Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The vast majority of visits to SO are by people who don't even have an account. They're not asking questions themselves.


sort by: page size:

Someone who doesn’t login and doesn’t pay is not much of a customer.

Logins? 99% of the websites I visit don't have user accounts.

People doesn't like to create new accounts to login. That´s all.

no password, no login = facefeed

Senior management doesn't use their users. They ask someone to open the page for them.

Can you say more about how it's a problem if people can view things without logging in? Naively I would have seen that as a plus.

Forcing people to sign in isn't going to be popular here.

Login is not the problem, sharing your contact info off the top of your head is.

Not that I disagree, but we have possibly the world's most boring login system with nothing but email/password and even then people manage to create multiple accounts. And then john.smith@example.com will email us, asking why the facilities they set up last month aren't working any more, completely failing to mention that they set them up using their john.smith.666@example.com account.

Nobody would be complaining about this if it didn't ask for a login.

No SSO, because you're lurking without logging in

There's no improvement in security from asking for a face rather than a username.

I also avoid sites that only have social login. Don't think it is odd at all.

The information is also often locked behind login walls. That accounts can be created for free (for most people) does not mean that the information is freely accessible.

> That's not the representative experience for most consumers/users. Most people do have a phone number, though, so it's easy enough to bootstrap with.

It's a trap most don't realize they are falling in. It's easy to set up things without one time registration step (instead of making a user id and password, just download some client and boom - you are set). But think about it. One time(!) convenience is paid with constant(!) reduction of privacy.

Compare it to one time inconvenience of registration step, that gives you constantly better privacy. I'd say the second is the obvious choice.

And it's easy to sell this "convenience" for the clueless, but it's also evil to do so, because most don't realize what they are paying with. So I blame developers who are proliferating this approach. Unlike many of their users, they know very well what they are doing, and they exploit people's cluelessness and natural preference for convenience.


Login wall. There's no way I'm using Facebook or Google to log in. I'm not sure the author even knows.

There's not logging in automatically, and then there's using other data they have about you (however limited) to still provide a good experience. The parent comment is clearly talking about the latter (creating experiences that are equally good for privacy minded and open book people) while you're focused on a small feature that isn't really relevant to the bigger picture.

The article starts with the words "Imagine you want to try the service offered by a site, but you have to log in to be able to do it." That's a problem statement, and the solution is clear: Let users try your service without forcing them to log in. That's it. It's that simple: Offer a demo. No third-party two-factor-authentication-by-people-who-don't-understand-what-two-factor-means stuff needed.

Once you have people hooked, they will gladly open an account if they intend to return.


Wow, this seems like one of those name and shame cases. A login shouldn't be expected here.
next

Legal | privacy