To SSL or Not to SSL

[nyllover]

Yes, this is something that had to be done.

[jscott]

Originally Posted by nyllover

Yes, this is something that had to be done.

Why would you think it "has to be done" ? just curious your take on this

[nyllover]

Originally Posted by jscott

Why would you think it "has to be done" ? just curious your take on this

uops...first of all, you got it right. I mean "has to be done" not "had"

Because it's kinda clear what path Google is following. First they gave a bit of SERP boost to https sites, then this "non secure" displayed on all non-https sites that asks for a login...and in more than one chance they said in future https will be even more relevant.

I still didn't do it, but i know for sure that the sooner i do it, the better i can sleep...if you see what i mean.

[cots]

Originally Posted by nyllover

uops...first of all, you got it right. I mean "has to be done" not "had"

Because it's kinda clear what path Google is following. First they gave a bit of SERP boost to https sites, then this "non secure" displayed on all non-https sites that asks for a login...and in more than one chance they said in future https will be even more relevant.

I still didn't do it, but i know for sure that the sooner i do it, the better i can sleep...if you see what i mean.

I agree. At first glance it doesn't seem all that relevant but as Google is king we all have to comply if we want search engine traffic.