5 ms·

Sorry to jump in with a tangential reply, but BEWARE of the following! Google treat the http and https versions of a domain as SEPARATE PROPERTIES. This means

Sorry to jump in with a tangential reply, but BEWARE of the following! Google treat the http and https versions of a domain as SEPARATE PROPERTIES. This means that even if you 301 every http page to https when you transition, all of your current rankings and pagerank will be irrelevant. You can verify this behaviour for yourself in webmaster tools. I suppose this is because it's possible to serve up different content on http/s, but really, who does that?! In short, don't do this until google rethink their stance on what counts as a property. I'm currently nursing a client with a 30% revenue hole as a result of this.

speleding 12y ago
The Google blog says that TLS is a (presumably positive) ranking signal, they do not state whether leaving the site available unencrypted is a negative signal. Until they clear up that ambiguity it seems risky to go TLS only for exactly the reason you cite.
- cbr 12y ago
  If X is a positive signal, then not-X is a negative signal.
  - speleding 12y ago
    That does not follow logically. not-X is typically zero, just like not having an inbound link from a high pagerank page is not a negative. Besides, there are three situation: no-https, both http/https and http-only, which makes your claim that the middle one is negative seem less likely.
    - cbr 12y ago
      Say there are five sites that would normally be returned for a query and they have scores A:20 B:18 C:10 D:8 E:4. The results will look like "A, B, C, D, E". Say none of them support https, and then the search engine adds https as a positive ranking factor worth +3. Site C turns on https, the order still is "A, B, C, D, E". Now site B turns on https, the order is now "B, A, C, D, E". Imagine instead they had added "lack of https" as a ranking factor worth -3. The rankings on the page would have changed exactly the same way. "not having an inbound link" can be thought of as a negative without changing rankings. In the example above, if getting an inbound link from apple.com would move you up 4 points, then if B got a link from apple that would put them at 22 to A's 20. If instead "not having a link from apple" was worth -4 points, then A would be at 16 and B at 18.
      - speleding 12y ago
        There is no doubt that https adds a positive value, and not having it would put you at a disadvantage. But that is not what is being discussed here, the question is whether having BOTH https and http is a negative.
pierrefar 12y ago
> Google treat the http and https versions of a domain as SEPARATE PROPERTIES. That's not quite accurate. It's on a per-URL basis, not properties. Webmaster Tools asks you to verify the different _sites_ (HTTP/HTTPS, www/non-www) separately because they can be very different. And yes I've personally seen a few cases - one somewhat strange example bluntly chides their users when they visit the HTTP site and tells them to visit the site again as HTTPS. > This means that even if you 301 every http page to https when you transition, all of your current rankings and pagerank will be irrelevant. That's not true. If you correctly redirect and do other details correctly (no mixed content, no inconsistent rel=canonical links, and everything else mentioned in the I/O video I referenced), then our algos will consolidate the indexing properties onto the HTTPS URLs. This is just another example of correctly setting up canonicalization. By the way, if you're moving to HTTPS, following our site moves guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/topic/6033102?hl=en&ref_topic=6029673 https://support.google.com/webmasters/topic/6033102?hl=en&re... specifically, the site moves with URL changes: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6033049?hl=en&ref_topic=6033084 https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6033049?hl=en&r... But you did say you have a client with an issue. I suspect they either implemented the move to HTTPS incorrectly or something else is going on. Please ask for more help at our forums: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!categories/webmasters https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!categories/webmaste...
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Nope, we followed the instructions to the tee. Straight 301 redirects from http to https, appropriate canonicals on all pages referencing https, and their SEO has seemingly started from scratch - used to be in position 1 for a variety of important keywords and searches, now they're beyond page 10. Oh, and you can't do a change of address from http://www.whatever.com http://www.whatever.com to https://www.whatever.com https://www.whatever.com - you don't allow it!
  - pierrefar 12y ago
    This suggests something else is going on. Please post in the forums with the site details.
tootie 12y ago
The IO talk covers this. There's a few steps involved beyond just sending a 301 such as putting a rel=canonical on the https site.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Yeah, did everything that's possible within the document - although a few steps (Change Of Address) are actually impossible - GWT disallows it within the same domain. Still, SEO in the can.

speleding 12y ago

The Google blog says that TLS is a (presumably positive) ranking signal, they do not state whether leaving the site available unencrypted is a negative signal. Until they clear up that ambiguity it seems risky to go TLS only for exactly the reason you cite.

cbr 12y ago
If X is a positive signal, then not-X is a negative signal.
- speleding 12y ago
  That does not follow logically. not-X is typically zero, just like not having an inbound link from a high pagerank page is not a negative. Besides, there are three situation: no-https, both http/https and http-only, which makes your claim that the middle one is negative seem less likely.
  - cbr 12y ago
    Say there are five sites that would normally be returned for a query and they have scores A:20 B:18 C:10 D:8 E:4. The results will look like "A, B, C, D, E". Say none of them support https, and then the search engine adds https as a positive ranking factor worth +3. Site C turns on https, the order still is "A, B, C, D, E". Now site B turns on https, the order is now "B, A, C, D, E". Imagine instead they had added "lack of https" as a ranking factor worth -3. The rankings on the page would have changed exactly the same way. "not having an inbound link" can be thought of as a negative without changing rankings. In the example above, if getting an inbound link from apple.com would move you up 4 points, then if B got a link from apple that would put them at 22 to A's 20. If instead "not having a link from apple" was worth -4 points, then A would be at 16 and B at 18.
    - speleding 12y ago
      There is no doubt that https adds a positive value, and not having it would put you at a disadvantage. But that is not what is being discussed here, the question is whether having BOTH https and http is a negative.

pierrefar 12y ago

> Google treat the http and https versions of a domain as SEPARATE PROPERTIES. That's not quite accurate. It's on a per-URL basis, not properties. Webmaster Tools asks you to verify the different _sites_ (HTTP/HTTPS, www/non-www) separately because they can be very different. And yes I've personally seen a few cases - one somewhat strange example bluntly chides their users when they visit the HTTP site and tells them to visit the site again as HTTPS. > This means that even if you 301 every http page to https when you transition, all of your current rankings and pagerank will be irrelevant. That's not true. If you correctly redirect and do other details correctly (no mixed content, no inconsistent rel=canonical links, and everything else mentioned in the I/O video I referenced), then our algos will consolidate the indexing properties onto the HTTPS URLs. This is just another example of correctly setting up canonicalization. By the way, if you're moving to HTTPS, following our site moves guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/topic/6033102?hl=en&ref_topic=6029673 https://support.google.com/webmasters/topic/6033102?hl=en&re... specifically, the site moves with URL changes: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6033049?hl=en&ref_topic=6033084 https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6033049?hl=en&r... But you did say you have a client with an issue. I suspect they either implemented the move to HTTPS incorrectly or something else is going on. Please ask for more help at our forums: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!categories/webmasters https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!categories/webmaste...

madaxe_again 12y ago
Nope, we followed the instructions to the tee. Straight 301 redirects from http to https, appropriate canonicals on all pages referencing https, and their SEO has seemingly started from scratch - used to be in position 1 for a variety of important keywords and searches, now they're beyond page 10. Oh, and you can't do a change of address from http://www.whatever.com http://www.whatever.com to https://www.whatever.com https://www.whatever.com - you don't allow it!
- pierrefar 12y ago
  This suggests something else is going on. Please post in the forums with the site details.

tootie 12y ago

The IO talk covers this. There's a few steps involved beyond just sending a 301 such as putting a rel=canonical on the https site.

madaxe_again 12y ago
Yeah, did everything that's possible within the document - although a few steps (Change Of Address) are actually impossible - GWT disallows it within the same domain. Still, SEO in the can.