G's new SSL signal

[Drastic]

So, how much of a diff? Now/later...

Thoughts?

[bill]

Well, the announcement just got me the OK to price out a ton of new SSL certs...

[Drastic]

I bet the cert and dedi ips sales are about to explode.

[Mackin USA]

A good friend wrote:

"Not saying you don't / you're not going to need to do it at some point. But it amazes me how quick they're willing to pull that trigger. I don't think people get that this decision is pretty much the same as completely changing all their URLs to a new naming convention. Sigh. Fuck you Google. Where's Penguin?"

[Drastic]

>completely changing all their URLs to a new naming convention.
wow, excellent point and I didn't even consider that.

[littleman]

More hoops to jump through.  Also, its a way of filtering out all the low cost hosting out there.

[Gurtie]

isn't it going to piss people off with a lot of security alerts when there are external links or inclusions?

And as I was typig I realised they'd jut found the ultimate way to get people to not link out....

[Rooftop]

I find this really unsettling.  Yes, HTTPS is a good thing (generally). Yes, there is logic in the idea that SSL usage would be a quality indicator. However, that isn't what they've done.

What Google have actually done is say "Here is a thing that we want to happen.  We're going to deliberate adjust our algo to favour those who support our view".  SERPs are being used a carrot to achieve a largely political objective.

Whilst it isn't exactly new for Google to dangle a carrot like that to achieve their aims, they usually at least pretend it is.  This time they just jump out and say it: "because we'd like to encourage all website owners to switch from HTTP to HTTPS to keep everyone safe on the web."

[Torben]

I consider this a live beta test. It's probably the smallest ranking factor and I think it will be for some time.

SSL can increase load time and especially on slow mobile devices, which in turn will lead to lower conversion.