4 ms·

"The reasons for our move" If they wrote this 5+ years ago, kudos. Now, today... seems a bit like a very bad (and very late) ad campaign or excuse.. And in all

"The reasons for our move" If they wrote this 5+ years ago, kudos. Now, today... seems a bit like a very bad (and very late) ad campaign or excuse.. And in all fairness, it could have summarized, as 'we cared more about money then serving https to our readers'

0xmohit 10y ago
The primary reason is SEO: It also gives us other benefits such as a potential increase in search results. For the reasons mentioned above Google has announced that it will favour https content. It is also helping us decipher traffic from secure and ‘unknown’ referrers.
mgbmtl 10y ago
As far as I know, they are one of the few big media outlets to support https. So yes, this should have been done earlier, but kudos to them for pioneering this in their field and for publishing a short instruction manual for whoever else is planning this. I'm not surprised that they are worried about the financial impact of https on their (very modest) revenue. It's a big investment for an industry struggling financially.
- stevekemp 10y ago
  The BBC is in the process of making the switch, and sometimes blog posts are published about progress: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/f6f50d1f-a879-4999-bc6d-6634a71e2e60 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/f6f50d1f-a879-49...
- 0xmohit 10y ago
  RT switched to HTTPS a while back. https://www.rt.com/ https://www.rt.com/ > I'm not surprised that they are worried about the financial impact of https on their (very modest) revenue. I don't see anything to that effect in the article.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- thinkMOAR 10y ago
  I don't consider a SSL certificate as a big investment? There is no ROI on ssl usage. Nor do they break the bank; There is a 'not running away because you don't' return, which in the end hurt more. NY times SSL capable since 2014, also late, but already 2 years earlier then this website.

0xmohit 10y ago

The primary reason is SEO: It also gives us other benefits such as a potential increase in search results. For the reasons mentioned above Google has announced that it will favour https content. It is also helping us decipher traffic from secure and ‘unknown’ referrers.

mgbmtl 10y ago

As far as I know, they are one of the few big media outlets to support https. So yes, this should have been done earlier, but kudos to them for pioneering this in their field and for publishing a short instruction manual for whoever else is planning this. I'm not surprised that they are worried about the financial impact of https on their (very modest) revenue. It's a big investment for an industry struggling financially.

stevekemp 10y ago
The BBC is in the process of making the switch, and sometimes blog posts are published about progress: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/f6f50d1f-a879-4999-bc6d-6634a71e2e60 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/f6f50d1f-a879-49...
0xmohit 10y ago
RT switched to HTTPS a while back. https://www.rt.com/ https://www.rt.com/ > I'm not surprised that they are worried about the financial impact of https on their (very modest) revenue. I don't see anything to that effect in the article.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
thinkMOAR 10y ago
I don't consider a SSL certificate as a big investment? There is no ROI on ssl usage. Nor do they break the bank; There is a 'not running away because you don't' return, which in the end hurt more. NY times SSL capable since 2014, also late, but already 2 years earlier then this website.