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
-
If I use links intag instead of "ahref" tag can Google read links inside div tag?
Hi All, Need a suggestion on it. For buttons, I am using links in tag instead of "ahref". Do you know that can Google read links inside "div" tag? Does it pass rank juice? It will be great if you can provide any reference if possible.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pujan.bikroy0 -
Link building… how to get high rewarding links?
Hi Guys, I have a few people whom I have built relationships up in my industry with that would like to link to my site. Is there any particular things I need to be mindful of before having them link to me? I'm just mindful of the unknown. Also, which links to use etc? Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edward-may0 -
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?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheDude0 -
Unpaid Followed Links & Canonical Links from Syndicated Content
I have a user of our syndicated content linking to our detailed source content. The content is being used across a set of related sites and driving good quality traffic. The issue is how they link and what it looks like. We have tens of thousands of new links showing up from more than a dozen domains, hundreds of sub-domains, but all coming from the same IP. The growth rate is exponential. The implementation was supposed to have canonical tags so Google could properly interpret the owner and not have duplicate syndicated content potentially outranking the source. The canonical are links are missing and the links to us are followed. While the links are not paid for, it looks bad to me. I have asked the vendor to no-follow the links and implement the agreed upon canonical tag. We have no warnings from Google, but I want to head that off and do the right thing. Is this the right approach? What would do and what would you you do while waiting on the site owner to make the fixes to reduce the possibility of penguin/google concerns? Blair
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlairKuhnen0 -
14,000 links from affiliate
I have an active affiliate program and notice that webmaster tools is showing a huge number of links from one particular affiliate. The affiliate is called productwiki.co.uk and they are showing 14,413 links all pointing to my homepage in WMT. They don't seem to be no follow. What should I do about this? Is this a problem? I have had major issues with my organic traffic dropping right off. I appreciate any feedback
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Aikijeff0 -
Should We Link To Our News?
We just started an "In the News" section on our webpage. We are not sure what would be the best for SEO purposes. Should we link to the news websites that have the stories about our company, even if they have no link bank? Or should we just take screenshots of the news article and only link to articles that link back to us (this is what we a currently doing)? Here is our news page, http://www.buyautoparts.com/News/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | joebuilder0 -
.co vs .com
hello Mozzers. question - does it make a big difference between having a .co vs a .com . I am tryign to get a URL, with the actual keywords in the URL . for example blackboots.com/ I see that the .com is taken but the .co is available, is it a good idea to buy it? also what about hyphens in urls - do they hurt or help if you actually have the keywords in the url. thanks much - you rock, V
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vijayvasu0 -
Should I remove paid links?
I recently added about 20 paid links from directories but have since seen a 10% drop in traffic. I did also delete about 1000 pages of content that had no inbound links and were duplicated on other sites on the web and replaced the content with new content supplied by a client but still duplicated on other sites on the web, old URLs no longer valid or linked to, new content on new URLs. Assuming the drop in traffic had nothing to do with the content change mentioned above, should I remove the paid links in an attempt to recover? I don't think the old content was bringing in much traffic as it appeared elsewhere on more authoritive sites than mine.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mulith0