4 ms·

I'd be really curious to see some numbers on not the technical side, but the human side. In the past I've chosen not to buy EV certs not because the process is

I'd be really curious to see some numbers on not the technical side, but the human side. In the past I've chosen not to buy EV certs not because the process is more involved, but because it just doesn't seem worth the extra cost - I've never heard of someone choosing not to do business because a site had the wrong kind of SSL certificate. Most people would probably put their credit card details into a completely unencrypted website given half a chance.

nailer 11y ago
nod what you really want is someone like usertesting.com to do this, ie, interested in conversion rates, not selling certificates. This hasn't happened with EV yet, but it did happen with 'site seals' - those images (or in Symantec's case Flash objects) that promote a particular certificate brand in a web page. CertSimple sells certs that come with a DigiCert 'site seals' but I'll happily tell you that usertesting tested CRO with site seals a little while ago and found out that, in one case, removing 'site seals' completely was better for conversion - apparently reminding people they're not being hacked doesn't inspire confidence. Let me know and I'll dig up the event recording. I feel EV is a different situation - it's the only chrome displayed by the actual browser concerning identity of a website (which as we know is not the same ting as the origin). But I don't have numbers to say and I shouldn't be the one to conduct the research since I'm clearly biased.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  This might be an unfair question: Do you see the cost of EV certificates coming down in the future, or is that level of cost actually required due to how involved validation is? For a lot of SMBs and individuals it is hard to justify additional $150 a EV certificate costs. Plus the loss of convenience that wildcard DV certificates provide (and EV certificates cannot). I like the concept of EV, but unless I was running a large company with deep pockets or was in a sector where EV is helping (e.g. finance/payments/etc) then I'd just skip it. I'm not even sure it helps mitigate phishing.
  - nailer 11y ago
    Essentially the cost of EV is the cost of validation. As time goes on, and as there are more CAs, I suspect the competition will increase and the price of EV will go down. However, the current per-year price of EV is less than a half day's work by an average programmer. I'm not necessary sure that's out of the question for most businesses.
- andygambles 11y ago
  We went 100% SSL years ago and EV. Conversions increased over 30%. However we do sell Certs so that probably helped. What did reduce was the "are you legit questions".
- ademarre 11y ago
  I tend to think that if EV had a measurably positive impact on conversion, the CAs would have provided reliable data to back it up by now.
  - nailer 11y ago
    The CAs have stats on EV conversion - but it's their data, so it's meaningless. It really needs someone focused on conversation rates to test, rather than the SSL industry.
    - ademarre 11y ago
      Right. That's sort of what I mean by "reliable data"; to commission an independent study or something similar.

nailer 11y ago

nod what you really want is someone like usertesting.com to do this, ie, interested in conversion rates, not selling certificates. This hasn't happened with EV yet, but it did happen with 'site seals' - those images (or in Symantec's case Flash objects) that promote a particular certificate brand in a web page. CertSimple sells certs that come with a DigiCert 'site seals' but I'll happily tell you that usertesting tested CRO with site seals a little while ago and found out that, in one case, removing 'site seals' completely was better for conversion - apparently reminding people they're not being hacked doesn't inspire confidence. Let me know and I'll dig up the event recording. I feel EV is a different situation - it's the only chrome displayed by the actual browser concerning identity of a website (which as we know is not the same ting as the origin). But I don't have numbers to say and I shouldn't be the one to conduct the research since I'm clearly biased.

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
This might be an unfair question: Do you see the cost of EV certificates coming down in the future, or is that level of cost actually required due to how involved validation is? For a lot of SMBs and individuals it is hard to justify additional $150 a EV certificate costs. Plus the loss of convenience that wildcard DV certificates provide (and EV certificates cannot). I like the concept of EV, but unless I was running a large company with deep pockets or was in a sector where EV is helping (e.g. finance/payments/etc) then I'd just skip it. I'm not even sure it helps mitigate phishing.
- nailer 11y ago
  Essentially the cost of EV is the cost of validation. As time goes on, and as there are more CAs, I suspect the competition will increase and the price of EV will go down. However, the current per-year price of EV is less than a half day's work by an average programmer. I'm not necessary sure that's out of the question for most businesses.
andygambles 11y ago
We went 100% SSL years ago and EV. Conversions increased over 30%. However we do sell Certs so that probably helped. What did reduce was the "are you legit questions".
ademarre 11y ago
I tend to think that if EV had a measurably positive impact on conversion, the CAs would have provided reliable data to back it up by now.
- nailer 11y ago
  The CAs have stats on EV conversion - but it's their data, so it's meaningless. It really needs someone focused on conversation rates to test, rather than the SSL industry.
  - ademarre 11y ago
    Right. That's sort of what I mean by "reliable data"; to commission an independent study or something similar.