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
-
Should we launch a new site as responsive or mobile.
need advice - we are launching a new responsive website. one team member very vocal that we should launch as mobile. site first then take that away. I think is a waste of time .. thoughts?
Technical SEO | | AJFanter0 -
Landing pages showing up as HTTPS when we haven't made the switch
Hi Moz Community, Recently our tech team has been taking steps to switch our site from http to https. The tech team has looked at all SEO redirect requirements and we're confident about this switch, we're not planning to roll anything out until a month from now. However, I recently noticed a few https versions of our landing pages showing up in search. We haven't pushed any changes out to production yet so this shouldn't be happening. Not all of the landing pages are https, only a select few and I can't see a pattern. This is messing up our GA and Search Console tracking since we haven't fully set up https tracking yet because we were not expecting some of these pages to change. HTTPS has always been supported on our site but never indexed so it's never shown up in the search results. I looked at our current site and it looks like landing page canonicals are already pointing to their https version, this may be the problem. Anyone have any other ideas?
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
GWT Fetch & Render displays desktop version of site as mobile
Hi team, I noticed that when I request a desktop rendering in GWT using fetch and render, pages render as the mobile version. Screenshot attached. It's related to the VHS units in our CSS (as far as I'm aware). Does anyone know what the implications of this may be? Does it mean googlebot can only see the mobile version of our website? Any help is appreciated. Jake jgScJ
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Https - should I do change of address on WMT
We have added a SSL cert to our site - Should I submit change of address on WMT and submit a new sitemap from the http?
Technical SEO | | webguru20140 -
Mobile site content and main site content
Help, pls! I have one main site and a mobile version of that site (m.domain.com). The main site has more pages, more content, different named urls. The main site has consistently done well in Google. The mobile site has not: the mobile site is buried. I am working on adding more content to the mobile site, but am concerned about duplicate content. Could someone pls tell me the best way to deal with these two versions of our site? I can't use rel=canonical because the urls do not correspond to the same names on the main site, or can I? Does this mean I need to change the url names, offer different content (abridged), etc? I really am at a loss as to how to interpret Google's rules for this. Could someone please tell me what I am doing wrong? Any help or tips would GREATLY appreciated!!!!! Thanks!
Technical SEO | | lfrazer0 -
Can you help with some concerns over mobile site in SERPS
Hi Guys I wonder if you can put me right on this query please? We have a mobile version of our site, on an m. domain. it is actually http://m.uniquemagazines.co.uk. I have created a mobile sitemap, and added the sitemap reference to the robots.txt file. I have setup the site in web master tools, and submitted the sitemap to web master tools. The sitemap can be found at http://m.uniquemagazines.co.uk/sitemap.xml. This is an index file, which in turn links to 3 sitemaps, one for pages, one for product pages and one for category pages. I have not blocked any crawlers in the robots.txt file. My query is we have some products showing up in the SERPS with both the mobile and normal website. Secondly, in web master tools I am told that our mobile sitemap contains 3675 submitted URLs. However, it states under the WEB banner that 3675 submitted, and 3675 indexed. But under MOBILE it states 3675 submitted, none indexed... I will attempt to attach a screenshot from WMT of this. Do you have any ideas what has gone wrong here? is it wrong, or is this what you would expect to see? Many thanks Paul ScreenHunter_18%20Feb.%2021%2010.55.jpg
Technical SEO | | TheUniqueSEO0 -
Does http://my.dudamobile.com/ Effect SEO
Hi, Hope everyone is enjoying the new year! I was wondering if converting your desk top website to a mobile one, example via http://my.dudamobile.com/, has any negative effects on SEO. Did it effect your site? Do you recommend doing it? Does it effect links? When people link to your desk top URL does that authority carry to the mobile, or would it be better if they link to the mobile (m.website.com) URL? Is http://my.dudamobile.com/ a good choice? Any feedback, as always, is greatly appreciated! Thanks Jimmy
Technical SEO | | jimmy02250 -
Mobile Domain Setup
Hi, If I want to serve a subset of pages on my mobile set from my desktop site or the content is significantly different, i.e. it is not one to one or pages are a summarised version of the desktop, should I use m.site.com or is it still better to use site.com? Many thanks any help appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MarkChambers0