I was just perusing the 'review' page for first answers, and I found this answer, which I thought I could fix up. Here is what I wanted to change it to:

You can't redirect to fix this because the SSL check happens before the HTTP connection 
has been fully made.

So, you have 3 options:

1. The best option is to get a cert that supports www and non-www. [RapidSSL](https://www.thesslstore.com/rapidssl/rapidssl-certificates.aspx) does this nicely, and most likely there are other vendors offering this as well.

1.  You can also get a wildcard cert that will let you do ANYTHING.mydomain.com. This can be more expensive, but most SSL Certificate vendors offer this, including [GoDaddy](http://help.godaddy.com/article/567).

1. The last choice is to purchase two separate certs, one for www and one for non-www. 

The three main things I was trying to do with this edit were:

  • fix formatting
  • un-shorten links so people know where they are going (we don't need to conserve characters here), and inline the links
  • make the answer less like an advertisment for a specific SSL certificate vendor.

I don't think that any of these things are/should be against the ToS.

So, how can I accomplish these goals (of making the answer more helpful to the community)?

  • Interestingly enough, this post (which contained the content from the prohibited post) was not blocked, perhaps because the content was in a code block. – pkaeding Sep 21 '11 at 2:33
  • Perhaps someone was spamming for GoDaddy or TheSSLStore and now links to those sites are no longer allowed? – user154510 Sep 21 '11 at 2:48
  • @kiamlaluno yes, I was unable to submit my edit. – pkaeding Sep 21 '11 at 2:50
  • @MatthewRead Good point. Perhaps that is why the links were shortened in the first place... I wonder what kind of link would be appropriate here, to not necessarily favor one vendor over another. I looked for wikipedia articles, but none seemed to really be appropriate for this. I would be afraid that a google search results page listing many vendors offering these services would be seen as a LMGTFY type of thing (which seems to be frowned upon). – pkaeding Sep 21 '11 at 2:53
  • 1
    www.thesslstore.com is blocked on StackOverflow (but not on meta) for whatever reason; that's why you couldn't submit your edit. – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 21 '11 at 2:56
  • PS: Please don't inline your links. Use the [link text][1] and [1]: http://example.org syntax instead. – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 21 '11 at 3:03
  • 5
    @NullUserExceptionஇ_இ, both link formats are absolutely supported. Is there a reason you are telling users not to use a supported format? – Rebecca Chernoff Sep 21 '11 at 3:08
  • @RebeccaChernoff It renders the question hard to read, especially with longer links (when in edit mode). I remember seeing a post somewhere by Jeff or Sam (Saffron) recommending the usage of the "reference" syntax. I personally prefer it for clarity. I only use the other format on comments. – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 21 '11 at 3:12
  • Another thing is the inline syntax breaks if the link has a right parens. – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 21 '11 at 3:17

Focusing on your edit, you mention that you want to make the answer less like an advertisement for a specific vendor. However, it looks like you solved that by adding a link to another vendor. I disagree that this makes the answer less an advertisement. Now you're just advertising 2 companies instead of 1. What if these links go bad? Teach the user what they need to know without advertising.

  • That is a good point, and one I was having trouble with myself (see my comment to Matthew Read above). – pkaeding Sep 21 '11 at 2:58
  • I disagree. Sometimes links to a commercial product are necessary. That doesn't mean they are advertisements. – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 21 '11 at 2:58
  • @pkaeding Why do you need to link to a vendor or a google search? Can't people do that themselves? Provide content, make it something useful for people to read and learn. – Rebecca Chernoff Sep 21 '11 at 2:59
  • 1
    @NullUserExceptionஇ_இ, you're right, but in this case I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include the link. – Rebecca Chernoff Sep 21 '11 at 3:00
  • Why link to documentation? Can't people find that themselves? Providing links makes it easier for people to find additional content that your answer can't feasibly cover. It's a matter of convenience. – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 21 '11 at 3:02
  • @NullUserExceptionஇ_இ, in this case, as you stated in your since-deleted answer, that's not going to work, so yeah, that answer is just fine without the link. – Rebecca Chernoff Sep 21 '11 at 3:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .