Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

blog.mailchimp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 114 posts

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#3

Post by digitalengineer »

Tipzntrix wrote: post #2

At the bottom of this article, there are "Sign in With FB/Twitter" buttons.

To their defense (in the comments): "Yeah, it’s a valid point. We’re using a plugin on our blog called Social that we built with the folks at Crowd Favorite because we saw our blog comments heading to Facebook and Twitter. For blog comments, we’re willing to suffer the social logins so people can talk to us in the channels they’re accustomed. The blog is at the heart of our community, and communities gather in social spaces. But logging into or signing up for the app is another use case all together. That’s where we feel like we’re giving up too much control. That’s what we’re trying to spark a conversation around with this post."

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#4

Post by codinghorror »

The way I read this, it's about the CEO overriding the decision based on aesthetic reasons.

Personally I'd much rather log in with Google in this case, which means there would need to be three buttons: Twitter, Facebook, and Google. I'm sympathetic to the "nascar-ization" argument, but I also believe your customers are smart enough to process at least as many options as there are in their wallet for providing identity.

Perhaps the best solution is even more minimal: no login options at all! Let the browser auto-generate credentials and a unique password on your behalf, then automatically use that to log you in every time it sees that website.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/09/cutting-the-gordian...

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#6

Post by mnicole »

Interesting, but MailChimp didn't start with these social media login options, did they? So the low percentage of people using those to sign in probably means that most of those people registered after they were in place?

Also, regarding the CEO's email and the confusion of so many options on the homepage, that's merely a design issue. Those buttons don't need to take up so much room or be so bold. They could simply be links with tiny corresponding icons underneath the default login form. Taking those options away would be a detriment to both current users of those methods and future users who prefer the quick registration process it provides.

The argument thereafter that these logins could easily dissipate and are therefore unreliable is solved the same way SoundCloud does it; allow the user to set a username and password separate from their social networking account in their settings. The only problem with the SoundCloud method, at least at the time I did it, was that in order for it to activate, you had to reset your password. As far as the security point is concerned, that's a risk the user takes and another benefit to having both site-specific credentials and the social media tie-in.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#7

Post by jbigelow76 »

codinghorror wrote: post #4

The way I read this, it's about the CEO overriding the decision based on aesthetic reasons. Personally I'd much rather log in with Google in this case, which means there would need to be three buttons: Twitter, Facebook, and Google. I'm sympathetic to the "nascar-ization" argument, but I also believe your customers are smart enough to process at least as many options as there are in their wallet for providing identit…

I think some distinction should be made in the different types of websites out there. Social logins may be fine for social type sites but Mailchimp is ostensibly more business oriented, except for maybe a niche of bloggers or social media types whose personal/social identities are interchangeable with their professional identities, I think the majority of users out there would want to keep their personal and business credentials separate.

I can understand why the CEO would not want to blur the lines between the professional persona and the social one, after all if in Twitter and Facebook the users are the product and not the customer that could lead me, a Mailchimp customer, wondering how Mailchimp perceives me as well.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#8

Post by bunderbunder »

I love being able to log in using an OpenID provider rather than creating an account.

Because it's one less !$@%!@$! password to remember. Or it's one less $@&%!@$ hassle adapting my password creation formula to a new site's password requirements. Or it's one less place where my don't-care-use-it-everywhere username/password key is stored, perhaps @$2(! in the clear. Or perhaps it's just one less time I have to type in a @$@(%^! username and password. Or @*($&%! create one.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#9

Post by bunderbunder »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #7
codinghorror wrote: post #4

The way I read this, it's about the CEO overriding the decision based on aesthetic reasons. Personally I'd much rather log in with Google in this case, which means there would need to be three buttons: Twitter, Facebook, and Google. I'm sympathetic to the "nascar-ization" argument, but I also believe your customers are smart enough to process at least as many options as there are in their wallet for providing identit…

I think some distinction should be made in the different types of websites out there. Social logins may be fine for social type sites but Mailchimp is ostensibly more business oriented, except for maybe a niche of bloggers or social media types whose personal/social identities are interchangeable with their professional identities, I think the majority of users out there would want to keep their personal and business…

> I think the majority of users out there would want to keep their personal and business credentials separate.

Yup. Luckily it's pretty easy to maintain one set of online credentials for business activities and another for personal ones.

Post reply on HN