Desktop in http and mobile in https
-
Any experience or advice you can share of having a mix set of pages/urls in one site/domain https and http
e.g. mobile in https and desktop in http ,
(desktop version) http://mydomain/product1
(mobile version)https://m.mydomain.com/product1
att the same time some mobile pages still in http://m.mydomain.com/sectionA/
thanks
-
Unfortunately not, due to issues with data integrity and seasonal variations in traffic. What I can say is that it did not have a catastrophic impact on our traffic. Google still indexed both versions of the webpages if it found them, and chose to display one or the other. Since we don't have a constant to compare it with, it's difficult to ascertain the exact impact it's having. I can say that the less competitive terms with lower traffic we're ranking for just fine, but we're on page five for the most competitive term (with the most volume) we're attempting to rank for, and both an http and https page are vying for position. That's in part the structure being an issue, and also in part the content on the page is thinner than I'd like it to be.
If you run into this issue on specific pages, try adding a rel canonical tag to the page you want Google to rank. If you use this strategy only when you check your rank tracking tools to see which pages are in the SERP and having issues, you can cut down on the maintenance, and quickly determine whether or not it's the duplicate content that's preventing you from ranking or if you need to focus on other on-site or off-site signals.
-
Hi Brett,
Thanks for your insights, this basically reinforce my concerns since I might be potentially deal with this landscape, would you able to share any percentile figures in terms of traffic impact by having this mixed URLs in the sitemap?thanks again
/Arnoldo
-
Hi CleverPHdthanks for your reply, yes agree and one of the reasons for this question is actually the upcoming mobile first update and how Google will behave once is live.
-
This can create some real headaches. If you're going to secure a part of the site, you may as well secure the whole thing. Leaving part of the site unsecured and just securing a few pages that are transactional or used to collect customer data like physical addresses is something other sites have done, but should be considered a temporary solution while securing the rest of the site.
While I'm not sure that this implementation would create dark traffic in your Google Analytics reports, you're still leaving yourself open to MIM attacks and other SEO issues with a partial implementation, such as creating duplicate content. I'm dealing with this issue right now with a couple clients and I can share one of the headaches we're experiencing.
Mixed sitemap URLs! Some URLs are in https and others are in http, because they've managed to confuse the CMS (don't ask, I'm not sure what they did yet). On top of that, duplicate content is created with every new page, because the CMS now creates a page in http and a page in https. The dynamic XML sitemap then picks one and adds it. It gets worse, but I'll end it there.
You can avoid all this by securing everything, and you'll have the optional benefit of upgrading the site to HTTP/2 if you secure the whole thing first.
-
Hello!
If you want to do this. You need to setup your rel alternate and canonical links
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/separate-urls
I am not sure if the https vs http designation is that big of a deal as you are already setting up a separate set of URLs with the www. and the m.
What is interesting here is that with the new mobile first update occurring, I am not sure that this page will eventually be updated to have the canonicals point to the mobile version vs the desktop version as mentioned in the link above. Likewise, the https is favored for ranking so there may be another reason to canonical that direction, but you would need to test and see. You may find that due to the mobile first initiative and Googles preference for https that your m. pages might do better.
Generally, I would find a way to move away from the m. setup and simply run a responsive site on https://www - that is going to get you the best bang for your buck.
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
-
Desktop Ranking Disappeared After URL Change; Mobile Ranking Improved
A client's developer moved a site onto a new (WordPress) CMS, where the only change was URLs - the front end code stayed the same. The site is 10+ years old and previously had fantastic rankings (#1-4) with inner pages for some relatively generic search phrases (eg 10,000 searches / month in the UK, per Keyword Planner). Now, on Desktop searches the site isn't appearing anywhere in the 300+ results for a key search phrase, where it used to rank between #2-4; however over the last 3 weeks on Mobile the site ranks better than before, even though the site isn't at all mobile-friendly (it's over 10 years old). During the move, there were some errors by their developer: mistakenly left in a sitewide rel=canonical tag referring to the homepage 3-4 301s before finally reaching new URLs a lot of 301s missed (250+ crawl errors appeared in Search Console) page content differentiation by parameter, instead of individual URLs For example, the page that used to rank for the targeted phrase, this left 4 different URLs indexed, with the same content. To tackle this, we have so far: put in correct rel=canonical tags set up Search Console to recognise URL parameter as differentiating content fixed all crawl errors appearing in Search Console added a link direct to the problem page, direct from the homepage stopped duplicate content being indexed (including for the page in question) ensured the page load speed is still good (< 0.75s) Ranking for Desktop over Mobile would make sense, but not Mobile over Desktop! I'd really appreciate any advice on how to tackle this. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | magicdust0 -
Javascript is redirecting search bots to mobile
Here is the javascript I am using to send users to the mobile version of my website: This is causing major issues in Bing and Yahoo as the mobile website is the only thing ranking. I'd love any help dissecting this issue. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | ShawnW0 -
302 Redirect from HTTP to HTTPS
Hi Guys One of our client's website is having 586 linking unique domains to http://www.XYZ.com.au (to home page only). They have migrated their site to https://www.XYZ.com.au so all of their site pages are on HTTPS now instead of HTTP. The HTTP version of the home page is 302 redirected to HTTPS therefore we think they are not getting all the link juice of 586 linking domains and would like to recommend to change their 302 to 301. However we have not seen any ranking drop due to this migration and redirect in place. The new HTTPS site/redirect is live from last 2 months now. So not sure its worth recommending 301 or not? Does this mean Google is picking up this 302 redirect as normal and attributing all link value to HTTPS version? Please can anyone share their thoughts on recent Google interpretation of 302 from HTTP to HTTPS? Thanks
Technical SEO | | JamesDixon700 -
301 redirecting a mobile site.
Is it possible to selectively 301 redirect mobile/tablet user agents and google robots from the desktop version of a website to a mobile site? Would this preserve the SEO for the desktop website while optimizing the mobile/tablet site for mobile SEO?
Technical SEO | | inc.com0 -
Https-pages still in the SERP's
Hi all, my problem is the following: our CMS (self-developed) produces https-versions of our "normal" web pages, which means duplicate content. Our it-department put the <noindex,nofollow>on the https pages, that was like 6 weeks ago.</noindex,nofollow> I check the number of indexed pages once a week and still see a lot of these https pages in the Google index. I know that I may hit different data center and that these numbers aren't 100% valid, but still... sometimes the number of indexed https even moves up. Any ideas/suggestions? Wait for a longer time? Or take the time and go to Webmaster Tools to kick them out of the index? Another question: for a nice query, one https page ranks No. 1. If I kick the page out of the index, do you think that the http page replaces the No. 1 position? Or will the ranking be lost? (sends some nice traffic :-))... thanx in advance 😉
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Best method of redirecting http to https on homepage
Hi everyone, I'm looking to redirect all http requests to https for a site's homepage. It only needs to be for the homepage, not site wide. What's the best method of doing this without losing pagerank or ranking? I'm using IIS7.5 so I've been looking at a URL Rewrite or possibly this ASP.Net solution; http://www.xdevsoftware.com/blog/post/Redirect-from-Http-to-Https-in-ASPNET.aspx Or is a simple 301 or 302 (for some reason Microsoft's site says to do a 302 re-direct, though I'm not sure if this is great from an SEO perspective?) re-direct from http version to the https version the best method? Also if the solution retained the URL query string that would be even better! Any help appreciated! Thanks
Technical SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0 -
HTTP headers
don't know why I did not see it before but my server "Expires:" tage is set to: Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT Also I have no "Last-modified" http header either Crazy! How much do you guys think this type of thing hurts a site?
Technical SEO | | kevin48030 -
Will using https across our entire site hurt our external backlinks?
Our site is secured throughout, so it loads sitewide as https. It is canonicalized properly - any attempt to load an existing page as http will force to https. My concern is with backlinks. We've put a lot of effort into social media, so we're getting some nice blog linkage. The problem is that the links are generally to http rather than https (understandable, since that's the default for most web users). The site still loads with no problem, but my concern is that since a redirect doesn't transfer all the link juice across, we're leaking some perfectly good link credit. From the standpoint of backlinkage, are we harming ourselves by making the whole site secure by default? The site presently isn't very big, but I'm looking at adding hundreds of new pages to the site, so if we're going to make the change, now is the time to do so. Let me know what you think!
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0