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
-
Breadcrumbs versus in context link
Hi, I remember reading that links within the text have more value than breadcrumbs links for example because in context links are surrounded by the right content (words) but google search engine optimisation starter guide says breadcrumbs are good, so which one is recommended ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
If we migrate the URLs from HTTP to HTTPS, Do I need to request again an inclusion in Google News?
Hi, If we migrate the URLs from HTTP to HTTPS, Do I need to request again an inclusion in Google News? Thanks Roy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kadut1 -
Should I use https schema markup after http-https migration?
Dear Moz community, Noticed that several groups of websites after HTTP -> HTTPS migration update their schema markup from, example : {
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | admiral99
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "WebSite",
"name": "Your WebSite Name",
"alternateName": "An alternative name for your WebSite",
"url": "http://www.your-site.com"
} becomes {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "WebSite",
"name": "Your WebSite Name",
"alternateName": "An alternative name for your WebSite",
"url": "https://www.example.com"
} Interesting to know, because Moz website is on https protocol but uses http version of markup. Looking forward for answers 🙂0 -
If I nofollow outbound external links to minimize link juice loss > is it a good/bad thing?
OK, imagine you have a blog, and you want to make each blog post authoritative so you link out to authority relevant websites for reference. In this case it is two external links per blog post, one to an authority website for reference and one to flickr for photo credit. And one internal link to another part of the website like the buy-now page or a related internal blog post. Now tell me if this is a good or bad idea. What if you nofollow the external links and leave the internal link untouched so all internal links are dofollow. The thinking is this minimizes loss of link juice from external links and keeps it flowing through internal links to pages within the website. Would it be a good idea to lay off the nofollow tag and leave all as do follow? or would this be a good way to link out to authority sites but keep the link juice internal? Your thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rich_Coffman0 -
HTTPS website migration and internal links
Hey Moz! I read Moz's guide on migrating websites from http to https, and it seems changing all relative internal links to absolute https is recommended (we currently use relative internal links). But is doing this absolutely necessary if we will already have a redirect in our .htaccess file forcing all http pages to https? Changing all of our internal links to absolute https will be very time consuming, and I'd like to hear your thoughts as to whether it's absolutely recommended/necessary; and if so, why? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheDude0 -
Link Brokers Yes or No?
We have a client who has asked us to talk to link brokers to speed up the back linking process. Although I've been aware of them for ages I have never openly discussed the possible use of 'buying' links or engaging in that part of the industry. Do they have a place in SEO and if so what is the MOZ communities thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wearehappymedia0 -
Link Type Analysis
Howdy Moz Fans, Just wondering if anyone knows any tools to which can identify link types. E.g. is the link - navigational, in the footer or in the body text. Specifically for internal links. Any suggestions? Cheers, RM
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MBASydney0 -
Links from new sites with no link juice
Hi Guys, Do backlinks from a bunch of new sites pass any value to our site? I've heard a lot from some "SEO experts" say that it is an effective link building strategy to build a bunch of new sites and link them to our main site. I highly doubt that... To me, a new site is a new site, which means it won't have any backlinks in the beginning (most likely), so a backlink from this site won't pass too much link juice. Right? In my humble opinion this is not a good strategy any more...if you build new sites for the sake of getting links. This is just wrong. But, if you do have some unique content and you want to share with others on that particular topic, then you can definitely create a blog and write content and start getting links. And over time, the domain authority will increase, then a backlink from this site will become more valuable? I am not a SEO expert myself, so I am eager to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | witmartmarketing0