Leg Webmasters

Leg Webmasters (http://www.legwebmasters.com/forums/index.php)
-   Leg Webmasters Talk (http://www.legwebmasters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   To SSL or Not to SSL (http://www.legwebmasters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2330)

Toby 02-14-2017 07:25 PM

To SSL or Not to SSL
 
Google is getting more aggressive about sites being encrypted, and a Google Security Blog post from last Fall was brought to my attention by a sponsor program earlier this month due to the need for changing link codes as the result of implementing SSL.

https://security.googleblog.com/2016...ecure-web.html

The part that got my attention... Beginning in January 2017 (Chrome 56), we’ll mark HTTP pages that collect passwords or credit cards as non-secure, as part of a long-term plan to mark all HTTP sites as non-secure.

That makes it pretty clear that Google intends to eventually flag all HTTP sites as insecure. That can't be good for surfer confidence and traffic. I've just implemented SSL across my entire network. I'm still in the process of tweeking a few things to get all my scripts to play nice with SSL. But overall, it has been far less painful than anticipated.

js69 02-15-2017 12:05 AM

I am doing the same thing. It is a bit painful but totally necessary. Some sites now in the url bar say "not secure". type in gfy dot com and you will see this. Not good for consumer confidence and google will severely lower your ranking (I heard) Currently google is in a transition period but I don't think it will last long till the hammer drops.

nyllover 02-15-2017 05:20 PM

Yes, this is something that had to be done.

jscott 02-17-2017 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyllover (Post 11574)
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 02-18-2017 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jscott (Post 11576)
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" :D

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 02-19-2017 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyllover (Post 11581)
uops...first of all, you got it right. I mean "has to be done" not "had" :D

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.

js69 02-23-2017 03:38 AM

Some sites are now seen as unsafe on chrome, and you can't even access them. Air Canada was one. So that should tell you something.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.