similar, ugly, flat and efficient for the crawling bots. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I need to find a solution as soon as possible.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TQContent0 -
Is there any importance in including http:// in the url?
I have seen some sites that always redirect to https and some sites that always redirect to http://, but lately I have seen sites that force the url to just the site. As in [sitename].com, no www. no http://. Does this affect SEO in anyway? Is it good or bad for other things? I was surprised when I saw it and don't really know what effect it has.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarloSchneider0