Dealing with non-canonical http vs https?
-
We're working on a complete rebuild of a client's site. The existing version of the site is in WordPress and I've noticed that the site is accessible via http and https. The new version of the site will have mostly or entirely different URLs.
It seems that both http and https versions of a page will resolve, but all of the rel-canonical tags I've seen point to the https version.
Sometimes image tags and stylesheets are https, sometimes they aren't.
There are both http and https pages in Google's index.
Having looked at other community posts about http/https, I've gathered the following:
- http/https is like two different domains.
- http and https versions need to be verified in Google Webmaster Tools separately. Set up the preferred domain properly.
- Rel-canonicals and internal links should have matching protocols.
My thought is that we will do a .htaccess that redirects old URLs regardless of the protocol to new pages at one protocol. I would probably let the .css and image files from the current site 404.
When we develop and launch the new site, does it make sense for everything to be forced to https? Are there any particular SEO issues that I should be aware of for a scenario like this?
Thanks!
-
Thank you Michael.
-
You're on the right track. Force it all to https, and keep the rel=canonical pointing to https versions.
Check out this thread of questions to Google's John Mueller on this topic:
Make sure you test very thoroughly before launching the https-only version: you'll run into issues with things like images, CSS, Jscript referenced via http instead of relative or protocol-free referencing. Same goes for your internal links: you don't want to throw away a ton of link juice (even if only 5% at a time) because of 301 redirects from http to https that you could have fixed :-).
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 best practice to have a canonical tags on all pages
The website I'm working on has no canonical tags. There is duplicate content so rel=canonicals need adding to certain pages but is it best practice to have a tag on every page ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ColesNathan0 -
Redirecting traffic to https
Hey! i was wondering, should i force all traffic to https address? i know that overall a better secured website will rank better since it earns more trust from users which means less bounce rate and the list of benefits is endless..
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SharonEKG
but should i FORCE ALL traffic to a https? or maybe only force a http to https? or not at all?2 -
How to Evaluate Original Domain Authority vs. Recent 'HTTPS' Duplicate for Potential Domain Migration?
Hello Everyone, So our site has used ‘http’ for the domain since the start. Everything has been set up for this structure and Google is only indexing these pages. Just recently a second version was created on ‘httpS’. We know having both up is the worst case scenario but now that both are up is it worth just switching over or would the original domain authority warrant just keeping it on ‘http’ and redirecting the ‘httpS’ version? Assuming speed and other elements wouldn’t be an issue and it's done correctly. Our thought was if we could do this quickly it would be easier to just redirect the ‘httpS’ version but was not sure if the Pros of ‘httpS’ would be worth the resources. Any help or insight would be appreciated. Please let us know if there are any further details we could provide that might help. Looking forward to hearing from all of you! Thank you in advance for the help. Best,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ben-R1 -
Google cache is for a 3rd parties site for HTTP version and correct for HTTPS
If I search Google for my cache I get the following: cache:http://www.saucydates.com -> Returns the cache of netball.org (HTTPS page with Plesk default page) cache:https://www.saucydates.com -> Displays the correct page Prior to this my http cache was the Central Bank of Afghanistan. For most searches at present my index page is not returned and when it is, it’s the Net Ball Plesk page. This is, of course hurting my search traffic considerably. ** I have tried many things, here is the current list:** If I fetch as Google in webmaster tools the HTTPS fetch and render is correct. If I fetch the HTTP version I get a redirect (which is correct as I have a 301 HTTP to HTTPS redirect). If I turn off HTTPS on my server and remove the redirect the fetch and render for HTTP version is correct. The 301 redirect is controlled with the 301 Safe redirect option in Plesk 12.x The SSL cert is valid and with COMODO I have ensured the IP address (which is shared with a few other domains that form my sites network / functions) has a default site I have placed a site on my PTR record and ensured the HTTPS version goes back to HTTP as it doesn’t need SSL I have checked my site in Waybackwhen for 1 year and there are no hacked redirects I have checked the Netball site in Waybackwhen for 1 year, mid last year there is an odd firewall alert page. If you check the cache for the https version of the netball site you get another sites default plesk page. This happened at the same time I implemented SSL Points 6 and 7 have been done to stop the server showing a Plesk Default page as I think this could be the issue (duplicate content) ** Ideas:** Is this a 302 redirect hi-jack? Is this a Google bug? Is this an issue with duplicate content as both servers can have a default Plesk page (like millions of others!) A network of 3 sites mixed up that have plesk could be a clue? Over to the experts at MOZ, can you help? Thanks, David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dmcubed0 -
LinkedIn 999 HTTP Errors
I am working on a website, https://linkedinforbusiness.net and a ton of 999 HTTP errors have only now surfaced. I would venture from reading the "Request denied" error in the log, LinkedIn means to block BLCs attempts to check those links. It might be because the site has a lot of LinkedIn links; maybe they find it suspicious that the server is sending a lot of requests for their links. How do you see this? Any fixes? What level of harm do you think it brings to the site? I have removed all similar links to LinkedIn from my site to avoid this (https://www.hillwebcreations.com). However, this isn't so easily done for LinkedIn For Business, as her work in all about helping businesses and individuals optimize their use of LinkedIn.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jessential0 -
Rel=Canonical to Longer Page?
We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
Pagination, Canonical, Prev & Next
Hello All
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Vitalized
I have a question about my Magento setup. I have lots of categories which have many products so the categories paginate. I've seen info about making sure the Canonical tag doesn't simply send Search Engines back to the first page meaning the paginated pages won't get indexed. I've also seen info about using the rel=next & rel=prev to help Search Engines understand the category pages are paginated... Is it okay to use both? I've made sure that: category/?p=1 has a canonical of category/ to make sure there isn't duplicate content. Here's an example of category/?p=2 meta data:
http://website.com/category/?p=2" />
http://website.com/category/" />
http://website.com/category/?p=3" />0 -
Canonical Meta Tag Best Practices
I've noticed that some website owners use canonical tags even when there may be no duplicate issues.For examplewww.examplesite.com has a canonical tag.......rel="canonical" href="http://www.examplesite.com/" />www.examplesite.com/bluewidget has a canonical tag.......rel="canonical" href="http://www.examplesite.com/bluewidget/" />Is this recommended or helpful to do this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webestate0