HTTP Vs. HTTPS

[ezestseo]

Which pages are good from search engine point of view and why? Please help.

[seo321]

I am also waiting for this.Please share your answers

[jackyjardon]

HTTP stands for HyperText Transport Protocol, which is just a fancy way of saying it is a protocol for information being passed back and forth between Web servers and clients.

[ambalaldarji]

It is much more expensive to maintain server that is encrypted (HTTPS) than a non-encrypted one (HTTP). It is more cost effective to use HTTP for websites that don't need the extra security.

You can see here three categories

1. Least Security: This site use http. I think most internet forums are falling this category because open discussion forums are not required access security.

2. Medium Security: This site use https. when you sign in and use http once you are logged in. For example Google and Yahoo such sites. And MSN is providing option to use http or https protocal.

3. Highest security: This site use https. I think most financial institutions are falling this category. If you want to see then you can see by logging in bank or credit card company's website.

[ricksoncasey]

I have found https pages to be ranked soon then that too http. I was surprised to see this result by the google as I was thinking that http pages are more important.

[leapharris]

The Google gives point to content you included in your web site and the back links you are getting. HTTPs means it is an encrypted service so for tarctions and all it is useful. mainly the web site which holds a shopping cart.

[dburk]

Hi ezestseo,

Search engines treat those two protocols identically for SEO, there is no preference.

[alxvallejo]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi ezestseo,

Search engines treat those two protocols identically for SEO, there is no preference.

Can we confirm this?

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by alxvallejo

Can we confirm this?

It's confirmed by a couple of things. Common sense and logic.

Of course those are severely lacking by some of the responses.

Originally Posted by ricksoncasey

I have found https pages to be ranked soon then that too http. I was surprised to see this result by the google as I was thinking that http pages are more important.

Login pages are not even in the mix for SEO.

Paul

[alxvallejo]

Well an http site is a completely separate site from https. So it may be common sense to you, but I treat it as a high priority right now for letting each search engine know which to track.

My situation is, my client currently runs her entire site through SSL, and I need some guidance for either
a) Making sure those https pages are NOT hurting our rankings
b) Reverting back to http pages except for the contact submission form

If you talk about optimization, having an http site is technically more optimized than an https. Thanks for your "logic".

[dburk]

Hi alxvallejo,

You are now asking a question about a similar topic but a completely different context from the OP. The OP asked if one protocol is better than the other for SEO. You seem to be asking about canonicalization issues which is really a different topic.

Yes, each are treated as separate URLs and you should avoid canonicalization issues by consistently using only one version for each specific page. But, search engines index and rank URLs separately and individually. It doesn't matter if you content is spread across different protocols, sub-domains, domains, or even different TLDs, search engines don't rank websites they rank individual pages, or more specifically, individual URLs.

Pick one protocol for each page and stick with that protocol in all your internal linking and backlinking to that specific page. Setup 301 Permanent Redirects to the one URL (protocol) that you intend to use for that page. It doesn't matter which protocol you use as long as you stick to same one for a particular page, and you provide adequate server resources.

Naturally, "changing" the URL structure on an established page could have consequences. Use 301 Permanent Redirects to mitigate the effects and avoid changing URLs after the fact, unless there is a very good reason to change.

[alxvallejo]

Originally Posted by dburk

Naturally, "changing" the URL structure on an established page could have consequences. Use 301 Permanent Redirects to mitigate the effects and avoid changing URLs after the fact, unless there is a very good reason to change.

Has anyone had an experience of switching their internal link structure to a different protocol and have that affect rankings?

[BillNye]

Everyone here is lying

[dburk]

Originally Posted by alxvallejo

Has anyone had an experience of switching their internal link structure to a different protocol and have that affect rankings?

Hi alxvallejo,

The protocol is part of the URL structure. Any change to the URL structure will have consequences, because search engines see each URL as a separate and distinct document.

If you change the URL structure, without using a proper 301 Redirect, you are wiping out all your previous promotional efforts. From the search engines perspective, the old URL is now a broken link, and it will be removed from the link graph. Your new URL, when discovered will be treated as a totally new document, with no indexed backlinks and no history on which trust rankings are based. It is actually starting over as a new page that must earn it's new rankings from scratch.

You can mitigate the damage from lost backlinks by using a 301 Permanent Redirect from the old URL to the new URL, however you will lose approximately 15% of your previous link juice and you will need to do additional promoting of the new pages to gain back what you lost. Over time you will earn back the lost trust rank and 6 months down the road it may be insignificant, however you should expect fluctuations in the short term.