If I have an https page with an http img that redirects to an https img, is it still considered by google to be a mixed content page?
-
With Google starting to crack down on mixed content I was wondering, if I have an https page with an http img that redirects to an https img, is it still considered by Google to be a mixed content page?
e.g. In an old blog article, there are images that weren't updated when the blog migrated to https, but just 301ed to new https images. is it still considered a mixed content page?
-
Thanks, I think I'm going to try to get it done, just because I like things neat and tidy, lol. Also, who knows when Google will switch it, might as well fix it now.
-
That is a leading cause of that error! If you have someone smart and confident who can write script to re-write all the links in like 30mins it's worth it. If it sounds like more of a 3-hour thing don't bother
-
I also caught them in SEMRush and there are a lot of them. I assume when they migrated the site they didn't bother with all the images and just 301ed them in a big batch later when they saw an issue in search console.
The question is, is it worth getting the developers to update all the imgs. I agree, ideally it should be done, just from a practical and time-consuming perspective, I know they are going to ask me whether it really matters.
-
It comes up as an error in SEMRush a lot when you produce mixed content like that. Myself I'd play it safe, it's not much effort to just rewrite the links to HTTPS using a script or something. If it takes seconds to fix it's probably not worth the potential risk (to leave it). If you think that for some reason, on your site it might take much longer to patch, it may not be worth doing
-
Thanks, I thought so, I just wasn't sure by a 301 if google follows the end source or doesn't even look at it relevant to the current page. Also, I checked in the developer's tools and a page I know to have an http img redirecting to an https img, isn't showing any security issues.
-
Yes, if you are directing users or their browser away from the secure web in any way (HTTP over HTTPS) then it counts as mixed content and you should sort it out
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
-
Is it time to go https sitewide?
Hello mozzers, We are currently running a Magento 1 store and in the planning phase of migrating to Magento 2. As an eCommerce website, it goes without saying that we use secure pages for all pages where exchange of sensitive information is required, however, we do not use https on all pages. I recently read this Moz article stating that the adoption of sitewide https is at around 50% for top websites. I see Moz is also using it. I know that at this time right now, Google states not giving an SEO bump for https pages, but part of me thinks the time might be right (while re-platforming to M2) to make the move if this is what the future is going to be. Do you agree? Is this something that everyone will eventually have to do?
Algorithm Updates | | yacpro13
I am ambiguous about whether 301 redirects would be needed for http -> https ?
Also, is there a how-to or checklist to making the switch to sitewide https in order not to inadvertently cause an SEO drop? Thanks!0 -
Canonical redirect?
Can a canonical URL redirect? I'm doing country specific urls with the www. redirecting to the country (i.e. if you go to www.domain.com you'll redirect to fr.domain.com in france). If the canonical is www. then all the spiders will go to the correct place but I don't know if search engines recommend against a canonical that redirects.
Algorithm Updates | | mattdinbrooklyn0 -
Lots of dublicate titles and pages on search page
I own a paiting website with a lot of searchable paintings. The "search paintings" feature creates tons of dublicate pages and titles. See here:
Algorithm Updates | | KasperGJ
http://www.maleribasen.dk/soegmaleri.asp I guess the problem is, that the URL can actually be different and still return the same content. First time you click the "Search paintings" the URL will shown as above. But as soon as users
begin to definere they search to the left and use the "Search button" the top URL changes. So, depending on how the top URL looks different results are shown. This is pretty standard in searches. But it returns tons of dublicate pages and titles. How, do you guys cope with that? Is there a clever way to use ref="cannonical" or some other smart way to avoid this? /Kasper0 -
Should my canonical tags point to the category page or the filter result page?
Hi Moz, I'm working on an ecommerce site with categories, filter options, and sort options – teacherexpress.scholastic.com. Should I have canonical tags from all filter and sort options point to the category page like gap.com and llbean.com? or have all sort options point to the filtered page URL like kohls.com? I was under the impression that to use a canonical tag, the pages have to have the same content, meaning that Gap and L.L. Bean would be using canonical tags incorrectly. Using a filter changes the content, whereas using a sort option just changes the order. What would be the best way to deal with duplicate content for this site? Thanks for reading!
Algorithm Updates | | DA20130 -
Getting Listed in Google Places
How do I get listed in Google Places if I don't have a physical address? EG: I am a medical health insurance company in Colo Springs, Colorado, but service 20 cities? What is the best procedure? Getting a mailbox at Mailboxes, etc. or UPS Store?
Algorithm Updates | | GregWalt0 -
Does google index non-public pages ie. members logged in page
hi, I was trying to locate resources on the topics regarding how much the google bot indexes in order to qualify a 'good' site on their engine. For example, our site has many pages that are associated with logged in users and not available to the public until they acquire a login username and password. Although those pages show up in google analytics, they should not be made public in the google index which is what happens. In light of Google trying to qualify a site according to how 'engaged' a user is on the site, I would feel that the activities on those member pages are very important. Can anyone offer suggestions on how Google treats those pages since we are planning to do further SEO optimization of those pages. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | jumpdates0 -
Should I block non-informative pages from Google's index?
Our site has about 1000 pages indexed, and the vast majority of them are not useful, and/or contain little content. Some of these are: -Galleries
Algorithm Updates | | UnderRugSwept
-Pages of images with no text except for navigation
-Popup windows that contain further information about something but contain no navigation, and sometimes only a couple sentences My question is whether or not I should put a noindex in the meta tags. I think it would be good because the ratio of quality to low quality pages right now is not good at all. I am apprehensive because if I'm blocking more than half my site from Google, won't Google see that as a suspicious or bad practice?1