Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.194.190

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Type of SSL Certificate and Ranking

     
7:30 am on Jun 23, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 19, 2012
posts: 334
votes: 2


SSL is a ranking factor and there are many types of SSL certificates.

1. Do you think that Google regards the type of SSL certificate as a ranking factor?
2. Do you think that static files hosted on a subdomain should have an SSL certificate as well in terms of ranking?
9:17 am on June 23, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 3, 2005
posts:298
votes: 12


Given that Google often uses thresholds we can speculate that basic level should be sufficient enough for content sites (if at all?) but for transitional journeys could benefit from the best.

Its all speculative and not something that can be measured.

Do you think that static files hosted on a subdomain should have an SSL certificate as well in terms of ranking?
Do I think? IMO no point. But I am not Google. But if everyone goes SSL then going to a non-SLL site via a link will flag up a notice in your browser!
7:45 pm on June 23, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3652
votes: 369


going to a non-SLL site via a link will flag up a notice in your browser!

I don't remember that ever happening with the browsers that I use. Unless you mean Chrome, which I don't have installed on my devices.
8:05 pm on June 23, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 19, 2012
posts: 334
votes: 2


@Johan007 Do you mean link or inclusion of a resource?

A warning will come up if a resource is non-SSL.
8:16 pm on June 23, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 19, 2012
posts: 334
votes: 2


IMO subdomains should have SSL as well, in most cases.

I am having a problem though because our static files are on 3rd party CDNs and the offer we got is $300 per month.
11:44 pm on June 23, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member bwnbwn is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 25, 2005
posts:3594
votes: 48


300 a month man this is internet hostage at best. If your not taking information on the website in any type tell them to KYA. Your site won't do any better in ssl this is all a bunch of hype, as long as your site is information or products ecommerce and not collecting data. Any personal collected data has to be SSL but this can be easily accomplished by putting the form in an iframe on a secure system.
5:42 am on June 24, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 19, 2012
posts: 334
votes: 2


@bwnbwn On the long run SSL will be necessary for the majority of sites.

300 a month is an offer from edgecast's CDN. There are other vendors that offer their OWN certificate for FREE. The only thing is that you need to use their URL in the code instead of your own subdomain (no Cname Alias).
5:44 am on June 24, 2015 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 15, 2003
posts: 83
votes: 0


@guggi2000 you may want to check out amazon cloudfront cdn and its support for ssl subdomains using SNI, which is free.

Info here:
[aws.amazon.com...]

As well as a tutorial on implementing it:
[jaswsinc.com...]

To answer your two questions,

1) no I don't think whatever brand or certificate type will have any positive or negative effect. Whether you spend $4 or $300 on a certificate makes no technical difference.

2) if you're going all SSL, then yes get a certificate for each subdomain. You could wildcard it, but unless you have a bunch of subdomains that's just a waste of money.
8:00 am on June 24, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 19, 2012
posts: 334
votes: 2


@dannyboy Cool tips. But why does it say that SSL SNI is not supported by old browsers? Is it a different protocol?
12:59 pm on June 24, 2015 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 15, 2003
posts: 83
votes: 0


@guggi2000

Their FAQ explains this:
[aws.amazon.com...]
SNI Custom SSL works with most modern browsers, including Chrome version 6 and later (running on Windows XP and later or OS X 10.5.7 and later), Safari version 3 and later (running on Windows Vista and later or Mac OS X 10.5.6. and later), Firefox 2.0 and later, and Internet Explorer 7 and later (running on Windows Vista and later). Older browsers that do not support SNI cannot establish a connection with CloudFront to load the HTTPS version of your content. SNI Custom SSL is available at no additional cost beyond standard CloudFront data transfer and request fees.


If your need to support those older browsers you can get a dedicated IP for your SSL which will cost $600 per month.

I also don't believe it works for IE8 on Windows XP.

Here's another CDN offering SNI discussing what makes it different form the expensive alternative. Pay extra attention to the browser support section:
[maxcdn.com...]
1:56 pm on June 24, 2015 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 19, 2012
posts: 334
votes: 2


Thanks. We have decided to use the certificate of the CDN vendor. We will have to change the code so it points to the URL of the vendor. I think it is safer.

Do you think it has an impact on SEO, meaning if we don't fetch the static files from our subdomain?
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members