URL Re-Writes & HTTPS: Link juice loss from 301s?
-
Our URLs are not following a lot of the best practices found here: http://moz.com/blog/11-best-practices-for-urls
We have also been waiting to implement HTTPS.
I think it might be time to take the plunge on re-writing the URLs and converting to a fully secure site, but I am concerned about ranking dips from the lost link juice from the 301s. Many of our URLs are very old, with a decent amount of quality links.
Are we better off leaving as is or taking the plunge?
-
Thanks all...Much appreciated!
Looking at the examples below, does anyone think this move could result in a negative effect?
**From: **http://www.xyzwidgets.com/widgets/commercial-widgets/small_blue_widget.htm
**To: **https://www.xyzwidgets.com/small-blue-widget
**From: **http://www.xyzwidgets.com/info/videos/general/what-are-widgets.htm
-
If youre going to be updating your URLs for best-practices, I would incorporate the conversion to https as well - do it all in one shot, as you've said.
Just ensure you're implementing 301 redirects properly. Not doing so can have disastrous results.
-
In addition to what Robert just said. If you add a 301 now to format url properly, and later add a second 301 to move to HTTPS, you will add redirect to redirect losing that little bit of page juice twice.
-
The only downside to that approach is if there is no benefit to moving to HTTPS, you have wasted time (if that was the only reason for you doing so). However, if you are using 301's either way, you may as well move to HTTPS - it won't hurt you and it might help you.
-
My thinking is that the potential for increase in CTR in the SERPS can have a greater affect than the potential 301 harm.
I notice many of you are still waiting for the jury to be a bit more conclusive on whether to move to HTTPS. However, if I'm redirecting all pages using Moz's bes practice, shouldn't I just take the HTTPS plunge at the same time? Is there any reason not to?
-
301's of any kind can result in a slight decrease in "link-juice" moving forward, although it can be hard to determine exactly how much (not a large amount relatively speaking). That being said, as Massimiliano stated, I haven't personally come across this scenario in my work.
The HTTP/HTTPS debate is still going and as Ray said, it might be best to adopt a "wait and see" strategy.
Of these things, you have pointed out that your urls do not follow best practices stated in the link - it is likely that new urls combined with 301 redirects to HTTPS will not hurt your rankings and may in fact help you. As Ray stated, it is about cost and whether you think the potential rankings are worth the time, effort and money you will spend making it happen.
-
In my experience the power of proper url, with the right keywords in the right place, is so great I wouldn't wait a second before to fix them.
Again based on my experience I never noticed a decrease in ranking due to 301.
I recently moved three websites from http to https and I didn't notice any decrease in ranking I could associate with the redirect.
Of course since we daily work on improving ranking is hard to distinguish a small decrease due to 301 from the general improvement.
-
The benefit in the ranking influence for http / https sites is still unclear. Many SEOs are still holding off on this conversion to see what its impact, hopefully measurable, may end up being.
Moz has a great post on Https necessities and practices here: http://moz.com/blog/seo-tips-https-ssl
If it is going to be an intense project (costs an mount of money that makes you question its worth), I would hold off until more information is exposed about https as a ranking factor. If the conversion is easy, then I would get it implemented now and reap any benefits that come from https.
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
-
Links
Hi 64% of our links come from a .com website and only 30% from .co.uk. We only do business in the UK should I continue with the .com links as they are easier to source. Does this hurt my SEO efforts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Caffeine_Marketing0 -
AMP for WordPress: To Do Or Not To Do
Hello SEO's, Recently some of my VIPs (Very Important Pages) have slipped, and all the pages above them are AMP. I've been waiting to switch to AMP for as long as possible bc I've heard it's a very mixed bag. As of Oct 2018, what do people think? Is it worth doing? Is there a preferred plugin for wordpress? Are things more likely to go right than wrong? The page that has gotten hit the hardest is https://humanfoodbar.com/plant-paradox-diet/plant-paradox-diet-full-shopping-list-for-lectin-free-diet/. It used to bring in ~70% of organic traffic. It was #1 and is now often near the bottom of the page. 😞 Thanks all! Remy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | remytennant1 -
Best time to choose a canonical URL & 301 redirect
I have taken on the task of getting a fairly huge eCommerce site more SEO friendly & have just realized that no URL has been chosen as our preferred domain. Should we designate a preferred domain now or wait until after the first of the year since we are hitting our busy period right now?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Winoman0 -
How should I handle these links?
I recently purchased a site which is in the same niche as my personal blog. MANY of the keywords which I want both sites to rank for, they are already ranking well for (Eg I rank #1 with one site and #5 for the other). I haven't started linking the two sites to each other yet (waiting to announce the acquisition before I do). I have 2 questions for you all... How powerful do you think linking between these sites could be? How do you think I should handle the linking between these two sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PedroAndJobu0 -
Is it safe to redirect multiple URLs to a single URL?
Hi, I have an old Wordress website with about 300-400 original pages of content on it. All relating to my company's industry: travel in Africa. It's a legitimate site with travel stories, photos, advice etc. Nothing spammy about. No adverts on it. No affiliates. The site hasn't been updated for a couple of years and we no longer have a need for it. Many of the stories on it are quite out of date. The site has built up a modest Mozrank value over the last 5 years, and has a few hundreds organically achieved inbound links. Recently I set up a swanky new branded website on ExpressionEngine on a new domain. My intention is to: Shut down the old site Focus all attention on building up content on the new website Ask the people linking to the old site to my new site instead (I wonder how many will actually do so...) Where possible, setup a 301 redirect from pages on the old site to their closest match on the new site Setup a 301 redirect from the old site's home page to new site's homepage Sounds good, right? But there is one issue I need some advice on... The old site has about 100 pages that do not have a good match on the new site. These pages are outdated or inferior quality, so it doesn't really make sense to rewrite them and put them on the new site. I call these my "black sheep pages". So... for these "black sheep pages" should I (A) redirect the urls to the new site's homepage (B) redirect the urls the old site's home page (which in turn, redirects to the new site's homepage, or (C) not redirect the urls, and let them die a lonely 404 death? OPTION A: oldsite.com/page1.php -> newsite.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndreVanKets
oldsite.com/page2.php -> newsite.com
oldsite.com/page3.php -> newsite.com
oldsite.com/page4.php -> newsite.com
oldsite.com/page5.php -> newsite.com
oldsite.com -> newsite.com OPTION B: oldsite.com/page1.php -> oldsite.com
oldsite.com/page2.php -> oldsite.com
oldsite.com/page3.php -> oldsite.com
oldsite.com/page4.php -> oldsite.com
oldsite.com/page5.php -> oldsite.com
oldsite.com -> newsite.com OPTION 😄 oldsite.com/page1.php : do not redirect, let page 404 and disappear forever
oldsite.com/page2.php : do not redirect, let page 404 and disappear forever
oldsite.com/page3.php : do not redirect, let page 404 and disappear forever
oldsite.com/page4.php : do not redirect, let page 404 and disappear forever
oldsite.com/page5.php : do not redirect, let page 404 and disappear forever
oldsite.com -> newsite.com My intuition tells me that Option A would pass the most "link juice" to my new site, but I am concerned that it could also be seen by Google as a spammy redirect technique. What would you do? Help 😐1 -
Page URL Issue
Hey Friend, I am having sort of a problem. I currently have a subpage with the url of: /musclecars/ I also have a subpage at /muscle-cars/muscle-car-restoration.html Obviously my main url is not listed here. My problem is I am trying to rank for the term Muscle Cars but the first URL does not have the keywords seperated so I rank no where. If I type MuscleCars into google I rank though (but nobody types the keyword in like that). So my question is can I create muscle-cars.mydomainname.com and rank well with that? Or is it better to just use mydomainname.com/muscle-cars/ even though that second term I am ranking for already has that in its url?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shandaman0 -
Robots.txt: Link Juice vs. Crawl Budget vs. Content 'Depth'
I run a quality vertical search engine. About 6 months ago we had a problem with our sitemaps, which resulted in most of our pages getting tossed out of Google's index. As part of the response, we put a bunch of robots.txt restrictions in place in our search results to prevent Google from crawling through pagination links and other parameter based variants of our results (sort order, etc). The idea was to 'preserve crawl budget' in order to speed the rate at which Google could get our millions of pages back in the index by focusing attention/resources on the right pages. The pages are back in the index now (and have been for a while), and the restrictions have stayed in place since that time. But, in doing a little SEOMoz reading this morning, I came to wonder whether that approach may now be harming us... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/restricting-robot-access-for-improved-seo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kurus
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions Specifically, I'm concerned that a) we're blocking the flow of link juice and that b) by preventing Google from crawling the full depth of our search results (i.e. pages >1), we may be making our site wrongfully look 'thin'. With respect to b), we've been hit by Panda and have been implementing plenty of changes to improve engagement, eliminate inadvertently low quality pages, etc, but we have yet to find 'the fix'... Thoughts? Kurus0 -
Does Google count links on a page or destination URLs?
Google advises that sites should have no more than around 100 links per page. I realise there is some flexibility around this which is highlighted in this article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/questions-answers-with-googles-spam-guru One of Google's justifications for this guideline is that a page with several hundred links is likely to be less useful to a user. However, these days web pages are rarely 2 dimensional and usually include CSS drop--down navigation and tabs to different layers so that even though a user may only see 60 or so links, the source code actually contains hundreds of links. I.e., the page is actually very useful to a user. I think there is a concern amongst SEO's that if there are more than 100ish links on a page search engines may not follow links beyond those which may lead to indexing problems. This is a long winded way of getting round to my question which is, if there are 200 links in a page but many of these links point to the same page URL (let's say half the links are simply second ocurrences of other links on the page), will Google count 200 links on the page or 100?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SureFire0