Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 369 posts

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#241

Post by byuu »

mholt wrote: post #96

In the hopes that it will help spread adoption of HTTPS, I wrote a web server that serves your sites over HTTPS by default, using Let's Encrypt: https://caddyserver.com - It also redirects HTTP -> HTTPS.[1] There's a lot of misinformation out there about certificates and HTTPS, but don't let it stop you from encrypting your site. Regardless of Google's move, there is no excuse for any site not to be served encrypted…

> Regardless of Google's move, there is no excuse for any site not to be served encrypted anymore.

Honest question: are you willing to indemnify your users when the next Heartbleed-like attack comes out for the underlying SSL library you are using in your product?

If you are willing to do that, and will offer me a no-cost wildcard domain certificate, I will switch to your product and start using HTTPS.

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#242

Post by toomanybeersies »

donohoe wrote: post #64

Which is hilarious because the reason I can't switch The New Yorker website to HTTPS is because of ads - which I'm getting from Google DFP which allows non-secure ad assets. In short; Google will penalize me because I use Google. The universe has a sense of humor.

Google is a large company, with multiple branches.

I can't remember what services it is now, but there was some Google service that was deranked because it broke some Google search ranking policy.

It shows some integrity for the company that they're (sort of) operating their search engine objectively.

I presume that google doesn't uprank sites that specifically use Adsense versus other competing ad services?

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#243

Post by bphogan »

vacri wrote: post #234
bphogan wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't get paid to build their own stuff. They get paid to do work for clients. A variation on the "shoemaker has no shoes."

With that argument, there should be no marketing departments.

...no, the marketing department's job is to market the company and keep it in the public eye. Perhaps you're thinking of an advertising agency. And I've observed they have the same problem.

If a web developer was large enough to have its own marketing department it could maintain its own site.

In any event, I'm busy developing apps for clients all day - I don't get paid to work on my own stuff so it has lower priority.

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#244

Post by schoen »

pollen23 wrote: post #240
mynameisvlad wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons a country has feminine gender is the association with the mother land (ie. one's native country).

Not all countries have feminine gender, just check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland

I never thought about the question of whether, in languages that require nouns to have grammatical gender, particular countries may have a different grammatical gender from others, but on reflection I already know examples where they do in Portuguese: o Brasil, o Canadá (amusing to me because of the national anthem), but a Argentina, a Alemanha.

I wonder if this also happens in German; the only examples I'm thinking of offhand are feminine (die Schweiz, die Türkei) but now I'm not at all sure that there isn't a masculine one too!

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#246

Post by yeukhon »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #231
yeukhon wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not, sort of. You can refer to a country by "she", so why is it inappropriate for a company? I don't see any issues. You can view a company as a mother too.

One of the reasons a country has feminine gender is the association with the mother land (ie. one's native country).

But if you have a child company, wouldn't you expect to associate the parent company with a feminine gender before a masculine gender? That's what I am getting at. An organization has that "motherland" feel in some way.

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#247

Post by Dylan16807 »

cryptoz wrote: post #193
Dylan16807 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume they're not being penalized? Showing that they rank above "timeanddate.com" doesn't mean a lot.

Being ranked #1 in a Google search for 'calendar' does mean a lot. Also, let's say they are penalizing themselves, but the penalty isn't enough to change their ranking. Why, then, would they claim that they are making this change because it's better for users to not have these ads but to still run these ads themselves? > Our analysis shows that it is not a good search experience and can be frustrating for users becau…

A penalty that doesn't knock down one of the largest sites on the internet can still be a big deal to everyone else.

I assume different departments run calendar and search.

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#248

Post by Dylan16807 »

yeukhon wrote: post #202
nailer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent poster might not be from an English-speaking background.

I am not, sort of. You can refer to a country by "she", so why is it inappropriate for a company? I don't see any issues. You can view a company as a mother too.

That's an archaic and half-valid use, so stretching it to apply to a company makes it pretty much invalid.

You could try to convince people to use the word that way, but at present it's just not done. Companies are 'it' or you can talk about the people that make up the company as 'they'.

Re: Google Will Soon Shame All Websites That Are Unencrypted

#249

Post by Dylan16807 »

tyingq wrote: post #111
donohoe wrote: post #64

Which is hilarious because the reason I can't switch The New Yorker website to HTTPS is because of ads - which I'm getting from Google DFP which allows non-secure ad assets. In short; Google will penalize me because I use Google. The universe has a sense of humor.

This is also effectively true for the more broadly used Google Adsense (not just DFP). They do support displaying adsense, but then screen out all non-https ads. Which, of course, results in a lower CPM.[1] [1] https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10528?hl=en >>In short; Google will penalize me because I use Google +++

To be fair, sites without ads are a better experience than sites with ads.
Post reply on HN