Correct HTTPS transition? (+ Different Majestic results?)

[Anon]

Hi guys

Recently our online store moved over to https (last 40 days). I'm doing this myself and don't have a developer and I just want to make sure I have done everything correctly. Since changing to https we have dropped a few positions in Google, so also checking if I have done something wrong which may have caused this.

Any feedback would be most appreciated.

WEBMASTER TOOLS

In Google Webmaster Tools I have both the http and https address profiles added.
Since changing the https, the http profile is still showing around 10% of the traffic. I have added a new sitemap to the https. Should I delete the sitemap in the http?

In Google search results, all pages are showing up as https.

HTACCESS

This is the code I have added to htaccess

RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
# First rewrite to HTTPS:
# Don't put www. here. If it is already there it will be included, if not
# the subsequent rule will catch it.
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI}...] [L,R=301]
# Now, rewrite any request to the wrong domain to use www.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI}...] [L,R=301]

MAJESTIC

This is where I am a little confused and might have me thinking I've done something wrong. Depending on how I type of my address I get a lot of different results - or is this normal?

http://www.DOMAIN = Trust Flow 19, Citation Flow 30, External Backlinks 1,123
[DOMAIN...] = Trust Flow 18, Citation Flow 37, External Backlinks 26
www.DOMAIN = Trust Flow 17, Citation Flow 44, External Backlinks 2,228
DOMAIN.com = Trust Flow 11, Citation Flow 32, External Backlinks 2,586

Any feedback would be awesome. Thank you!

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 1:07 am (utc) on Nov 3, 2014]
[edit reason] delinked example url and fixed typo [/edit]

[aakk9999]

How big is the site? 40 days may not be enough since the switch, especially if the site is on the bigger side.

Should I delete the sitemap in the http?

I would return the same sitemap for both, http and https (i.e. the sitemap that has https in there). Alternatively, you could leave http sitemap to redirect to https sitemap.

What is happening with your robots.txt? Do you return a different one for https/http or do you redirect from http to https? Or perhaps do not have robots for http any more?

With regards to .htaccess, is there any reason why you go through double redirect if the request is for URL that is not www and not https? Why not redirect in one go?

What does your WMT say on duplicate titles and meta descriptions? This could be one indication of pages that are not yet consolidated by Google.

As for Majestic, it may be that it has not yet caught up and has not recrawled all pages.

[Anon]

Thank you for you reply. The site is not huge and has about 400 pages.

I have never used robots.txt for the website - I never never really thought it was necessary.

I played around with htaccess for a while and found this was the only way I could get it to work. When I googled 'htaccess http to https' the most common answer made it so http://domain and http://www.domain were two different sites and the [domain...] would not redirect to http://www.domain. If that makes sense.

Just checking there are still 20 duplicate titles. I thought I had already corrected this... but they are from old article which I wrote a while back. I will fix this up now.

[edited by: aakk9999 at 9:34 am (utc) on Nov 3, 2014]
[edit reason] Unlinked examples [/edit]

[JD_Toims]

RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
# First rewrite to HTTPS:
# Don't put www. here. If it is already there it will be included, if not
# the subsequent rule will catch it.
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI}...] [L,R=301]
# Now, rewrite any request to the wrong domain to use www.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI}...] [L,R=301]

---

Why rely on a subsequent rule(s) rather than taking care of everything with one?

RewriteCond %{HTTPS} ^off$ [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^(www\.example\.com)?$
RewriteRule .? [example.com%{REQUEST_URI}...] [R=301,L]

---

Added Note: Make sure to empty your browser's cache prior to testing *any* mod_rewrite change.

[edited by: JD_Toims at 4:27 am (utc) on Nov 3, 2014]

[Clay_More]

MAJESTIC

I see variations similar to that all the time, although Trust Flow should be pretty close to Citation Flow in an optimal situation. https should take on the characteristics of http given a bit of time.

[Anon]

JD_Toims - I've just changed to that code and it's working well. I swear I tried a bunch of other combinations which I found from Google and none seemed to work as they were meant to.

[Clay_More]

I swear I tried a bunch of other combinations which I found from Google and none seemed to work

I found this quite amusing in light of some other threads saying Google doesn't work so well. Forums can still provide that "dialed in" thing you need.

I've used some pop-over code that JD_Toims provided quite a while ago, I was quite satisfied with it. One of the people who's posts I read.

[JD_Toims]

I swear I tried a bunch of other combinations which I found from Google and none seemed to work as they were meant to.

Well, ranking "the right answer" rather than "the popular answer" algorithmically/heuristically are two different things and Google doesn't seem anywhere near as concerned with displaying "the right answer" rather than showing "the popular answer" to me ATM -- Besides, over-complicating what's actually simple can be cost-effective, especially for "vultures" who prey on the innocent.

I've used some pop-over code that JD_Toims provided quite a while ago, I was quite satisfied with it. One of the people who's posts I read.

Cool! It's good to know I've helped people out a bit -- I think the code you're talking about was CSS/JS for a business not providing a service any more while still providing the info for people, but you're correct and it was a long time ago, so I could be thinking of something/someone else. Either way, it's still good to know I've helped out a bit, because that's why I post here.

[DixonJones]

Hi Anon,

I'll try and help out on the Majestic stuff you are seeing, although a support ticket with the domain in question is likely to get you to the right answer faster. Anyway:

http://www.DOMAIN = Trust Flow 19, Citation Flow 30, External Backlinks 1,123
[DOMAIN...] = Trust Flow 18, Citation Flow 37, External Backlinks 26
www.DOMAIN = Trust Flow 17, Citation Flow 44, External Backlinks 2,228
DOMAIN.com = Trust Flow 11, Citation Flow 32, External Backlinks 2,586

It looks to me like you first two examples are pulling link data to the URL level, (So link counts to the home page) whilst the third is at the www subdomain level and the fourth at the root domain.

Yes - Majestic counts links to http version and https independently, although, if you redirect one into the other (301) then the Trust Flow scores pass through, so this lets you get the weightings of links right, but you have to work a bit to get every single link. We tend to under report, believe it or not.

Your HTAccess, therefore, is only part of the story. If a third party links to you with http on one ink and https on the next, we'll record them as such. When we crawl your pages, only THEN will we flag up any redirects.

Dixon.