Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
For implementing AMP, is it compulsory that the website needs to support HTTPs ?'.
-
In order to get the AMP version of my website show up on the SERP, is it a complusory factor that my website needs to support HTTPs.
-
My understanding is that AMP pages don't need to be HTTPS themselves, but the resources they link to often need to be (see https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/validation_errors.html). I think that is so it can be cached by Google and served on an HTTPS site without problems.
-
Definitely not, AMP is more a markup then something that requires it needs HTTPS.
-
No, in order for your AMP pages to be indexed you do NOT need to implement HTTPs on your website.
-
Shouldn't have thought so. I have implemented it on a few of my clients sites which aren't HTTPS and they are being indexed fine.
Most of the sites that use AMP pages are things like news article sites etc. which don't really need to be HTTPS as they are not saving any of the customers secure information.
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
-
Sentences RDF Format
Why do we need to write sentences in RDF format (subject, object predicate) is there a reason for that ? Thank you,
Whiteboard Friday | Jan 12, 2018, 9:11 AM | seoanalytics0 -
Refreshing old blog content with dates in the URL
In today's Whiteboard Friday (Keyword Targeting, Density, and Cannibalization), Rands makes a comment about updating content on pages that have dated URLs and states: "If I were advising him on SEO, I'd urge him to maintain a single page called "Best Seattle Coffee" or "Best Seattle Espresso" and update that annually (changing the title to 2012, 2013, 2014, etc but leaving the URL the same). I'd also urge him to take the prior year's content and put that on a new URL like "/coffee-from-2012" (or the like)." What are the opinions from an SEO perspective to update pages that have dates in the URL to reflect new content? Does this confuse the search engines if they see one date in the URL but another in the page copy? If this content is from a blog and they are listed / displayed based on chronological order, this fresh content would be buried. Obviously internal links and other ways to promote the content would be beneficial but Is it a bad UX to move this page to the top of the "list" when it clearly has an older date associated with this fresh content?
Whiteboard Friday | Mar 17, 2014, 2:33 PM | Your_Workshop0 -
Guest Posting At Scale - A Definition!
Hi, have just watched the latest Whiteboard Friday entitled 'Why Guest Posting and Blogging is a Slippery Slope'. Rand mentions '"guest posting at scale", but what does he actually mean? For the purpose of building website authority and brand awareness we post around 1-4 blog posts per month for our clients, all on authoirty sites, some of which accept guest posts with little editorial restriction, some we have to jump through hoops for. We don't use KW specific anchor text, instead we link to the clients site with semantically related, varied anchor text, as well as linking to other useful third party sources. We also publish regular useful content on our clients blogs in the hope of getting natural backlinks. Would this be classed as 'guest posting at scale'? Do you think we could we be targeted and penalised by the upcoming guest post algorithm? Many thanks in advance, Lee.
Whiteboard Friday | Jan 24, 2014, 10:47 PM | Webpresence0 -
Should ebook content be a download or hosted on site for SEO?
We have written ebook(s) on subjects of interest to our prospects (B-C market). We have taken many recurring questions asked over the years plus helpful graphics and put into short 12+ page ebooks. After filling out form to receive ebook- (first name & email on form) for any option below- Should we: a) send them to Landing page to download ebook to their desktop? b) send them e-mail with link to download ebook? c) send them directly to page on our site with the ebook content? d) something else? My thoughts are to do c) which will put content on site, though 'protected' via gate. This way the search engines can crawl the content. However, if that content is not directly reachable through menu will that degrade the importance of that content? Obviously we want to provide good, helpful information to prospects. We would also love to benefit from that content from a Search point of view if possible. Anyone have experience with this through A/B test or otherwise? Thanks, Steve
Whiteboard Friday | Nov 1, 2013, 9:46 PM | PhotographerSteve0 -
Temporary landing pages and SEO
Hi guys! I have a question that has been running through my mind for quite a while now. On our company, we offer different products that we put on specific landing pages (one per product). This products are "live" on a 20 day period. Right now, when the product expires, we put a label "This product expired" and return a 404. Is this the right way to do it? Take into account that keeping the page "alive" is not an option. The options would be: 301 redirecting to another listing (should I worry about this implementation being wrong? Wouldn't Google find it suspicous that lots of pages redirect to the same listing?) Return a 200 instead Thanks for your time!
Whiteboard Friday | Aug 2, 2012, 7:07 PM | lhernandezBum0