Any harm and why the differences - multiple versions of same site in WMT
-
In Google Webmaster Tools we have set up:
ourdomain.co.nz
ourdomain.co.uk
ourdomain.com
ourdomain.com.au
www.ourdomain.co.nz
www.ourdomain.co.uk
www.ourdomain.com
www.ourdomain.com.au
https://www.ourdomain.co.nz
https://www.ourdomain.co.uk
https://www.ourdomain.com
https://www.ourdomain.com.auAs you can imagine, this gets confusing and hard to manage. We are wondering whether having all these domains set up in WMT could be doing any damage? Here http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=44231 it says:
"If you see a message that your site is not indexed, it may be because it is indexed under a different domain. For example, if you receive a message that http://example.com is not indexed, make sure that you've also added http://www.example.com to your account (or vice versa), and check the data for that site."
The above quote suggests that there is no harm in having several versions of a site set up in WMT, however the article then goes on to say:
"Once you tell us your preferred domain name, we use that information for all future crawls of your site and indexing refreshes. For instance, if you specify your preferred domain as http://www.example.com and we find a link to your site that is formatted as http://example.com, we follow that link as http://www.example.com instead."
This suggests that having multiple versions of the site loaded in WMT may cause Google to continue crawling multiple versions instead of only crawling the desired versions (https://www.ourdomain.com + .co.nz, .co.uk, .com.au).
However, even if Google does crawl any URLs on the non https versions of the site (ie ourdomain.com or www.ourdomain.com), these 301 to https://www.ourdomain.com anyway... so shouldn't that mean that google effectively can not crawl any non https://www versions (if it tries to they redirect)? If that was the case, you'd expect that the ourdomain.com and www.ourdomain.com versions would show no pages indexed in WMT, however the oposite is true. The ourdomain.com and www.ourdomain.com versions have plenty of pages indexed but the https versions have no data under Index Status section of WMT, but rather have this message instead:
Data for https://www.ourdomain.com/ is not available. Please try a site with http:// protocol: http://www.ourdomain.com/.
This is a problem as it means that we can't delete these profiles from our WMT account.
Any thoughts on the above would be welcome.
As an aside, it seems like WMT is picking up on the 301 redirects from all ourdomain.com or www.ourdomain.com domains at least with links - No ourdomain.com or www.ourdomain.com URLs are registering any links in WMT, suggesting that Google is seeing all links pointing to URLs on these domains as 301ing to https://www.ourdomain.com ... which is good, but again means we now can't delete https://www.ourdomain.com either, so we are stuck with 12 profiles in WMT... what a pain....
Thanks for taking the time to read the above, quite complicated, sorry!! Would love any thoughts...
-
I agree with Federico that you probably don't need to have every page be secure. Perhaps you should consider making the http://www. version your canonical default instead?
-
It is fine to have multiple versions of a site in different countries. Some of the biggest brands in the world do this. There are "right" and "wrong" ways to go about it, but if I had a ccTLD for the UK and lots of UK customers I wouldn't send them to my US site, regardless of whether I had a /uk/ folder or not.
-
Chirs,
Is the content exactly the same on all domains? Anything changes between .com, .co.uk, etc?
If so, you MUST use the canonical to only ONE version (.com would be my guess) and rel="alternate" for the other domains, however, that doesn't make any sense if the content is the same. Why not just redirect all domains to .com (or whatever definitive version you choose)?
-
Hi Frederico,
Thanks very much for your response. And yes, sorry, my initial question wasn't written so great, sorry!
ourdomain.com and www.ourdomain.com both 301 to https://www.ourdomain.com (which is also the canonical definitive version for the .com)
ourdomain.co.uk and www.ourdomain.co.uk both 301 to https://www.ourdomain.co.uk (which is also the canonical definitive version for the .co.uk)
and the same as above for .com.au domains, and .co.nz domains.
The content is the same across all domains.
The thing is that a lot of info appears in Webmaster tools under the non canonical versions of the sites, and is not showing under the canonical profile in WMT. Which makes us feel like maybe we shouldn't delete those profiles?
Regarding the HTTP vs HTTPS issues... sounds like what you are saying is that we should consider only using HTTPS on pages that really need it - at the moment it is site wide. That makes sense.
Thanks again and look forward to your thoughts as to whether there is any benefit or harm if we keep/remove the non canonical site profiles from WMT.
-
Hi Chris,
That was hard to follow. Let's start with the basics:
Do all those domains redirect to one single domain? or all those domains serve the same content but within the domain accessed?
If you redirect all domains to a single domain, using a 301 will do while having the profiles in WMT is useless. If you serve the same content within all domains, you should use canonicals pointing to a definitive version with no canonical tag. Then again, you can use WMT to track searches and links, but Google will serve one URL in their results, and that's the one all other versions are pointing in the canonical tag.
Now, are you trying to serve all your content under SSL or standard HTTP? As that causes a duplicate content issue if you are serving both, and again, you should use 301 to the verison you prefer or canonicals. There's no benefit or harm using HTTPS for all your pages, and sometimes, HTTPS could be slower as the browser has to negotiate certificates in each request (I would go with regular HTTP if you are not requesting input from your visitors or showing private information).
Am I on the right track so far?
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
-
What is the most effective way of selecting a top keyword per page on a site?
We are creating fresh content for outdated sites and I need to identify the most significant keyword per page for the content developers, What is the best way to do this?
Reporting & Analytics | | Sable_Group0 -
How accurate is Google analytics at measuring traffic? (Free version)
Hi Guys. When we compare our actual sales to Google analytics conversions it can be way out. Sometimes as much as 50%. Is this the same for the data on traffic? And if so, does the data tend to be out by a similar amount over time? i.e) If we compare this year and last year it give us a good indicator of differences in traffic volume? (albeit not 100% accurate?) Thanks. Isaac.
Reporting & Analytics | | isaac6630 -
Automated XML Sitemap for a BIG site
Hi, I would like to do an automated sitemap for my site but it has more than a million pages. It would need to be a sitemap index with a separation on different parts of the site (i.e. news, video) and I'll want a news sitemap and video sitemap as well (of course). Does anyone have any recommended way of making this and how much would you recommend it getting updated? For news and , I would like it to be pretty immediate if possible but the static pages don't need to be updated as much. Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | mattdinbrooklyn0 -
Large event site - how should I structure my URLs?
Hi guys, I'm working on a new website which is consolidating a number of existing event sites into one. The existing sites use a variety of URL structures: www.eventsite1.com/events/event-name www.eventsite2.com/festival-program/event-name www.eventsite3.com/event-name This inconsistency has led to issues with tracking category usage properly in analytics - for instance, with eventsite3.com, events fall within categories (www.eventsite3.com/category-name) but as soon as you drill into an event detail page (www.eventsite3.com/event-name) from the category page, the category is lost to analytics. This is compounded when one event lives within multiple categories, as I can't figure out which category is the most effective for a particular event. I've seen other event sites establish a canonical URL for a primary category, display it in the URL (i.e. www.eventsite4.com/primary-category/event-name) yet still let that event get hit via the secondary categories (www.eventsite4.com/secondary-category/event-name). This way, the categories get passed to analytics without any duplicate content issues (i.e. via the setting of canonicals) Basically, I want to make sure that whatever instruction I give to the devs for the new site re: URL structure is correct from an SEO perspective and analytics perspective. Do I even need to worry about having the category in the URL? Can someone please help me with this? Hope this makes sense Cheers
Reporting & Analytics | | cos20300 -
Accidental Link not being removed by Google WMT
I operate two sites for a client. One is a local business and one is their national business. I used the same template for both sites (with changes) but accidentally left a link in the footer to the local site. Now the local site is showing 12k backlinks from the national site. I removed the link over 2 weeks ago but it still shows up in Google WMT in the "Links to your Site" section. It goes to a coupon page and not a "targeted" page but 12k links to the local site is 6 TIMES what I had before. My question is: "Is there a way to get Google to remove the link from Google WMT?" More specifically force it. Like I said the link has been removed for over 2 weeks but it still shows up in the Local site's Incoming Links section of WMT. Thanks.
Reporting & Analytics | | DarinPirkey0 -
No data available for example.com in WMT. What to do?
Hi, Our problem is simple: we have statistics data for www.example.com but some data is missing for example.com (eg."links to your site", "structured data, "html improvements") . However, "search queries", "index status" and some other data is available for example.com. The problem is that we have over 5000 subdomains and we see no information about them.(especially links pointing to them). We followed every advice given by Google but doesn't seem to work: -Adding www.example.com and example.com in WMT -Setting www.example.com as the preffered domain -Using DNS verification to verify our site What do we have to do? Thank you, Axello
Reporting & Analytics | | axello0 -
Has anyone noticed a dramatic drop in direct visits year over year in GA across multiple sites?
I monitor about 10 websites in GA. Many of these sites are in a stable phase of their lifecycle. I've noticed this year that direct visits on all my sites and even friends sites have dropped by 20-60%. Has anyone seen any explanation for this or noticed this when compared to previous year? In every instance I have no penalties, notices, anything and the drop is made up completely of "direct visits".
Reporting & Analytics | | bradwayland0 -
Human Representation on a site
Hello Friends, thank you for helping in advance. My website http://www.FrontlineMobility.com gets a lot of traffic and with our Google Adwords campaigns we have very good click through rates(percentages from 1 percent to 4 percent). So I know that I am getting people to my site, but I can't get them to spend money. It seems like they get there ready to buy, but something turns them away at the last moment. My Partner feels like we should put more pictures of people on the site so that people feel like there is a face to our company. I am also in agreement with this, but I would also like to know if anything else is wrong with our site that perhaps maybe another set of eyes could perceive. Thank you again Moz friends. Justin Smith Frontline Mobility
Reporting & Analytics | | FrontlineMobility0