How to Resolve Duplication of HTTPS & HTPP URLs?
-
Right now, I am working on eCommerce website. [Lamps Lighting and More]
I can find out both URLs in website as follow.
HTTP Version:
http://www.lampslightingandmore.com/
HTTPS Version:
https://www.lampslightingandmore.com/
I have check one of my competitor who has implemented following canonical on both pages. Please, view source code for both URLs.
Then, I checked similar thing in SEOmoz website.
Why should I not check in SEOmoz because, They are providing best SEO information so may be using best practice to deal with HTTPS & HTTP. LOL
I tried to load following URL so it redirect to home page.
https://www.seomoz.org is redirecting to http://www.seomoz.org
But, following URL is not redirecting any where as well as not set canonical over there.
https://www.seomoz.org/users/settings
I can find out following code on http://www.seomoz.org/robots.txt
**User-agent: ***
** Disallow: /api/user?***
So, I am quite confuse to solve issue. Which one is best 301 redirect or canonical tag? If any live example to see so that's good for me and make me more confident.
-
I have set robots.txt file for HTTP and HTTPS versions. You can find out both file above your response. Thanks for your answer.
-
Our solution to this, was to make sure we had a canonical for each and every page pointing to the http:// version.
Secondly https:// was only made available after logging in.
-
Yep
-
Now, Looks fine... Right??
-
You are right. Because, I have solid confusion after reading article about duplication. I checked my website and found HTTPS and HTTP pages and raising questions in that direction.
-
So, What about canonical tag. I am too confuse with it. What is ultimate conclusion. Because, I have make it live one website after getting suggestion.
Any eCommerce experience which will help me to understand more. What is best solution in my case. My goal is remove duplication in website and improve crawling rate.
-
I believe you're messing things, honestly. 1st > choose a canonical version for your site (www. or not). Sometimes absolute urls can give problems for https version of a site. 2nd > consider if your really want to index the htpps version... If not, put no index or block it via robots.txt. If yes use as canonical tag the http URL of the https page.
-
I would use no índex for the https version of the site, or block it from robots.txt, if i don't want it to be indexed.
-
I want to add similar mind bubble in this question.
http://www.lampslightingandmore.com/
https://www.lampslightingandmore.com/
I have make canonical tag live after discussion over here. But, I have confusion regarding Relative & Absolute URLs.
I am using absolute URLs in canonical tag but, website have relative URLs.
So, Does it create any issue or stop down get benefit of canonical tag?
-
Yes, I don't want to crawl my HTTPS pages and don't want to create duplication by HTTPS and HTTP pages.
-
My question is in same manner. So, why WayFair have set canonical in website?
-
But you don't want your https pages crawled if there's the same version available as http. This is mostly a technical issue, but crawling a https site is way more expensive for both bot and server.
-
How to Resolve Duplication of HTTPS & HTTP URLs?
Neither a redirect nor a canonical tag is necessary.
HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, etc are various protocols used to access information contained on your web server. The data itself is only instanced once, but you can access the data by using these various protocols. It is not a duplication of data and will not cause any SEO issues.
-
301 redirect doesn't exclude a canonical. If you just want to use one solution, use the 301. There was a YouMoz post about exactly this topic a time ago, have look at it
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
-
Same URL-Structure & the same number of URLs indexed on two different websites - can it lead to a Google penalty?
Hey guys. I've got a question about the url structure on two different websites with a similar topic (bith are job search websites). Although we are going to publish different content (texts) on these two websites and they will differ visually, the url structure (except for the domain name) remains exactly the same, as does the number of indexed landingpages on both pages. For example, www.yyy.com/jobs/mobile-developer & www.zzz.com/jobs/mobile-developer. In your opinion, can this lead to a Google penalty? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vde130 -
Possible duplicate content issues on same page with urls to multiple tabs?
Hello everyone! I'm first time here, and glad to be part of Moz community! Jumping right into the question I have. For a type of pages we have on our website, there are multiple tabs on each page. To give an example, let's say a page is for the information about a place called "Ladakh". Now the various urls that the page is accessible from, can take the form of: mywanderlust.in/place/ladakh/ mywanderlust.in/place/ladakh/photos/ mywanderlust.in/place/ladakh/places-to-visit/ and so on. To keep the UX smooth when the user switches from one tab to another, we load everything in advance with AJAX but it remains hidden till the user switches to the required tab. Now since the content is actually there in the html, does Google count it as duplicate content? I'm afraid this might be the case as when I Google for a text that's visible only on one of the tabs, I still see all tabs in Google results. I also see internal links on GSC to say a page mywanderlust.in/questions which is only supposed to be linked from one tab, but GSC telling internal links to this page (mywanderlust.in/questions) from all those 3 tabs. Also, Moz Pro crawl reports informed me about duplicate content issues, although surprisingly it says the issue exists only on a small fraction of our indexable pages. Is it hurting our SEO? Any suggestions on how we could handle the url structure better to make it optimal for indexing. FWIW, we're using a fully responsive design with the displayed content being exactly same for both desktop and mobile web. Thanks a ton in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | atulgoyal0 -
Http - Https Issue
Hey there Mozzers, I have a site that few months ago went from being http - https. All the links redirect perfect but after scanning my site with Screaming Frog i get a bunch of 503 errors. After looking into my website I see that a lot of links in my content and menu have as a link the http url. For example my homepage has content that interlinks to the http version of the site. And even though when I test it it redirects correctly after scanning with Screaming frog it reports back as 503. Any ideas what's going on? Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Angelos_Savvaidis0 -
Does Google Read URL's if they include a # tag? Re: SEO Value of Clean Url's
An ECWID rep stated in regards to an inquiry about how the ECWID url's are not customizable, that "an important thing is that it doesn't matter what these URLs look like, because search engines don't read anything after that # in URLs. " Example http://www.runningboards4less.com/general-motors#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 Basically all of this: #!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 That is a snippet out of a conversation where ECWID said that dirty urls don't matter beyond a hashtag... Is that true? I haven't found any rule that Google or other search engines (Google is really the most important) don't index, read, or place value on the part of the url after a # tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
URL Parameter & crawl stats
Hey Guys,I recently used the URL parameter tool in WBT to mark different urls that offers the same content.I have the parameter "?source=site1" , "?source=site2", etc...It looks like this: www.example.com/article/12?source=site1The "source parameter" are feeds that we provide to partner sites and this way we can track the referral site with our internal analytics platform.Although, pages like:www.example.com/article/12?source=site1 have canonical to the original page www.example.com/article/12, Google indexed both of the URLs
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mr.bfz
www.example.com/article/12?source=site1andwww.example.com/article/12Last week I used the URL parameter tool to mark "source" parameter "No, this parameter doesnt effect page content (track usage)" and today I see a 40% decrease in my crawl stats.In one hand, It makes sense that now google is not crawling the repeated urls with different sources but in the other hand I thought that efficient crawlability would increase my crawl stats.In additional, google is still indexing same pages with different source parameters.I would like to know if someone have experienced something similar and by increasing crawl efficiency I should expect my crawl stats to go up or down?I really appreciate all the help!Thanks!0 -
Recommended URL Structure
Hello, We are currently adding a new section of content on our site related to Marketing and more specifically 'Digital Marketing' (research reports, trend studies, etc). Over time (several months, or 1-3 years) we will add more 'general' marketing content. My question is which of the following URL structures makes more sense from an SEO perspective (and how best to quantify the benefit of one over another): www.mysite.com/marketing/digital/research/... www.mysite.com/digital-marketing/research/.. Thanks, Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mike-gart0 -
Canonical URLs and Sitemaps
We are using canonical link tags for product pages in a scenario where the URLs on the site contain category names, and the canonical URL points to a URL which does not contain the category names. So, the product page on the site is like www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, and also like www.example.com/sale/clearance/skater-skirt-12345 in another category. And on both of these pages, the canonical link tag references a 3rd URL like www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. This 3rd URL, used in the canonical link tag is a valid page, and displays the same content as the other two versions, but there are no actual links to this generic version anywhere on the site (nor external). Questions: 1. Does the generic URL referenced in the canonical link also need to be included as on-page links somewhere in the crawled navigation of the site, or is it okay to be just a valid URL not linked anywhere except for the canonical tags? 2. In our sitemap, is it okay to reference the non-canonical URLs, or does the sitemap have to reference only the canonical URL? In our case, the sitemap points to yet a 3rd variation of the URL, like www.example.com/product.jsp?productID=12345. This page retrieves the same content as the others, and includes a canonical link tag back to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. Is this a valid approach, or should we revise the sitemap to point to either the category-specific links or the canonical links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 379seo0 -
301 redirect for duplicate content
Hey, I have just started working on a site which is a video based city guide, with promotional videos for restaurants, bars, activities,etc. The first thing that I have noticed is that every video on the site has two possible urls:- http://www.domain.com/venue.php?url=rosemarino
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AdeLewis
http://www.domain.com/venue/rosemarino I know that I can write a .htaccess line to redirect one to the other:- redirect 301 /venue.php?url=rosemarino http://www.domain.com/venue/rosemarino but this would involve creating a .htaccess line for every video on the site and new videos that get added may get missed. Does anyone know a way of creating a rule to rewrite these urls? Any help would be most gratefully received. Thanks. Ade.0