Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
HTTPS moz.org untrusted - invalid cert
-
https://www.a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/ has an invalid cert guys
This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect
securely to www.a-moz.groupbuyseo.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely,
sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are
going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to
this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is
trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue.www.a-moz.groupbuyseo.org uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is only valid for a-moz.groupbuyseo.org
(Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)
If you understand what's going on, you
can tell Firefox to start trusting this site's identification.
Even if you trust the site, this error could mean that someone is
tampering with your connection.
Don't add an exception unless
you know there's a good reason why this site doesn't use trusted identification. -
Hi Irving!
Thanks for the heads up! I will let our engineers know so we can fix this asap. Will update when I have new status.
Cheers!
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Probably basic, but how to use image Title and Alt Text - and confusing advice from Moz!
I've been doing SEO on my business's site for years and have got good results. I've always used image Titles and Alt Text text. Our blog posts are image-intensive, often with 100-200 pictures (not surprising since we're photographers). For any given blog post, I've tended to have a uniform image Title for each image and then a more specialised Alt Text tag giving a description. A typical image on one of our blog posts would be like this: Image filename: wedding-photography-at-so-and-so-venue-001.jpg .... 002, 003 etc Image Title Attribute: Wedding Photography at So-And-So-Venue by Our-Company-Name - this would be the same for every image in the blog post. Alternative Text: Bride and groom exchanging vows during wedding ceremony at so-and-so-venue - this would be tailed for each image. So my question is - is this right? The Moz help page for image SEO is actually incorrect in one aspect: https://a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/ugc/10-tips-for-optimizing-your-images-for-search "Alt text (short for “alternative text”) is used to highlight the identity of an image when you hover over it with your mouse cursor. It also shows as text to all users when there are problems rendering the image." This is not the case. Hovering over the image in Firefox, Chrome, Edge and Opera ALL display the Image Title, NOT Alt Text. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robandsarahgillespie0 -
Should I use https schema markup after http-https migration?
Dear Moz community, Noticed that several groups of websites after HTTP -> HTTPS migration update their schema markup from, example : {
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | admiral99
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "WebSite",
"name": "Your WebSite Name",
"alternateName": "An alternative name for your WebSite",
"url": "http://www.your-site.com"
} becomes {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "WebSite",
"name": "Your WebSite Name",
"alternateName": "An alternative name for your WebSite",
"url": "https://www.example.com"
} Interesting to know, because Moz website is on https protocol but uses http version of markup. Looking forward for answers 🙂0 -
Switching from HTTP to HTTPS: 301 redirect or keep both & rel canonical?
Hey Mozzers, I'll be moving several sites from HTTP to HTTPS in the coming weeks (same brand, multiple ccTLDs). We'll start on a low traffic site and test it for 2-4 weeks to see the impact before rolling out across all 8 sites. Ideally, I'd like to simply 301 redirect the HTTP version page to the HTTPS version of the page (to get that potential SEO rankings boost). However, I'm concerned about the potential drop in rankings, links and traffic. I'm thinking of alternative ways and so instead of the 301 redirect approach, I would keep both sites live and accessible, and then add rel canonical on the HTTPS pages to point towards HTTP so that Google keeps the current pages/ links/ indexed as they are today (in this case, HTTPS is more UX than for SEO). Has anyone tried the rel canonical approach, and if so, what were the results? Do you recommend it? Also, for those who have implemented HTTPS, how long did it take for Google to index those pages over the older HTTP pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Steven_Macdonald0 -
Why does Moz recommend subdomains for language-specific websites?
In Moz's domain recommendations, they recommend subdirectories instead of subdomains (which agrees with my experience), but make an exception for language-specific websites: Since search engines keep different metrics for domains than they do subdomains, it is recommended that webmasters place link-worthy content like blogs in subfolders rather than subdomains. (i.e. www.example.com/blog/ rather than blog.example.com) The notable exceptions to this are language-specific websites. (i.e., en.example.com for the English version of the website). Why are language-specific websites excepted from this advice? Why are subdomains preferable for language-specific websites? Google's advice says subdirectories are fine for language-specific websites, and GSC allows geographic settings at the subdirectory level (which may or may not even be needed, since language-specific sites may not be geographic-specific), so I'm unsure why Moz would suggest using subdirectories in this case.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AdamThompson0 -
Schema.org snippet for thumbs up-down reviews
Hi guys, I'm deep into the Schema.org meta-tags implementation for the reviews on my website and I'd love to know how do you think I should implement it when I have Positive-Negative reviews as opposed to star ratings. I couldn't find a site that had this with schema tags for reference. Fiverr used to have thumbs up/down, but recently changed to star rating. On our services marketplace we allow users to review the providers they worked with and ask them for a positive-negative review - thumbs up/down with an additional open text area. I thought about adding a schema.org meta-tags like this: Lets assume one of our providers got two reviews, one is positive and the second is negative. So, first I thought about adding an aggregateReview meta-tag on top, just like this: And also add a meta-tag for any review, like this: Two days ago by
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ShaqD
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Joe is a great guy, I'd recommend him to my friends. Does that make sense? Has anyone had the chance to implement a schema.org meta tags for this kind of situation or familiar with a website who does it that way? Thanks so much for your help! Shaqd0 -
Majestic SEO Versus MOZ for Link Tracking
I have subscribed to Majestic SEO for three years and am considering cancelling it as it cost $600/year. Is this a false economy? Will I be losing essential data? Also, MOZ seems really deficient in the link tracking department. Its data seems plain wrong, showing far fewer domains pointing at my site than either Google Webmaster Tools or Majestic SEO. If I get rid of Majestic SEO are there any free/low cost tools that could take it's place? Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Multiple 301 redirects for a HTTPS URL. Good or bad?
I'm working on an ecommerce website that has a few snags and issues with it's coding. They're using https, and when you access the website through domain.com, theres a 301 redirect to http://www.domain.com and then this, in turn, redirected to https://www.domain.com. Would this have a deterimental effect or is that considered the best way to do it. Have the website redirect to http and then all http access is redirected to the https URL? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasondexter0 -
Schema.org and Testimonials
Does anyone know which fields and code are necessary to embed a testimonial into a page using schema.org?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rarbel0