Good news from Adsense, HTTPS is officially supported

[rdn]

Today, we're happy to announce that AdSense publishers can begin monetizing their HTTPS pages. Many websites, like e-commerce sites and social networking sites, use the HTTPS protocol to protect their users' sensitive data. If you have a HTTPS website you’ll be pleased with how easy it is to monetize using AdSense.

To use AdSense on your HTTPS-enabled sites, simply create an ad unit in AdSense and then paste the ad code into the HTML source code of your page where you'd like the ad to appear. The old version of the AdSense ad code will not work with your HTTPS-enabled sites but you can get and copy the ad code for an existing ad unit.

HTTPS-enabled sites require that all content on the page, including the ads, be SSL-compliant. As a result, our systems will remove all non-SSL compliant ads from competing in the auction on these pages. This means that if you convert your HTTP site to HTTPS, ads on your HTTPS pages might earn less than those on your HTTP pages.

Please visit our Help Center for more details on this feature. If you have a HTTPS-enabled website we’d love to hear your thoughts.

Posted by Sandor Sas - AdSense Software Engineer

Blog: http://adsense.blogspot.com/2013/09/use-adsense-on-your-https-sites13.html

 

[MikeMpls]

Thanks for the heads up. I run several sites with HTTPS just to give NSA more rubbish to collect, and if I ever need a backup, I figure I can always file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

You don't need to create (copy) new ads. This page describes how to modify existing ad code (just remove the "http:" from the ad source):

https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10528?hl=en​

 

[rdn]

Yes that page has a little bit wrong info

It should be "http:"

 

[DRE]

Wow just in time.

 

[MikeMpls]

No, it should be "http:".

The non-secure ads didn't have that "s" at the end of the protocol, but the example was missing the ":".

 

[Jeremy]

Without the http: or https: it will request the appropriate security level for your page. If you are on http:, // will request an http: page. If you are on https:, // will request an https: page.

 

[rdn]

Edited
Thanks!

 

[Blue]

Not running SSL at the moment, but when I did I changed http: to https: and the ads worked fine.

 

[digitalpoint]

Oh... so I need to change the AdSense code to EXACTLY HOW I'VE ALREADY BEEN DOING IT? Okay... done. Change not made. lol

Dumb they even made an announcement about it since it's always worked by removing the protocol like that (or just changing it to https if you wanted).

 

[DRE]

Maybe they were losing revenue since site's with SSL that aren't as savvy as yours would skip out on Adsense and use something else.

 

[digitalpoint]

I guess... but it still worked even on non-SSL, just with the yellow thing or whatever. Either way, I guess cool... but ultimately all they did was change the ad code to not include the protocol, which has always worked... at least as long as I've wanted to do it/tried.

 

[Moshe1010]

Is there any benefit, for a forum that doesn't sell or keep its users information, to install SSL?

 

[Per Hansson]

HTTPS-enabled sites require that all content on the page, including the ads, be SSL-compliant. As a result, our systems will remove all non-SSL compliant ads from competing in the auction on these pages. This means that if you convert your HTTP site to HTTPS, ads on your HTTPS pages might earn less than those on your HTTP pages.

I've read this before but I'm wondering if there are any numbers on how big the difference is?
I mean do you loose 90% of ad's from the pool of rotation or is it more like 10% you loose?

 

[rdn]

Is there any benefit, for a forum that doesn't sell or keep its users information, to install SSL?

SPDY 3.1

 

[Moshe1010]

SPDY 3.1

I have done some testing and couldn't really find any difference between Nginx + SPDY 3.1 and Litespeed alone. With Litespeed cache enbaled, Litespeed won in terms of page load. Of course, this is in terms of YMMV since it depends on to many individual factors (servers specs/forum size, etc`).

 

[digitalpoint]

I have done some testing and couldn't really find any difference between Nginx + SPDY 3.1 and Litespeed alone. With Litespeed cache enbaled, Litespeed won in terms of page load. Of course, this is in terms of YMMV since it depends on to many individual factors (servers specs/forum size, etc`).

Were you using something that supported SPDY when you did your test?

 

[Moshe1010]

Were you using something that supported SPDY when you did your test?

On the same machine, just different VPS

 

[Per Hansson]

SPDY 3.1

Yea, it's the reason I'm interested.
But would still need more data on how big the impact is on the Adsense pool of rotation.
Does Google have any data to show how many of the Ad's are available via https?

 

[rdn]

Yea, it's the reason I'm interested.
But would still need more data on how big the impact is on the Adsense pool of rotation.
Does Google have any data to show how many of the Ad's are available via https?

Adsense is fully https compatible.

 

[Per Hansson]

Adsense is fully https compatible.

Ok, but in your initial post where you quote Google Adsense page this is written:
"HTTPS-enabled sites require that all content on the page, including the ads, be SSL-compliant. As a result, our systems will remove all non-SSL compliant ads from competing in the auction on these pages. This means that if you convert your HTTP site to HTTPS, ads on your HTTPS pages might earn less than those on your HTTP pages."

I'd like to know how big the impact is, or are you saying that today there is no such issue anymore?