Switching to HTTPS YES/NO ?
-
Yesterday we received an email form GWT that our website does not have a valid SSL certificate. So google is now standard scanning on the https domain. Is this the beginning of an algo update on security, as Matt Cuts said on the SMX "At SMX West Matt Cutts gave the attendees a few tidbits, one of those items was that making your site secure, encrypted, i.e. SSL enabled, is an important trend for 2014.
At the end of the session, I asked Matt if this means Google is looking to give sites that enable SSL a ranking boost. Matt Cutts shrugged his shoulders and explained that if it was his choice, he would make it so. But he said, it is far from happening and there are people at Google that do not want this to happen".
So should we switch to https with SSL, what are the potential risks with this changes for websites with very good ranking on competitive keywords.
Email we received:
Site host name, https://www.sum.nl, does not match your SSL certificate Subject Name
We have noticed that the host name of your site, https://www.example.nl, does not match any of the "Subject Names" in your SSL certificate, which were:
As a result, many web browsers will block users from accessing your site, or display a security warning message when your site is accessed.
Recommended action
- To correct this problem, please get a new SSL certificate by a Certificate Authority (CA) with a "Subject Name" or "Subject Alternative DNS Names" that matches your host name.
Learn more in our =
Heeft u feedback? . Vergeet niet deze bericht-ID op te nemen: [WMT-39400]
Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, VS | =. -
Hi,
The sites I work on are both on SSL certificates (entire sites). This was not something I wanted but the powers that be above me in my organisation made it clear that there wasn't a choice.
The two sites are in financial services (we are a mortgage broker) which is why we had to have it, even though it isn't a necessity as far as our regulators are concerned. Just a company policy.
Thank you for posting this information it gives me hope that my sites may start performing even better throughout 2014. I don't have bad listings (in fact we're position 1 for a few things on both sites) and since completing redesigns on both sites one in March one in April this year (one is on a new domain as we created a new company for commercial mortgages as opposed to residential ones) we've seen a real improvement in rankings and conversions.
All I'm saying is SSL shouldn't be a barrier to rankings and it isn't one for our rankings. Though I was extremely worried by it when they decided we had to have it!
Best wishes,
Amelia
-
Hi Jane, thanks for the input. This site is just a blog/ comparison site, so I guess we can keep it on http for now.
-
Hi Remko,
If the entire site sits on HTTPS, definitely ensure that you have a valid certificate.
As far as it being necessary to have an entire site sitting on HTTPS, opinion on this has changed over the years. It previously was not a great idea; it's now much more common and many well-ranked websites use HTTPS as standard. I would not change your entire site including pages that do not need to be secure based solely on this session at SMX, especially as it was indicated that there's opposition to making this a ranking factor. I'd wait for more evidence before I did something like that. However, if making a site load solely on HTTPS URLs becomes absolutely necessary, then I'd be more comfortable doing so now than ever before.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
How to rank a keyword?
My competitor has158 ranking keywords but has only 30 anchor texts on his all backlinks. i am only ranking for 2 keywords , how do i increase ranking keywords? whats the strategy?
Whiteboard Friday | | calvinkj0 -
What is the importance of anchor text in seo? And how does it relate to a ranking keyword?
i have one dilema if i put targeted keyword in the anchor text(backlink), is that how i am gonna rank for that keyword? i am new to the community. need help and lets say if thats true what will happen in these given cases? case1 site:a has 100 linking domains from 1000 backlinks and they have 100 anchor texts which are all same case 2 site:b has 100 linking domains from 1000 backlinks and they have 50 anchor texts which are all same which one will rank better?
Whiteboard Friday | | calvinkj1 -
Who is gonna rank better in this case?
site:a has 1500 linking domains and 20000 backlinks site:b has 1500 linking domains and 5000 backlinks does good ratio between linking domains and backlinks works? i am asking only in terms of backlink profile, i know there are more things than backlink.
Whiteboard Friday | | calvinkj0 -
Sentences RDF Format
Why do we need to write sentences in RDF format (subject, object predicate) is there a reason for that ? Thank you,
Whiteboard Friday | | seoanalytics0 -
Internal linking: Global Nav Bar obscuring link authority?
I was watching Rand's whiteboard on how links in the headers/footers can impact SEO: moz.com/blog/links-headers-footers-navigation-impact-seo If I understood correctly: 1) Google will use the first link in the html that it sees for a given page. Additional links will not be considered for passing weight. 2) Text links in body (carry more weight than) > image links > nav links > footer links If we want to use a global nav bar, is there a simple solution for not obscuring the links in the body content? (It seems very awkward to load the header nav last (and bring it up via css after the page loads), and this also goes against Google wanting people to load above-the-fold content quickly.) If I internally link to a page that was not important enough to get a spot in the global nav, but I include this link in the body as a text link (for example, an accessory specific to that item), is this internal link really getting more weight in Google's eyes because it wasn't in the nav? This seems strange to me. Thanks!
Whiteboard Friday | | HalfPriceBanners0 -
Should this site be using Rel=Canonical VS No Index
I'm currently working on this site https://www.visitliverpool.com/accommodation I've been watching this video by Rand - https://moz.com/blog/rel-canonical but it's still unclear in this scenario. if you use the search facility "check availability" half way down the page the results page (urlparams) are no indexed. Would it be better to index and canonicalise? There is no similar content but I'm concerned that no index will remove the ability for semantic content to be visible to google. LADkajY
Whiteboard Friday | | Andrew-SEO0 -
For implementing AMP, is it compulsory that the website needs to support HTTPs ?'.
In order to get the AMP version of my website show up on the SERP, is it a complusory factor that my website needs to support HTTPs.
Whiteboard Friday | | Starcom_Search0 -
Did Google change/eliminate rich snippets for videos?
For example, if you search "Whiteboard Friday" on Google, the only rich snippets are for YouTube videos. None of the rich snippets point to Moz.com directly This contradicts this video from Wistia about video SEO - http://wistia.com/learning/video-seo
Whiteboard Friday | | WickVideo0