So i've got this website. You have to log in to post things there. Other people have to log in to see the things you post there.
Someone please explain to me again how this arrangement is evil? Seems pretty straightforward and fair to me.
Spam emails? http://gyazo.com/f4752783f03276b654dd3f7044cb6766
Seems to me like they give you pretty comprehensive settings on what you can turn on and turn off. And it's not like this screen was hard to find. It's in an "Email preferences" link on the same general settings page you set your password on.
Spamming is just an extra incentive to dislike them.
The screenshot I linked should be enough to immediately disprove any accusations of "spam".
Really? You have to uncheck something like 20 checkboxes to avoid spam. And they used to have a tendency to re-enable all of them each time they add a new option; so you had to repeat the process on and off. (Hopefully that last bit has tapered down)
Can we stop torturing the definition of words, please? Spam is unsolicited commercial email. A service you registered for emailing you when one of your questions is answered or commented on, or a digest of interesting questions from the week, and so on is not spam by any possible definition.
Now, where have I seen that behavior before? Is this spam too, by your definition?
And here's the control UI
This is something I wish i could do over on Stack* - I'd love to be emailed when a question is answered or commented on. But alas, I have a newsletter, and a single checkbox that turns a bunch of stuff on and off. But you don't earn hate on hacker news for having too few features, apparently you earn it by having too many?
The worst thing you can accuse Quora of is being very, very granular as to what you can turn on and off... Hence why I call it confirmation bias. People have been told the site is crap and so go looking for reasons to confirm it.
Behold! The email settings UI is over-engineered! Let's imply a huge amount of mustache-twirling negativity into their motivations for doing so! The horror! They send an email once a week with interesting questions! It must be spam! Nevermind the fact that Stack* does the exact same thing!
All of this Quora hate is really, really unjustified for the simple difference of having a registration requirement to view their content.
I just don't see how having a good granularity is incompatible with having an easy way to turn the whole thing off. Neither do I see a point in having the settings revert back once in a while.
> Hence why I call it confirmation bias. People have been told the site is crap and so go looking for reasons to confirm it.
> All of this Quora hate is really, really unjustified for the simple difference of having a registration requirement to view their content
You seem to have strong opinions about why other people's dislike of Quora is unjustified. But this amounts to just putting words in people's mouth.
Not saying SO doesn't send too many emails to registered users in other scenarios (it's something we argue about internally fairly often).
And to be fair, both sites put "unsubscribe" links in the footer of every email, so it really shouldn't be that much of a burden.
User unsubscribes from all categories (one-by-one-by-one) = invent a new category and auto-subscribe the user.
Well, if they let you know ahead of time that you needed to sign up to access the content, that'd be no big deal. And, of course, I wouldn't bother to ever visit the site.
Instead, through Google, they make it appear like the information is accessible, then nag you to sign up to see it.
From the article and the look of this thread, it appears quite a few people think that it's a crappy way to do business; so who is "biased"?
More than anything, people who have issues with this feel entitled to have unfettered access to content because Wikipedia and other sites have been world changing and useful resources without a barrier to entry for reading content.
There was a time when using an anonymous remailer was considered bad taste, but now an email address isn't sacred, things change a lot on the internet over time and it has more to do with how the general public uses it and perceives it than to do with how highly technical people think it ought to be.