Drupal, http/https, canonicals and Google Search Console
-
I’m fairly new in an in-house role and am currently rooting around our Drupal website to improve it as a whole. Right now on my radar is our use of http / https, canonicals, and our use of Google Search Console. Initial issues noticed:
- We serve http and https versions of all our pages
- Our canonical tags just refer back to the URL it sits on (apparently a default Drupal thing, which is not much use)
- We don’t actually have https properties added in Search Console/GA
I’ve spoken with our IT agency who migrated our old site to the current site, who have recommended forcing all pages to https and setting canonicals to all https pages, which is fine in theory, but I don’t think it’s as simple as this, right? An old Moz post I found talked about running into issues with images/CSS/javascript referencing http – is there anything else to consider, especially from an SEO perspective?
I’m assuming that the appropriate certificates are in place, as the secure version of the site works perfectly well.
And on the last point – am I safe to assume we have just never tracked any traffic for the secure version of the site?
Thanks
John
-
OK I gotcha now. You can submit the sitemap in all versions of Search Console, won't hurt anything to have it referenced in multiple profiles of SC.
Another thing you can do to make sure crawlers find your XML is add this line to your robots.txt file:
Sitemap: http://yoursitecom/sitemap.xml
-
Thanks so much, this is so helpful!
About the search console question, I may have confused you. This is what I mean: I have a www and non-www property of the website in Search Console (from before my time), which looks like this:
|
property
|
Sitemap
|
http://www.mysite.com/sitemap.xml
|
NO SITEMAP LINKED
|
(apologies that has not formatted well, I hope you can decipher!)
With a sitemap linked to the www version and nothing to the non-www version. The sitemap is located on the non-www version of the site, so I was just wondering if the above scenario has essentially meant we've had no sitemap submissions to date (that said, the sitemap appears to be pulling through despite being the "wrong" address, so I can only think there are either 2 separate sitemap files, OR the redirect we have set from www to non-www is having an effect?)
-
Hi John, always glad to help!
For your Search Console question: When you get the redirects setup and have committed to your site being all HTTPS, you'll want to move the location of your XML sitemap to https://yoursite.com/sitemap.xml. As Cyrus mentions in that article, don't update the URLs in the sitemap yet, let search engines hit them as non-secure for a while, I think he recommends 30 days, to give them a chance to learn your new protocol and for them to hit your redirects multiple times.
For your www question: There's no difference in SEO-value whether you choose www or non-www, simply a preference. The only thing that matters here is that you pick one and stick with it.
For your GA question: That is correct, you are seeing traffic from both in GA. GA will collect and report on any page/URL/website that your UA-ID is on. If someone scraped your site and took the GA script with it, you'd start seeing their traffic in your reporting view (that's why appending hostname is always a good idea ). You can specify in the View Settings of GA what your protocol is.
-
Hi Logan,
Thanks for your quick response, that’s very helpful and the article you provided is great.
I hadn’t thought of the purpose of self-referring canonicals, thanks for clarifying.
Re: Search Console: I’ve just noticed we only have a sitemap linked for the http://www property. Currently, all www. traffic is redirected to the non-www version of any given page (forgetting https for a second). Is this an issue in terms of pagerank?
And my last question, I promise! If our UA tag is firing on both http and https versions of the site, should we be seeing traffic from both in GA, if the property/view default url is set to http:// ? By my understanding, that setting is just a vanity thing for reporting purposes, but I’m not sure where, if anywhere, I need to specify in a particular view that http:// and https:// traffic should be treated as the same thing?
-
Hi John,
For the most part, your IT partner is correct, 2 of the most important things are to 301 all HTTP requests to HTTPS and to update canonicals. I often refer to people with questions about HTTPS to this post written by Cyrus Shepard, he covers all the bases needed for an SEO-friendly secure migration: https://moz.com/blog/seo-tips-https-ssl.
Regarding your specific comments:
- We serve http and https versions of all our pages - A 301 redirect rule will correct this
- Our canonical tags just refer back to the URL it sits on (apparently a default Drupal thing, which is not much use) - Self-referring canonicals like this serve plenty of purpose, they just need to match your preferred version www/non-www http/https, etc. etc. Self-referring canonicals help prevent duplicates caused by parameters, case-sensitive URLs, and the aformentioned HTTP/S and www/non-www.
- We don’t actually have https properties added in Search Console/GA - You should add another profile for HTTPS, verification should be simple since you've already proven you're the site owner. You want to have both profiles in GSC so you can monitor the shift of indexed URLs from HTTP to HTTPS. Also good for future troubleshooting should you see and issue with indexing of HTTP in the future for some reason.
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
-
Home Page Being Indexed / Referral URLs /
I have a few questions related to home page URLs being indexed, canonicalization, and GA reporting... 1. I can view the home page by typing in domain.com , domain.com/ and domain.com/index.htm There are no redirects and it's canonicalized to point to domain.com/index.htm -- how important is it to have redirects? I don't want unnecessary redirects or canonical tags, but I noticed the trailing slash can sometimes be typed in manually on other pages, sometimes not. 2. When I do a site search (site:domain.com), sometimes the HP shows up as "domain.com/", never "domain.com/index.htm" or "domain.com", and sometimes the HP doesn't show up period. This seems to change several times a day, sometimes within 15 minutes. I have no idea what is causing it and I don't know if it has anything to do with #1. In a perfect world, I would ask for the /index.htm to be dropped and redirected to .com/, and the canonical to point to .com/ 3. I've noticed in GA I see / , /index.htm, and a weird Google referral URL (/index.htm?referrer=https://www.google.com/) all showing up as top pages. I think the / and /index.htm is because I haven't setup a default URL in GA, but I'm not sure what would cause the referrer. I tracked back when the referrer URL started to show up in the top pages, and it was right around the time they moved over to https://, so I'm not sure what the best option is to remove that. I know this is a lot - I appreciate any insight anyone can provide.
Technical SEO | | DigMS0 -
How to use Google search console's 'Name change' tool?
Hi There, I'm having trouble performing a 'Name change' for a new website (rebrand and domain change) in Google Search console. Because the 301 redirects are in place (a requirement of the name change tool), Google can no longer verify the site, which means I can't complete the name change? To me, step two (301 redirect) conflicts with step there (site verification) - or is there a way to perform a 301 redirect and have the tool verify the old site? Any pointers in the right direction would be much appreciated. Cheers Ben
Technical SEO | | cmscss0 -
Will this URL structure: "domain.com/s/content-title" cause problems?
Hey all, We have a new in-house built too for building content. The problem is it inserts a letter directly after the domain automatically. The content we build with these pages aren't all related, so we could end up with a bunch of urls like this: domain.com/s/some-calculator
Technical SEO | | joshuaboyd
domain.com/s/some-infographic
domain.com/s/some-long-form-blog-post
domain.com/s/some-product-page Could this cause any significant issues down the line?0 -
Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google?
Hi, we re-branded and launched a new website in February 2016. In June we saw a steep drop in the number of URLs indexed, and there have continued to be smaller dips since. We started an account with Moz and found several thousand high priority crawl errors for duplicate pages and have since fixed those with canonical tags. However, we are still seeing the number of URLs indexed drop. Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google? I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this. A good portion of our URLs have canonical tags because they are just events with different dates, but otherwise the content of the page is the same.
Technical SEO | | zasite0 -
How to avoid instead suggestion from Google search results ?
Hi, When I search for "Zotey" in google, the following message is being displayed. Showing results for zotye
Technical SEO | | segistics
Search instead for zotey Anyone let me know how to get rid of this conflict asap? Regards, Sivakumar.0 -
Https vs http two different domains?
If i visit mywebsite.com.au, www.mywebsite.com.au and http://www.mywebsite.com.au - i get one website BUT if I visit https://www.mywebsite.com.au I get a different website - I also get a untrusted website warning The logo in the bottom right of the https: website is the name of the webdesigner where the website is hosted. Is this a normal practice?
Technical SEO | | GardenBeet0 -
:8088 showing up on end of URL in natural Google search results
Hello All, Wondering if anyone has seen this before and might know what it is and how to get rid of it. As you can see on the attached image, when we search one of our popular keywords on google.com.au (doesn't happen on google.com btw) it has the following added on to the URL :8088 The link works fine, but it looks like an error message to anyone searching for us. The text for the listing comes from the home page meta info in the back-end of our site (Magento) but there isn't anything that looks out of place? Any ideas appreciated! Brian@CostumeBox.com.au 8088.JPG
Technical SEO | | costumebox0 -
Redesign existing websites / worried about urls / mapping
Hi Guys, While redesigning existing websites that will have page name changes such as: example.com/products to be called example.com/solutions example.com/about-us to be called example.com/about should I 301 the old url to the new url. In the past I have not done this & I'm just wondering from an SEO point of view how bad is this? (On a scale of 1 to 10 how bad is this not 301ing urls, 10 being really bad & 1 being fine), Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Socialdude0