Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!


Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 




From the folks who brought you High Rankings!

- - - - -

Ranking Http://www When Its Forwarded To Https://www

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 delgadodesigns


    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 11 May 2014 - 04:04 PM


I have a question about the best practices for assigning "https" and "http" versions. I have a client that has a version of their website https: in Google WMT and was ranking. However I noticed with my other tools, that http: version had natural anchor text distribution and also had better Trust Flow were as the https: version had no trust flow at all, and had way too many anchor text that had https:, some people who have linked to the sites, did it like that.

Can I assign http: in Google WMT and still have it do a 301 Redirect to https:?. This way I can capitalize on the better anchor text profile and trust flow, and still rank properly?

And just a note: The reason why for the redirect to the https is the client wants to have a secure site for his clients.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Edited by Jill, 11 May 2014 - 05:06 PM.

#2 chrishirst


    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 11 May 2014 - 05:22 PM

First of all, ...  What on earth is "Trust Flow"?


The first thing to do is to throw away whatever 'tools'  you are using, because they are NOT helping.


If the client wants everything to be https then just make all navigation links to be absolute, and redirect incoming requests for http redirect to https, nothing needed in webmaster tools and no imaginary 'metrics' to care about.


But you may want to inform the client that https for every URL does not make a site 'secure', Using SSL only encrypts the communication between server and client so it cannot be read IF, and only if it is intercepted. It also reduces server response time because the data stream has to be encrypted as it leaves the server and decrypted before it can be displayed in a browser. 

#3 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,325 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 12 May 2014 - 11:29 AM

"Trust Flow" is one of Majestic SEO's link metrics, computed from the data they gather with their crawls. They present it as a benchmark measurement for how reliable (trustworthy) your links may be.

"Trust Flow", like any other metric, is at best only a rough approximation of how a major search engine might evaluate the same data. Nonetheless, it's only useful as a second opinion on the quality and trustworthiness of any given site and is not a substitute or proxy for Bing or Google's internal valuations.

#4 ttw


    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Location:San Mateo, California

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:06 AM

If a client has had page for both http and https and they want to migrate all URLs to https, I thought they had to do a 301 redirect but I was reading on GWMTs that using a canonical will also work:   support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en


The question is, will canonical suffice for migrating all non-secure pages to the secure version?  Will that eventually remove the non-secure versions from SERPs?

#5 qwerty


    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,695 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 25 July 2014 - 08:32 AM

Rel-canonical tells the search engine which URL you think they ought to treat as canonical, and they may decide to accept your recommendation, but if you're not consistent in your signals, that seems to become less likely. I've found that if a non-canonical URL has enough links pointing to it, Google may treat it as canonical. That seems to be even more likely if, despite your use of rel-canonical, your own internal linking points to other URLs for the same page.


That's something my company is guilty of, I'm afraid. We've got one page that can be reached at about half a dozen different URLs. We've set up rel-canonical, but we still link to the page at two or three different URLs, and I see search traffic to those URLs every day.


A 301 is much more than a suggestion. It clearly states that the URL from which you're redirecting is gone, won't be back, and should be dropped from the index. The problem is that sometimes a 301 is harder to implement than adding canonicals.

  • Jill likes this

#6 Jill


    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 25 July 2014 - 09:02 AM

I saw same as Qwerty back when I was still doing site audits.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
No new posts or registrations allowed.