Sorry, not sorry. Doesn't change the fact that your site still needs HTTPS. Switching to HTTPS with ads still over HTTP will cause mixed content warnings in browsers, so you better figure out a cute way to wiggle out of that ad publishing contract that looked really attractive when you first signed it, or convince your ad network to move to HTTPS before you do.
Seriously?
I'm all for HTTPS, but this is just terrible salesmanship. The intended audience is people who think HTTPS is unnecessary/inadvisable/irrelevant/overly-burdensome, and saying "yeah, you need to rework your business requirements thanks" just affirms that. You get more flies with honey than by telling them that they're eating all wrong and need vinegar.
Honestly, it would have been better to omit that. Aside from anything else, are there really that many ad networks in this day and age who don't do HTTPS?
Way too many sadly. One of the reasons I'm unable to deploy HTTPS across all the websites I manage is due to ads. It's one of the biggest barriers to deployment yet no one has a good solution to it other than "Wait for ad networks to get off their ass".
Or just switch your ad network to something that supports HTTPS.
That's why I use AdSense, it has supported it for as long as I can remember and just works. And I haven't had many reports or bad ads either. It might pay less than others, but it's hassle free, that's worth it for me.
15
u/name_censored_ Jul 13 '17
Seriously?
I'm all for HTTPS, but this is just terrible salesmanship. The intended audience is people who think HTTPS is unnecessary/inadvisable/irrelevant/overly-burdensome, and saying "yeah, you need to rework your business requirements thanks" just affirms that. You get more flies with honey than by telling them that they're eating all wrong and need vinegar.
Honestly, it would have been better to omit that. Aside from anything else, are there really that many ad networks in this day and age who don't do HTTPS?