Http and https protocols being indexed for e-commerce website
-
Hi team,
Our new e-commerce website has launched and I've noticed both http and https protocols are being indexed.
Our old website was http with only the necessary pages running https (cart, checkout etc). No https pages were indexed and you couldn't access a https page if you manually typed it into the browser.
We outrank our competition by a mile, so I'm treading carefully here and don't want to undo the progress we made on the old site, so I have a few questions:
1. How exactly do we remove one protocol from the index? We are running on Drupal. We tried a hard redirect from https to http and excluded the relevant pages (cart, login etc from the redirect), but found that you could still access https pages if you we're in the cart (https) and then pressed back on the browser button for example. At that point you could browse the entire site on https.
2. Is the safer option to emulate what we had in place on the old website e.g http with only the necessary pages being https, rather than making the switch to sitewide https?
I've been struggling with this one, so any help would be much appreciated.
Jake S
-
Just checked my GA data and you're right. Referral data from mountainjade.co.nz is there. Thanks for the heads up.
I've decided to make the switch to https, so will be organising that with dev in the coming few weeks. I'll keep you posted!
Cheers for the help again Logan,
I owe ya.
-
Great!
I've decided to make the full switch to https now, rather than wait to do it.
I will report back and let you know how it all goes!
Thanks for your help Laura.
-
I don't know why this didn't cross my mind until now, but having both versions can also mess up your Google Analytics data. Going from one to the other (can't remember which direction) creates a new session. You've probably got a lot of self-referring traffic showing up in your reports.
-
Hey Bas,
My developers share your sentiment!
Both versions of the website can be accessed by both the customer and the bots, but because we use relative urls, it can switch between http and https is a single session. This is one example:
1. Land on the homepage from a google search (http homepage is indexed).
2. Browse site on http. Add something to cart. Go to cart.
3. Cart switches to https. Navigate out of cart back into website.
4. Now urls are all https because the links on our site are relative and don't specify a protocol (e.g customer is in cart and then wants to check contact us page, it's link when clicked is as follows [Contact](/contact us). So it pulls the https protocol as there is not http protocol specified in that contact us link.
Hmmm, it definitely could be effecting UX and conversion.
-
Ideally, you'll migrate the entire site to https, and Cyrus' guide is a good one. Google has some helpful info for an http to https migration at https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6073543?hl=en.
The canonical tag solution is for the situation where you can't or don't want to go ahead and switch the whole site over to https right away. Either way, make sure Google knows, either through 301-redirects or canonical tags, that the http and https versions are the same page.
-
Hi Laura,
Wow, when I said we have self referencing canonicals in place (through Drupal Yoast) I hadn't even thought that it could be applying a canonical to the https version of the site aswell.
I just crawled both http and https and as you're right, the following is happening:
http://example.com is canonicalized to http://example.com
https://example.com is canonicalized to https://example.com
But I'm a little confused. In my first post I was looking for help because google was indexing both http and https pages. Are you saying that it's because of these canonicals that google is indexing both? Would it index both even if I didn't have the canonicals in place but still had SSL?
Just to confirm, canonicalizing the http URLs to the https URLs will tell google to fold the http URLs into the https and only index the https version of the site? Would I need to follow the https migration guide by Cyrus when doing this, or is this not really a 'migration' to https as we're not forcing the customer to browse in https?
Bear with me!
-
I agree with the others. I think you should pick a horse and ride it. Indecision is only causing more confusion on Google's part and is going to hurt you in the long run. Google says they prefer HTTPS and I've seen evidence of that. You're already paying for an SSL so you might as well use it to the max.
As Laura said, if you've got self-referring canonical tags on both secure and non-secure URLs, you're setting yourself up for some pretty big issues.
-
Hi Jacob,
I understand the issue. I think that this way you're not making a decision where you really should:
Either you use non-ssl or either you use ssl. To continue with the both is a terrible situation: nobody really knows what the they are supposed to know.For instance: is it possible that someone starts on the thomepage (non-ssl), goes to a product page (ssl) and then to the shopping cart which is again non-ssl? If that is the case you should really check your conversion rate because that in itself might be very damaging as well.
Yours,
Bas -
When you say you currently have self referencing canonicals, is the following happening?
The page http://example.com is canonicalized to http://example.com.
The page https://example.com is canonicalized to https://example.com.
If so, this is the bigger problem because Google sees these as 2 different URLs and may index both of them. Furthermore, you could be splitting backlinks between 2 URLs unnecessarily. This duplicate issue may be part of the reason you saw organic traffic drop when you launched your new site.
If the HTTPS URLs are already being indexed by Google, go ahead and canonicalize the http URLs to the https URLs. In other words, http://example.com will canonicalize to https://example.com.
By setting up the canonical this way, Google will fold the two URLs together and correctly treat them as the same page.
-
Good morning Laura,
Thanks for the advice.
I've replied below to Logan giving a little context. If you could take a look and let me know your thoughts it would be a huge help.
-
Hi again Logan,
I've tossed up whether or not to make the full switch to https for a while now. I'll give you a little background so you understand my position:
When our new website launched, our organic search traffic took a dip of around 15%. It has taken around two months for it to recover (almost). We changed site structure out of necessity but followed best practise to ensure we didn't undo alot of the work we had done with the old website. With the 15% organic rankings dip we saw a corresponding dip in revenue, so what I don't want to do is muddy the waters anymore than they already are by adding more moving parts to the mix (migration / redesign / http to https). And we cannot risk another dip in revenue so close to the first which may come with a full https migration (do you think?).
This is why I'm leaning toward replicating what we had in place on the old website and only forcing https on the necessary pages.
Now that you understand my position, would you still recommend the switch to https? I would love to know your thoughts.
The catch with all of this is I'm not sure exactly how the http https was implemented on the old website. At that point in time I had no need to know.
We currently have self referencing canonicals which you know we need to maintain, particularly on product pages which use URL parameters. We are also using relative links across the entire website.
Therefore, what would be the best solution here? Down the rabbit hole we go...
Thanks for your time,
-
Hi Jacob,
Cyrus Shepard put together a great guide on HTTPS migrations. Since you've already got an SSL, you may as well apply it to the whole site and set your preferred domain as HTTPS (as Laura and Bas mentioned). In the guide, he details the best ways to ensure search engines index the version you want via 301 redirect rules, canonical tags, and XML sitemaps. Don't forget to set up Search Console properties for HTTPS - www and non-www versions and set your preferred domain there as well.
Run this query in Google to monitor what they've got in their index as the canonical domain: info:mountainjade.co.nz
-
Agree with Laura: better to let the https be indexed. Nice links by the way for this topic.
Bas
-
In your case, the best thing to do is set up canonical tags to let Google know which version of the URL should be indexed. That way, it doesn't matter if Google can access the https page, and you won't have the duplicate content problem that you have now.
I can't advise you on the best way to set this up with Drupal, but you'll need to be wary of any type of automatic canonical tags. You may end up with an "http" canonical link on the http page and an "https" canonical link on the https page. That doesn't solve the problem at all.
If you are not already familiar with canonical tags, you can learn more at the links below.
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
- https://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization
- https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
By the way, I would set it up so that Google indexes the https version of your pages rather than the http version.
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
-
Should I have multiple websites for my different brands or one main website with different tabs/areas?
My client creates apps. As well as the apps they create themselves, they have made some of their own that cover various different topics. Currently they have individual websites for each of these apps, and a website for their app making business. They are asking whether they should just have one website - their app building site, which also includes information about the two apps they've built themselves. My feeling is it's better to keep them separate. The app building site is trying to appeal to a B2B audience and gain business to build new apps. AppA is trying to help carehomes and carers to streamline their business, and AppB is trying to help workplace and employee welfare. Combining them all will mean lots of mixed messaging/keywords even if we have dedicated areas on the site. I also think it will limit how much content we can create on each without being completely overwhelming for the user. If we keep them all separate then we can have a very clear user journey. I would of course recommend having blog posts or some sort of landing page to link to AppA and AppB's websites. Thoughts? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WhitewallGlasgow0 -
Json LD e-commerce site with Excellent implementation of all markup features
Hi all I am looking for some really good clear examples of sites that have excellent JSON LD markup. Not just the basics but packed to the teeth with markup for every element. I am particularly interested in e-commerce applications as I am re skinning our e-commerce platform written from scratch in house. It is far from perfect, not mobile friendly and well a bit backward but links into everything we have in a seamless way all the way to our manufacturing plant. Take a look have a little laugh and then take pity 🙂 https://www.spurshelving.co.uk/shop/shop.aspx Thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eff-Commerce0 -
Sitemap indexing
Hi everyone, Here's a duplicate content challenge I'm facing: Let's assume that we sell brown, blue, white and black 'Nike Shoes model 2017'. Because of technical reasons, we really need four urls to properly show these variations on our website. We find substantial search volume on 'Nike Shoes model 2017', but none on any of the color variants. Would it be theoretically possible to show page A, B, C and D on the website and: Give each page a canonical to page X, which is the 'default' page that we want to rank in Google (a product page that has a color selector) but is not directly linked from the site Mention page X in the sitemap.xml. (And not A, B, C or D). So the 'clean' urls get indexed and the color variations do not? In other words: Is it possible to rank a page that is only discovered via sitemap and canonicals?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Adriaan.Multiply1 -
Website not ranking
Firstly, apologies for the long winded question. I'm 'newish' to SEO We have a website built on Magento , www.excelclothing.com We have been online for 5 years and had reasonable success. Having used a few SEO companies in the past we found ourselves under a 'partial manual penalty' early last year. By July we were out of penalty. We have been gradually working our way through getting rid of 'spammy' links. Currently the website ranks for a handful of non competitive keywords looking at the domain on SEM RUSH. This has dropped drastically over the last 2 years. Our organic traffic over the last 2-3 years has seen no 'falling off a cliff' and has maintained a similar pattern. I've been told so many lies by SEO companies trying to get into my wallet I'm not sure who to believe. We have started to add content onto all our Category pages to make more unique although most of our Meta Descriptions are a 'boiler plate' template. I'm wondering.... Am I still suffering from Penquin ? Am I trapped by Panda and if so how can I know that? Do I need more links removed? How can I start to rank for more keywords I have a competitor online with the same DA, PA and virtually same number of links but they rank for 3500 keywords in the top 20. Would welcome any feedback. Many Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wgilliland1 -
E-commerce category page optimization - filters vs. categories
Hi, We currently have a site where there are several subcategories for every main category. So this means that visitors will have to click through 3-4 subcategories before reaching products that they could have easily found if the site would be using filters on category pages. My question is - if a subcategory page with 4 products is currently a category page (optimized heading, description) and I'd want this category to be available through filters, how do I still keep it optimized for search engines? So under a category "Cleaners", we have all cleaning products. There are 8 "Cable cleaners" under this category. This is currently a subcategory, but I'd just solve this with a filter in the "Cleaners" screen. Not sure what's right from an SEO standpoint here.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JaanMSonberg0 -
How to make Link Building for the E-Commerce sites?
Hello everyone, I just ask one question: How to make Link Building for the E-Commerce sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | backlinkmag0 -
E-Commerce SEO
Dear SeoMoz fans, I'm really glad to be a part of the community. Just have a quick question. I run a marketplace similar to eBay where users sell the products. I would like some suggestions on how to effectively proceed with SEO for an ecommerce marketplace of this type. Should I be proceed developing product review or product comparison landing pages and build links towards them as often suggested or should I consider alternative marketing methods? Looking forward to your replies.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | buzzmartseo0 -
Why would the PageRank for all of our websites show the same?
The last time I checked (early this year), the PageRank on the sites I manage varied, with the highest showing as 6. It made sense as the PR6 site has loads of links and has been around for a long time, whereas the other sites hadn't. Now all of our websites are showing the same PageRank - 6, even one that has recently launched and another that has barely any links/traffic or anything to it. I didn't check the PR of that one last time (I'd be surprised if it was 2), but the sites now showing as 6 ranged from PR3 to PR6 back then. We changed server in February...so could this issue be something to do with all of the sites being stored on the same server? It doesn't seem right but it's the only thing I can think of. At the moment, the Domain Authority for these six websites ranges from 27 to 62.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0