I keep seeing all these comments from folks here that they "can't be bothered," that "it's too much trouble," and so on, and I really want to hear an explanation of why.
I mean, if I'm registering at a new website, it seems considerably easier to enter one item -- my OpenID identifier -- and then be immediately verified, rather than go through the "enter email address -> get confirmation email -> click on confirmation link -> choose new password -> hope that the site is compatible with Firefox's password manager so I don't have to enter it every time" treadmill for each site.
So, explain to me, what makes you complain so much about using an OpenID?
Why implement something that people don't think is valuable? When I try to explain the concept of OpenID to 'average' internet users they don't know why its better than what they normally do. And honestly, I really don't have an answer for them because I personally don't like OpenID either.
I think StackOverflow is a good example of how confusing it can be. Their wall of possible ways to login is very confusing. Yes, I actually have accounts with ALL those sites listed... but which one did I setup for StackOverflow? If I pick an OpenID provider that wasn't associated with StackOverflow it starts to create a NEW account for me. Not what I wanted!
In the end, an Email and Password with my browser remembering it works just fine.
How is picking the wrong OpenID provider any different than entering an incorrect email and password, because you have multiple email addresses and you couldn't remember which one you used?
Were you aware that you can associate multiple OpenIDs with one account at StackOverflow?
Do you ever use a computer that does not store your passwords for you?
Would a standard OpenID-remembering feature in your browser help change your mind?
Every site that decides they want to support OpenID now becomes yet ANOTHER option to login with.
I also prefer email because I have a set of spam/anonymous addresses I can use to test sites that I don't trust quite yet with my real information. Having spam/anonymous OpenID accounts would be a real mess to manage.
StackOverflow lets me pick a max of two OpenIDs. But why not instead let me specify an infinite number of verified email addresses to login with instead?
I'm not sure if one of the goals of OpenID is to show that I'm the same user across multiple sites. That's a feature I'm sometimes interested in with certain sites and sometimes absolutely not interested in with others.
1. finding software (I chose phpMyId, which is relatively easy to install and use)
2. installing software (in case of phpMyId unpacking a file)
3. configuring software (in case of phpMyId editing index.php)
4. (optional) setting up delegation by editing an HTML file
(I don't have, nor want, gmail. I don't have, nor want, a Yahoo account. I don't have, nor want, etc.)
Registering on a site which doesn't have OpenID is three steps, or five when e-mail addresses are involved:
1. enter username
2. enter password
3. (sometimes) enter e-mail address
4. hit submit
5. (sometimes) click link in e-mail message
5 can be cumbersome when kmail isn't running, but usually it's already running.
Registering at an OpenID site:
1. enter OpenID URL
2. (sometimes) enter e-mail address
3. hit submit
(3a. wait for OpenID redirect which is annoying and usually results in being
distracted)
4. hit "OK" on browser authentication dialogue (asked for by phpMyId, browser
saved password)
5. (sometimes) verify e-mail address
Logging in on normal site:
1. press Opera's "Log in" button, which auto-fills the login form and submits it.
Logging in on OpenID site:
1. enter OpenID url (auto-completed, but still requires a switch from mouse to
keyboard)
(1a. usually wait for redirect etc.)
2. press "OK" on browser authentication window
It's usually slower to use, it requires more thought on my part, and it makes it more annoying to keep multiple identities around. Cumbersome.
Because there are voting arrows next to each and every post that say "Make a judgement on this post!"
If you give people an opportunity to make a judgement, some will always take it, regardless of whether a judgement makes sense or not.
And that's one of the reasons I don't want to use OpenID.
The internet is full of this braindead social shit. It's only a question of time until somebody comes up with the idea to aggregate all the meaningless karma across many sites. And it's only a question of time until that super karma score is quoted on your resume together with how many "followers", "friends" or other kind of nonsensical internet money you have accumulated ... by hook or crook.
Gaining insight, asking questions, having a debate, making judgements, pushing an agenda, feeling good about judging others without making a case for or against anything. These things all get mixed up relentlessly in these primitive voting schemes.
And not even the smart people who make this website seem to realise what an intellectual mess their Frankenstein game theory is. Or maybe they do but still think it's worth it.
I disagree. The filtering effect of all these voting schemes is next to worthless. It creates more perverse incentives than positive ones. It's getting totally out of control. Millions of people are morphing into one man/woman cynical self marketing machines collecting fake internet money.
I'm waiting for the world's first karma inflation crisis :-)
I mean, if I'm registering at a new website, it seems considerably easier to enter one item -- my OpenID identifier -- and then be immediately verified, rather than go through the "enter email address -> get confirmation email -> click on confirmation link -> choose new password -> hope that the site is compatible with Firefox's password manager so I don't have to enter it every time" treadmill for each site.
So, explain to me, what makes you complain so much about using an OpenID?