Https vs Http Link Equity
-
Hi Guys,
So basically have a site which has both HTTPs and HTTP versions of each page.
We want to consolidate them due to potential duplicate content issues with the search engines.
Most of the HTTP pages naturally have most of the links and more authority then the HTTPs pages since they have been around longer. E.g. the normal http hompage has 50 linking root domains while the https version has 5.
So we are a bit concerned of adding a rel canonical tag & telling the search engines that the preferred page is the https page not the http page (where most of the link equity and social signals are).
Could there potentially be a ranking loss if we do this, what would be best practice in this case?
Thanks,
Chris
-
Good answers!
If you do 301 redirect to all https pages would this cause issues with previous rel canonical tags which point to http version of the page.
E.g. this page
http://www.the upside sport.com/sale/women/hoodies/recovery-hoodie-coral
Has a rel canonical pointing to (which is correct):
http://www.the upsidesport.com/recovery-hoodie-coral
Then if i implement a 301 redirect to the https version the correct version would be:
https://www.theupsidesport.com/recovery-hoodie-coral
But the rel canonical would be to the non-http page unless i change it. Would this cause issues if i don't change the rel canonical tags to the https version.
- Chris
-
The https ranking signal is a tiebreaker assuming that all other ranking factors are the same
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-https-dealbreaker-20632.html
You have to decide if you have other reasons to go https site wide. Are people logging in? Are you having them provide sensitive data? That is the reason you move.
If you do want to move everything to https: use the 301 redirect. It will probably be a wash in the end. You lose a little bit of link equity in a 301, but in a tie, you would "win" thanks to the https and assuming that the other page is http. The key to the 301 is to have the 301 be page to page and not global in nature. If you use a 301 and you redirect a page to another that is not on the same topic, you will lose link equity. Google does this so that if you have a page that has a lot of link equity for the topic "red widgets" and then 301 redirect that page to one on "purple fruit" the link equity is lost. You have to redirect the "red widget" page to the new page on "red widgets" to have that pass through. Otherwise, you are just using the 301 to help move people along to the new page, which is not a bad idea, but something you need to think about none the less.
I would not use the canonical as the http to https is not really what it was meant to be used for.
In the end, just be consistent and it will all work out as there are a ton of other factors that are more important to help you rank.
Cheers!
-
Hi Chris,
I am in agreement that taking the route of canonical would not be as beneficial as 301. Remember that a canonical is just a suggestion to Google and they can still opt to ignore this if they wish.
I would avoid any possible complications here and 301. It is understood that a rel=canonical passes page rank in the same way that a 301 does, with a minor loss, but as far as I am aware, there is no actual testing to show which passes more / less.
-Andy
-
Ok, so here is a thing why do you want to switch from http to https version? If this is because of the fact that it helps Google rankings, I would suggest not go for it as it only give you a small benefit (if any).
If your website is small and there are only few pages then going for 301 redirection is a good idea just 301 redirect your pages so that link juice transfers to the preferred version.
If your website is big and you think that rel canonical is the only solution, my idea is to go with http version as moving https without redirection will hurt your rankings to a good extent.
Again, this is pretty much depends upon what your end goal is… so decide what you want to achieve at the end of the day and act accordingly.
Hope this helps!
-
Hi,
In above case you must use 301 redirects to point all HTTP URLs to HTTPS to pass link juice from http to https or the link juice isn’t going to pass over.
Hope this helps
Thanks
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
-
Footer no follow links
Just interested to know when putting links at the foot of the site some people use no-follow tags. I'm thinking about internal pages and social networks. Is this still necessary or is it an old-fashioned idea?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
How to determine the value of these links?
Hi Guys, How can you determine the value of external links which are deep inside a website. Two examples: http://www.sheknows.com/community/home/ten-tips-buy-car-insurance Two sub-folders deep. http://www.dogfoodhowto.com/899/whats-the-best-puppy-food-for-cockapoo-puppy-at-home.html One sub-folder deep. These links are clearly far from the homepage, so was wondering if they are worthless or how can you determine the value of them? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nattyhall0 -
Browser Cacheing - HTTPS redirects to HTTP
Howdy lovely Moz people. A webmaster redirected https protocol links to http a number of years ago in order to try and capture as many links as possible on a site we now manage. We have recently tried to implement https and realised that because of this existing redirect rule, they are now causing infinite loops when trying to test an http redirect. http redirecting to https redirecting back to http, etc. The https version works by itself weirdly enough. We believe that this is due to the permanent browser caching. So unless users clear their cache, they will get this infinite loop. Does anyone have any advice on how we can get round this? a) index both sites and specify in GSC that the https is the canonical version of the site and hope that Google sees that and removes the http version for the https version b) stick with http as infinite loops will kill the site c) ??????????? Thanks all.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HenryFrance0 -
Description vs meta description
I have an e-commerce website and am trying to create product category pages. I am under the impression that Description is the text that would appear under the title on a google search and I believe the meta description is just what google reads? Is having BOTH important or just description? Is it ok to duplicate the description for the meta description? I know its not good to duplicate descriptions on other products and pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchachula0 -
Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way. Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority. Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines. The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage 🙂 So, not good.</topic></state> We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective. Is this as simple as that - just removing these page? How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic> I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO? Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
Microsites: Subdomain vs own domains
I am working on a travel site about a specific region, which includes information about lots of different topics, such as weddings, surfing etc. I was wondering whether its a good idea to register domains for each topic since it would enable me to build backlinks. I would basically keep the design more or less the same and implement a nofollow navigation bar to each microsite. e.g.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kinimod
weddingsbarcelona.com
surfingbarcelona.com or should I rather go with one domain and subfolders: barcelona.com/weddings
barcelona.com/surfing I guess the second option is how I would usually do it but I just wanted to see what are the pros/cons of both options. Many thanks!0 -
Footer link - Created by
Hi everyone We created a website for our customer, and we wanted to have a footer link: "Created by WebPerfection.biz" Some Marketing company advised our customer, that it will hurt their SEO if they have that link for us in footer Would you guys advice on this please? Thank you P.S. site for our customer: www.azsedans.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DavidIRC0 -
Correcting an unnatural link profile
A site I work with ranked page 1 for a competitive keyphrase until recently. (Not Panda-related as far as we can tell.) We've done extensive on-site tweaking and the page is still parked at 27-32 in the SERPs. We believe the only viable explanation at this point is an unnatural link profile. Over the course of several years the site has racked up a large collection of footer links with anchor text due to business relationships with the sites in question. So the profile is now skewed, with the result as follows: 100,000 domain links (top 10 competitors range 1800-50k) 87% anchor text optimized (competitors 0-41%) 99% follow links (competitors 85-100%) The vast majority of links are footer links We're working on creating more natural, high-value links but this of course takes time. In the short term, two questions: Should we aim to remove or change some of the footer links? If so, do we remove them, or just change anchor text? How many? How many new links should we pursue each month to make a meaningful impact on the profile without being too aggressive? Any other thoughts on how to fix this are also appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kdcomms0