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
-
On page vs Off page vs Technical SEO: Priority, easy to handle, easy to measure.
Hi community, I am just trying to figure out which can be priority in on page, off page and technical SEO. Which one you prefer to go first? Which one is easy to handle? Which one is easy to measure? Your opinions and suggestions please. Expecting more realistic answers rather than usual check list. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Have you ever changed the logo anchor text from "logo" to "keyword"? How Google considers?
Hi all, We know that generally logo with the website homepage link is the first link crawled by Google and other search engines. Can we change the anchor text from "logo" to "keyword"? Have any one tried or seen others doing? How Google considers it? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Diluting your authority - adding pages diluting rankings of other pages?
I'm looking after a site that has around 400 pages. All of these pages rank pretty well for the KW they are targetting. My question is: if we add another 400 pages without doing any link building work, holding DA the same, 1) would the rankings of those 400 previously good pages diminish? and 2) Would the new pages, as more and more new ones are created, rank less and less well?
Algorithm Updates | | xoffie0 -
Google Reconsideration - To do or not to do?
We haven't been manually penalized by Google yet but we have had our fair share of things needing to be fixed; malware, bad links, lack/if no content, lack-luster UX, and issues with sitemaps & redirects. Should we still submit a reconsideration even though we haven't had a direct penalty? Does hurt us to send it?
Algorithm Updates | | GoAbroadKP0 -
Google doesnt index my Google+ Profile
Hey guys! I know it sounds like a novice question, but I have checked ALL THE BOXES THAT TELL GOOGLE TO INDEX MY GOOGLE+ PROFILE. It is Visible for search - 100%. It's been 3 weeks since I opened a Google+ profile and it still hasn't been indexed for its name. Any guesses what's going on? (It's not this name so don't try to google me)
Algorithm Updates | | Yoav_Vilner0 -
Large number of thin content pages indexed, affect overall site performance?
Hello Community, Question on negative impact of many virtually identical calendar pages indexed. We have a site that is a b2b software product. There are about 150 product-related pages, and another 1,200 or so short articles on industry related topics. In addition, we recently (~4 months ago) had Google index a large number of calendar pages used for webinar schedules. This boosted the indexed pages number shown in Webmaster tools to about 54,000. Since then, we "no-followed" the links on the calendar pages that allow you to view future months, and added "no-index" meta tags to all future month pages (beyond 6 months out). Our number of pages indexed value seems to be dropping, and is now down to 26,000. When you look at Google's report showing pages appearing in response to search queries, a more normal 890 pages appear. Very few calendar pages show up in this report. So, the question that has been raised is: Does a large number of pages in a search index with very thin content (basically blank calendar months) hurt the overall site? One person at the company said that because Panda/Penguin targeted thin-content sites that these pages would cause the performance of this site to drop as well. Thanks for your feedback. Chris
Algorithm Updates | | cogbox0 -
Large site with faceted navigation using rel=canonical, but Google still has issues
First off, I just wanted to mention I did post this on one other forum so I hope that is not completely against the rules here or anything. Just trying to get an idea from some of the pros at both sources. Hope this is received well. Now for the question..... "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site:" Gotta love these messages in GWT. Anyway, I wanted to get some other opinions here so if anyone has experienced something similar or has any recommendations I would love to hear them. First off, the site is very large and utilizes faceted navigation to help visitors sift through results. I have implemented rel=canonical for many months now to have each page url that is created based on the faceted nav filters, push back to the main category page. However, I still get these damn messages from Google every month or so saying that they found too many pages on the site. My main concern obviously is wasting crawler time on all these pages that I am trying to do what they ask in these instances and tell them to ignore and find the content on page x. So at this point I am thinking about possibly using robots.txt file to handle these, but wanted to see what others around here thought before I dive into this arduous task. Plus I am a little ticked off that Google is not following a standard they helped bring to the table. Thanks for those who take the time to respond in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | PeteGregory0 -
Google Cached Pages
I made some on-site changes to a site last week, in particular their page titles. This was all done on the same day at the same time. Now, one of those pages, got re-indexed on August 8th and has my updated changes, which also helped with my ranking. The other page I made changes to still shows a cached version from July 27th, which is before I made the changes. Why wouldn't google have an updated page from August 8th for both pages, not just one?
Algorithm Updates | | MichaelWeisbaum0