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

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#11

Post by bluetidepro »

mnicole wrote: post #6

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…

>"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?"

That was my exact first thought after reading. How can they accurately judge the usefulness of the buttons if (for all we know) hardly any of the users created an account that way from the get go.

I would like to see how those same stats stack up to the amount of people that DO have a log using Facebook or Twitter with them. That would be much more relevant on the accuracy of the buttons "worth."

Or maybe, you can never really accurately get that data at this point since it was never there in the beginning. The data will always be skew, to some extent.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#12

Post by cowboyhero »

I think he buried the lede: Social login buttons can hurt brands.

This'll date me, but I'm still amazed that so many companies eagerly slap other company's logos on everything they do. Even if it's just a blog post.

This page is a case in point: Facebook's brand appears four times. Twitter's appears a dozen times (more because of the comments). Mailchimp? Just once.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#15

Post by eridius »

bunderbunder wrote: post #8

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…

I agree. But unfortunately, OpenID can magnify the problem for some people. For example, my girlfriend has at least 4 different Stack Overflow accounts because she can never remember which OpenID provider she used, so she keeps accidentally creating new ones.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#16

Post by mratzloff »

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…

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

I read this as the CEO overriding the decision based on experience, not aesthetics. Reducing choices reduces errors.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#17

Post by Ntrails »

bunderbunder wrote: post #8

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…

Browser ID is the future

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#19

Post by RandallBrown »

BryanB55 wrote: post #18

We've always found that by replacing "username" with "email address" makes logging in a lot easier. Most users already know their email address. By using a username thats one more thing they have to remember.

Using an email address instead of a username is SO HUGE of a usability win. I can't stand when companies don't do this.

My email address is going to be unique. I don't have to pick one of the few standard usernames I use and hope that it's available. I know my email address will be.

Have you ever been to a site that says username, but really wants an email address? It's absolutely infuriating.

Re: Social Login Buttons Aren’t Worth It

#20

Post by tszyn »

eridius wrote: post #15
bunderbunder wrote: post #8

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…

I agree. But unfortunately, OpenID can magnify the problem for some people. For example, my girlfriend has at least 4 different Stack Overflow accounts because she can never remember which OpenID provider she used, so she keeps accidentally creating new ones.

Exactly. I used to run a small StackExchange site. One day I had a look at my user dump and was surprised to see how many duplicate (and triplicate) accounts there were.
Post reply on HN