Google has just released an official statement basically saying:
Having a HTTPS URL will increase your rankings over having an HTTP
Here is a link to the original official statement: https://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html
This is great for real estate SEO and increasing your rankings.
Example non HTTPS: https://www.flyerco.com
Example with HTTPS: https://www.flyerco.com
Even if people type in regular HTTP, it will automatically re-direct them to the secure link. You don’t have to worry about losing potential visitors.
What’s the difference?
HTTPS is more secure. It helps keep hackers away and Google wants a more secure search. As an incentive they are offering ranking boosts to everyone that starts to change now.
We want to go even further. At Google I/O a few months ago, we called for “HTTPS everywhere” on the web. – Google
& the most important part
For now it’s only a very lightweight signal—affecting fewer than 1% of global queries, and carrying less weight than other signals such as high-quality content—while we give webmasters time to switch to HTTPS. But over time, we may decide to strengthen it, because we’d like to encourage all website owners to switch from HTTP to HTTPS to keep everyone safe on the web. – Google
It’s easy to setup and not many people, especially in real estate are going to be doing it. This could be hugely beneficial for you.
It costs money to get a certificate. Depending on which you buy it can cost anywhere between $25 – $100.
Where can you buy one:
Almost every domain provider has them available from Godaddy to Namecheap.
If you’re reading this, call your web designer right now and tell him you want to install an SSL certificate on your domain. You have the chance to be first at something and Google is ready to reward you.
Take advantage of it.
1 thought on “New real estate SEO tactic to increase security and rankings”
Andrew, I spoke to my SEO team and they advised against it, felt that the loss of performance (minimal) would be penalized more than the minimal gain of being “secure.” I’ll be curious to see what others think.