<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Evaluating the Website Membership Double Opt In Process</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlinemarketingstuff.com.au/2008/10/09/website-membership-signup-process/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlinemarketingstuff.com.au/2008/10/09/website-membership-signup-process/</link>
	<description>Diary of an Australian web start up</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:25:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew McMillen</title>
		<link>http://onlinemarketingstuff.com.au/2008/10/09/website-membership-signup-process/#comment-7926</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew McMillen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinemarketingstuff.wordpress.com/?p=298#comment-7926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Double opt in is fairly standard practice for many web forms these days, so it doesn&#039;t irk me. But I think the third alternative you raised is somewhat valid; auto-opt in, with an opt-out attachment. 

I think that part of the purpose of this established double opt out procedure is to stop individuals signing up friends (or strangers) for sites with dubious content - you know the ones I mean! The CAPTCHA alternative doesn&#039;t solve this situation, as most people can solve a simple puzzle.

So the auto-opt in alternative may continue to annoy these unknowingly-opted in users, who may then receive several more emails before they figure out how to remove themselves from the list.

I don&#039;t think that double opt in is necessarily bad practice. Okay, so it may take a few minutes for the verification email to filter through, but in most cases it&#039;ll still be labelled properly in your inbox, right? You&#039;ll remember that you signed up to xyz.com. 

Your concern is valid, Louisa, as there&#039;s no doubt that this procedure interferes with the ready-and-willing user who simply wishes to interact with the site, but right now, I can&#039;t think of a better alternative.

Thanks for getting me thinking about this, nonetheless!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Double opt in is fairly standard practice for many web forms these days, so it doesn&#8217;t irk me. But I think the third alternative you raised is somewhat valid; auto-opt in, with an opt-out attachment. </p>
<p>I think that part of the purpose of this established double opt out procedure is to stop individuals signing up friends (or strangers) for sites with dubious content &#8211; you know the ones I mean! The CAPTCHA alternative doesn&#8217;t solve this situation, as most people can solve a simple puzzle.</p>
<p>So the auto-opt in alternative may continue to annoy these unknowingly-opted in users, who may then receive several more emails before they figure out how to remove themselves from the list.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think that double opt in is necessarily bad practice. Okay, so it may take a few minutes for the verification email to filter through, but in most cases it&#8217;ll still be labelled properly in your inbox, right? You&#8217;ll remember that you signed up to xyz.com. </p>
<p>Your concern is valid, Louisa, as there&#8217;s no doubt that this procedure interferes with the ready-and-willing user who simply wishes to interact with the site, but right now, I can&#8217;t think of a better alternative.</p>
<p>Thanks for getting me thinking about this, nonetheless!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

