No, and that's one of the two reasons I'm not jumping in yet. I don't think that the issue is trust for the "new" https site - AdSense will only serve secure ads to secure sites, and I'm sure there's a much smaller inventory of secure ads.

From the AdSense Help files:

HTTPS-enabled sites require that all content on the page, including the ads, be SSL-compliant. As such, AdSense will remove all non-SSL compliant ads from competing in the auction on these pages. If you do decide to convert your HTTP site to HTTPS, please be aware that because we remove non-SSL compliant ads from the auction, thereby reducing auction pressure, ads on your HTTPS pages might earn less than those on your HTTP pages.

The ads themselves are served by Google, but maybe the landing page has to be secure to be compliant; I dunno. All I know is I'm in no hurry.

Wow. It looks like we've stumbled upon the proverbial fly in the ointment with HTTPS. That's another thing I'm glad I followed netmeg's lead on -- you're right, no need to rush into this until the details get worked out with it.

Id did not know that about SSL ads, good to know! I have been giving it some thought of switching some of my sites to SSL since Google made the big announcement. I will continue to hold off though, surely Google will be pushing AdWords advertisers to use SSL-compliant ads you would think?

Could be, but as an advertiser myself, I haven't heard word one from AdWords about it.

I would not move to https unless I dealt in personal information (i.e. I sold stuff). I actually have an SSL certificate in order to comply with some FB things and I still would not do it. Yes, they announced that they have added it as a ranking factor (and by their own saying it is a very minor factor) but the negative effects of needlessly moving to https are far too great. This is just one more example of that.

I do think eventually it will become the standard (probably included with webhosting), but we're a ways away from that now.

But why does the landing page has to be secure?
Look at FB ads, they are not always leading to secure pages,
Or loot Adwords ads Google search, they also can go from https to http.
But for Adsense compliance all external links must lead to https?
what am I missing here?

I don't know; I'm missing it too. But I am more concerned with the bottom line. When they get all this sorted out, then I'll start installing SSL certificates. My ecommerce sites already have them, and my event sites won't suffer the lack of them.

A slight drop in RPM here after migration to https 10 days ago. Also bounce rate is a little higher as it takes a bit more time for a page to load.

I find it interesting Google says jump and we say how high. It ridiculous to put a site under https. The lead generation pages sure but informational pages not gonna happen.

It ridiculous to put a site under https. The lead generation pages sure but informational pages not gonna happen.

If you are an authoritative site, you want to make sure that the information you provide is not altered before it gets to the user.

If you are an authoritative site, you want to make sure that the information you provide is not altered before it gets to the user.

If you are so concerned about this, why didn't you migrate years ago (instead of 10 days)?

If you are so concerned about this, why didn't you migrate years ago (instead of 10 days)?

I am not concerned about this. In addition, I am not an authoritative site ;)

Also bounce rate is a little higher as it takes a bit more time for a page to load.

That's always been my impression with https sites but I have no evidence to back it up. Also, the array of "invalid certificate" stuff that appears with some of them is also a concern.

I find it interesting Google says jump and we say how high. It ridiculous to put a site under https. The lead generation pages sure but informational pages not gonna happen.

Actually, Google didn't say "jump." It said that HTTPS is now a "lightweight ranking factor" (and on a page-by-page basis, at that). You get to decide how important that it is to you.

Google has said repeatedly that it has more than 200 ranking factors, and some of those factors are obviously a lot more important than whether a given page is "https://" instead of "http://".

Actually I was already planning to install SSL on all my sites even before this, but didn't because I didn't want to lose my social media shares or have access to a smaller ad inventory. Once those two hurdles are overcome, I intend to go all SSL; I think it's probably a good thing overall.

I intend to go all SSL; I think it's probably a good thing overall.

Why do you think going to SSL is good? I can see it for some things, but it's so not useful for so much.

A heads up to "https://" aficionados/enthusiasts

One thing I personally detest about some "https://" sites, it is quite surprising the number which trigger wholly unnecessary page security warnings in a browser, for no other reason than supplementary content, such as image files come from their "http://" server.

For what it is worth.

That's always been my impression with https sites but I have no evidence to back it up. Also, the array of "invalid certificate" stuff that appears with some of them is also a concern.

The increase in bounce rate for my site is very slight and not conclusive as I have been running on https for a very short time. It is not really something to worry about. I am on a dedicated server setup. I would like to throw that out there as I don't know how much impact it could have on shared hosting.
The invalid certificate warning is a concern if you are using external resources like style sheets, images, and other plugins. Fortunately, the cdn I am using supports https.

I didn't want to lose my social media shares or have access to a smaller ad inventory

I had to give up about 100K likes over several pages. For me, it doesn't really matter. If you are using the FB comments plugin, you can either start fresh or point the comments plugin to the http version.

There is really no shortage of ad inventory. I check Adsense and the coverage is almost all the time 100%. My concern is that CPC might be negatively affected as there are fewer advertisers bidding.

SERoundtable post that the OP refers to: [seroundtable.com ]

I wonder if HTTPS vs. HTTP matters for text ads. For image or Flash ads I can imagine there might be content that is served from third-party servers, which would have to be SSL-compliant, but text ads have no interactive or third-party content as far as I'm aware. My HTTPS site serves mainly text ads, so I hope it isn't affected too much.

When I run image ads in AdWords, I have to upload my ads to Google. I am sure they serve them from their own servers, so I can't imagine it's the ad images themselves that cause the issue.

Yes, but there are also third-party vendors whose ads may also be served through the Display Network, indirectly. Most but not all of those are SSL-compliant (see [support.google.com ]), so it could be that Google is referring to those.

Yea, I forgot about those (I have them all turned off)

Yea, I forgot about those (I have them all turned off)

Hi there netmeg, wanted to ask about what you wrote above -- I've seen that you've mentioned that before also, that you turn off all third-party ad networks in AdSense. May I ask why? My assumption would be that having third-party ad networks in the auction would result in more competition for my ad space, but obviously you've found something else. What have you found to be the pro's and cons?

I ran the numbers going back a reasonable period of time, and found the combined total earnings from all the third party networks were less than ten bucks total, and the earnings from AdWords over the same period were high five figures.

All I needed to know.

All I needed to know.

?

Not "all" if I understand correctly. Third party earnings may have been minimal but that doesn't mean their inclusion didn't push up your earnings.

I use Criteo for a particular ad size on some of my sites and they exceed Adsense earnings. If they didn't then, by default, they don't appear. It's not a clear "win or loose" situation in many cases at all from what I see.

That of course is nothing to do with http / https but that's the way this post is going.

As far as http / https is concerned though I've had two requests in the last couple of days to change my links to new newly converted https sites. Why, I'm not sure, if they have re-directed correctly. But maybe the re-directs are not working as expected and they are now getting desperate. I don't know.

For me it's another "amber" light signal not to convert just yet, wait until the implications become a lot clearer. And when I do, as is inevitable, one of my smaller sites will be a test bed first before the other larger ones go ahead.

Not "all" if I understand correctly. Third party earnings may have been minimal but that doesn't mean their inclusion didn't push up your earnings.

My earnings climb pretty steadily as they are. My August just finished out at 170% of last August. If I'm losing out on a few extra bucks, I'm okay with that. And I'm not willing to give the space to the third party networks. At least with AdWords, I'm familiar enough with it that I have a pretty good idea what I'm gonna get. The other networks, not so much.

But at the end of the day it was the earnings. I don't have time to overthink it.

My earnings climb pretty steadily as they are. My August just finished out at 170% of last August.

Mine is a bit lower despite a slight increase in traffic. Both CTR and CPC are lower than they used to be. The decline started in April.