Our Web Site Is candere.com. Its PA and back link status are different for https://www.candere.com, http://www.candere.com, https://candere.com, and http://candere.com. Recently, we have completely move from http to https.
-
How can we fix it, so that we may mot lose ranking and authority.
-
Yes, I would not worry about the differences in how OSE views the different url's PA/DA This would be for the reasons already noted, plus OSE is not Google.
The main issue is to make sure your recent move to https is buttoned down.
If you haven't already, look at this on Moz, especially the links to best practices on migrating to https. https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog/seo-tips-https-ssl
Best of Luck... Mike
-
Hi there,
Of course those pages might have different PA. Because are treated as different pages.
Keep in mind that Moz's metrics are updated one a moth or so. Here there is a guide on when and how mozcape link updatesAlso, you should not completely asute that higher PA/DA will make higher rankings. It usualy does. But no always. There are cases where sites with lower PA/DA outrank sites with much higher PA/DA.
Hope it helps.
GR.
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
-
Is Link equity / Link Juice lost to a blocked URL in the same way that it is lost to nofollow link
Hi If there is a link on a page that goes to a URL that is blocked in robots txt - is the link juice lost in the same way as when you add nofollow to a link on a page. Any help would be most appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Andrew-SEO0 -
Staging/Development Site Indexed?
So, my company's site has been pretty tough to try to get moving in the right direction on Google's SERPs. I had believed that it was mainly due to having a shortage of back links and a horrible home page load time. Everything else seems to be set up pretty well. I was messing around and used the site: Google search operator for our staging site. I found stage.site.com and a lot of our other staging pages in the search results. I have to think that this is the problem and causing a duplicate content penalty of the entire site. I guess I now need to 301 redirect the entire site? Has anyone every had this issue before and have fixed it? Thanks for any help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aua0 -
Sitewide Footer Links & Sister Sites
Hi We have a number of sister sites across Europe - the sites are under a different domain name, but have a very similar layout & product offering. When looking at duplicate content, they are flagged as being a moderate risk with similar content - we don't duplicate product content, however it's similar. We also link to them in the footer in a drop down - not anchor text links - however this is still seen by Google. I don't think I'll be able to remove links to our sister companies, but should I implement the Href lang if the sites are slightly different? Or find another way to link to them? Here's an example http://www.key.co.uk/en/key & https://www.manutan.fr/fr/maf
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
installed PageSpeed Module on our server but no difference to site
Hi
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Direct_Ram
I have been searching for an answer for a while now and couldnt find it so maybe someone has had a similar problem. We have installed PageSpeed Module on our server. The administrator has said it is active and has run a test below: [root@mydomain ~]# curl -D- https://www.mydomain.com/ | head -10
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
14 102k 14 15029 0 0 40506 0 0:00:02 --:--:-- 0:00:02 64780HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: nginx/1.6.0
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:28:43 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 104885
Connection: keep-alive
Set-Cookie: ci_session=BGANYlg8VmsPLgN1AWABMldkAGUGLVZwVmhQdQd0CGIEaFI6VgkEOQdmUSYHbQZyXz9TZVE4Vm4CIwxnB2hYbAZrAGUHZQg%2BUjUFOgRlUWAEYg05WDxWMg82A2ABOQEzV2IAaQZsVjBWPFA2BzEIaAQ%2FUjBWNwRmBztRJgdtBnJfP1NnUTpWbgIjDDoHflhSBjwAMgdjCHlSNAVwBHdRJwQ6DStYM1ZgD2YDPAF4ATJXZABmBiFWMVY%2FUD4HKQg5BDRSelZnBGAHIFE%2FByUGO180U2ZRMFZ2AnQMIAdrWH8GAgA3B2AIblI%2FBXcEJlE%2BBHINYlg4VmAPZwM8AXgBYFchAC0GY1YsVjpQKAc2CDIEKVJjVnYEeAd6UTwHYAZeXzNTYlEnViYCZAw3B2ZYbAYpAHsHawhiUj8FdgR8USgEZg02WHxWeA91A2oBMwFhVzcAKgZ9Vm9WIlAxBykIOgQ%2BUnpWYQRwB0xRVwcFBi5fNlN4UTtWYgIvDGEHIFg%2BBn0AFAdmCHhSOAVgBCRRQARCDRtYKVYrDzkDbwE4ASxXZQBxBj1WLVY%2BUCYHawhiBGVSPVYyBD4HLVE1B3gGMF89U3ZRZlY9AmMMIAd9WGUGbwB5BzYIJVJlBS0ENlEnBDoNK1gzVmAPZgM8AXgBb1c1ACwGe1ZcVmxQZQdzCGIEcVI9ViIEKQcgUT8HPwY7XzRTYlE4VmwCNwxlBztYPgZvAGUHPAh4UmsFOgQ%2BUScEdA0rWGxWIw8KA2IBOwF3VzUAfQY0VnBWN1A2Bz0IKQQlUm9WKw%3D%3D; expires=Fri, 10-Apr-2015 13:28:43 GMT; path=/
Set-Cookie: ci_session=a%3A0%3A%7B%7D; expires=Thu, 10-Apr-2014 21:28:43 GMT; path=/
Set-Cookie: ci_session=BWEFalk4UWwJKFIq; expires=Fri, 10-Apr-2015 13:28:43 GMT; path=/
X-Mod-Pagespeed: 1.9.32.3-4448 But there doesn't seem to be any difference to the sites speed or change in google speed test recommendations. I do not have much knowledge on servers but the server company has assured me it is active and all the filters are on - so not sure why I am not seeing anything different. if anyone has any advise on this it would be great. thanks E0 -
How do I add https version of site to Bing webmaster tools?
I could add my site to Google Webmaster tools with no problems, but when I try to add it in Bing webmaster tools it just redirects me to what I already have. Everything is staying the same but the switch from http to https. Anyone else experienced this? This is what I just received back from Bing and it doesn't seem right- I understand that you switched to the https version of your site and you're now trying to use the Site Move tool. However, in order to do this, you must verify the https version of your site first. You cannot do this because it just redirects you to the dashboard. We thank you for reporting this to us. We've investigated on this matter and can see that you're already put a redirect from the http to the https version of your site. We also checked the /BingSiteAuth.xml file and this also redirects to the https version. At this point, we suggest that you remove the current website (http version) that is verified through Bing Webmaster Tool and add your https domain. When done, use the Site Move tool. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite1 -
Whats the best search parameters on Open Site Explorer for identifying un-natural back links?
Using open site explorer, what parameters will best narrow down low quality back links(or back links that could be viewed as un-natural by Google)? ie. blog networks, link schemes, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stromme0 -
While SEOing .com.au websites should I submit blogs and PRs only in .com.au Blogging / PR sites?
While SEOing .com.au, websites I am submitting PRs in sites like prweb.com, pr.com, prlog.com etc. Is that the right way or should I submit these PRs in Australian PR sites only (.com.au)?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KS__0 -
Site Wide Internal Navigation links
Hello all, All our category pages www.pitchcare.com/shop are linked to from every product page via the sidebar navigation. Which results in every category page having over 1700 links with the same anchor text. I have noticed that the category pages dont appear to be ranked when they most definately should be. For example http://www.pitchcare.com/shop/moss-control/index.html is not ranked for the term "moss control" instead another of our deeper pages is ranked on page 1. Reading a previous SEO MOZ article · Excessive Internal Anchor Text Linking / Manipulation Can Trip An Automated Penalty on Google
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | toddyC
I recently had my second run-in with a penalty at Google that appears to punish sites for excessive internal linking with "optimized" (or "keyword stuffed anchor text") links. When the links were removed (in both cases, they were found in the footer of the website sitewide), the rankings were restored immediately following Google's next crawl, indicating a fully automated filter (rather than a manual penalty requiring a re-consideration request). Do you think we may have triggered a penalty? If so what would be the best way to tackle this? Could we add no follows on the product pages? Cheers Todd0