you are openly telling me you are deliberately making that awkward for significant financial gain.
OR "you are openly telling me you are deliberately making that awkward in order to stay in business so there is actually content for us all to enjoy".
If I throw that switch we are toast.
Until I can make up the loss somewhere else.
Bit of a Hobsons choice I guess. What would you do?
btw, I didn't turn that off. It's off by default.
Well I think we've found out who contacted the ASA anyway 😉
Nope. My point was in defence of STW. In that others saying they’re rolling in cash when the accounts suggest a completely different scenario.
Your comment made it look like you found it hilarious that STW is on the brink, like you were rubbing Mark's nose in it.
I'm sure I'm not alone in reading it that way.
The OP asked a pretty valid question in my opinion
Mark has responded with a full answer
The OP has replied with his view of Mark's answer
I think that's the conversation about wrapped up other than people arguing for the sake of arguing.
The OPs primary points are valid, as are Mark's reasons to keep a platform live that gives us all entertainment/information as well as (presumably) keep the wolf from his own front door. There's really nothing more to say - we can all make our choices to stay or leave.
My view for what it matters? Yes, it is a faff having to click lots of buttons and I never like just clicking 'Accept'. However, if that's the worst thing to happen today ... it's been a good day. First world problems.
Your comment made it look like you found it hilarious that STW is on the brink, like you were rubbing Mark’s nose in it.
I’m sure I’m not alone in reading it that way.
Well it wasnt as I've explained. So now you have become fully aware, feel free to offer up some sort of apology.
.
As to the actual cookie content, specifically under 'legitimate content' That itself is a scam, or at the very least a con, or even could be looked upon as 'misleading'
But none of that is directed at STW(Just to clarify, don't want you throwing out accusations by mistake), and more towards the advertising industry, and its regulators for allowing it.
Personally outwith a site I actually pay for, Im against 'legitimate interest(lets call it 'misleading') Normally If I happen on a website that doesnt have a reject all, and by "reject all" i include the legitimate interest cookies I'll click the back button and just not bother.I dont want to just look at a bike or a single news story and end up with more bloody cookies. Did a clean up and there was nearly 3gb of cookie type stuff to get shot of.
I dont do that here because i have a paid membership. Or on Retrobike, or on EMTB(Paid membership), or on UKworkshop(Paid membership) Because here and on those sites I have a vested interest. They dont have millionaires or billion pound hedge funds behind them, they are small down to earth forums, so sticking your hand in your pocket, or allowing them some advertising revenue is perfectly acceptable a thing to do.
............
On a side note
" Well I think we’ve found out who contacted the ASA anyway 😉 "
Is this another of your 'mistakes' in that you are accusing that user as having reported the lack of reject all without any proof. And lets face it, it is a bit of the rich side especially when Mark sent out the emails asking for people to actually sign up and pay towards the running you didnt bother your arse.
You've been here as long as I have, and far far more prolific in posting replies and threads, so don't you think its a bit overdue and you could just take up membership. Might at least look a bit less hypocritical as it comes right down to income that keeps the site running.
.
If a website offers a choice of ‘accept all’ or untick 4 billion boxes, do you consider that fair game? The ISO don’t, Mark doesn’t, I don’t… You?
It's not 4 billion, it's half a dozen. "Fair game" is a curious choice of words, I think it's a pain in the arse but it's not unfair. You're making out like this is something unique to STW, it really isn't, I have to go through the same rigmarole on every new site I visit. If I could set global cookie preferences in the browser and never have to confirm/deny those silly bloody tick boxes again, I'd do it in a heartbeat. This is the reality of the web for EU visitors and for us as former EU, other countries often don't even get the option to decline. I've had sites go "not available in your country" because they can't (or won't) conform with UK GDPR.
What's this ISO you keep banging on about? Do you mean ICO? ICO enforces GDPR, ISO is a standards body.
As to the actual cookie content, specifically under ‘legitimate content’ That itself is a scam, or at the very least a con, or even could be looked upon as ‘misleading’
If you don't understand what you're agreeing to, or objecting to, that's a "you" problem. Chances are, the vast majority of people simply don't care, certainly not enough to be faffing around clawing back a couple of gig of space on a hard disk measured in terabytes.
I do agree that the meaning of "Legitimate Interest" is not immediately intuitive. It's why I did the legwork and then wrote the blog post I linked to earlier, so that others won't have to. I ran it past Mark before going public and offered to pull it if it was going to cause issues for them, he said to go ahead and publish it. The scamming bastard.
I wish that there was a big button the first time I open a browser that says "click here to accept all cookies from all sites forever" - having to click accept all when I visit websites is bloody annoying.
certainly not enough to be faffing around clawing back a couple of gig of space on a hard disk measured in terabytes.
Mine isnt measured in Tb
.
I do agree that the meaning of “Legitimate Interest” is not immediately intuitive.
I think its more than that. Its a was advertising has implemented to get around the regulations of 'reject all' A number of years back when the general public were given the right to 'reject all'. This obviously meant those companies who use the analytics couldnt function, so then this new feature came in as a work around. So people can reject cookies, but effectively allow the same cookies under this new heading, so it is clearly far from being intuitive and more towards being misleading.
.
Its like having a box that says 'do you agree' options are yes or yes. In truth there is no 'No' option. That is what legitimate interest is.
.
You've seen if you look on any site where where this legitimate interest thing is, it is not a 1/2 a dozen but literally hundreds. It always surprises me as to how many analytics companies there are out there. But i suppose thats not surprising as there's millions to be made off advertising by these large companies.
It’s not 4 billion, it’s half a dozen.
If you go into vendor preferences its approx 283 boxes to untick - which is high, I notice that this cookie box is used on numerous websites and I don't bother visiting those as I can't be arsed unticking all,
Perhaps if mark asked for a donation or charged a nominal fee for use of the classifieds if a sale is successful that would help out, or perhaps the numerous long term "free members" who are very active on the forums could dig into their pockets and buy a digital sub.
Mine isnt measured in Tb
If you have a tiny drive, you just have to be more disciplined with cleaning it out, much like i had to on my old laptop (256Gb mechanical drive).
It's not a new thing.
Thanks Mark for trying to understand my posts and views,👍
Apologies for any offense caused and thank you for the polite request, I am kinda happy with my definition of the s word and it's use in this context. However in the spirit of your polite request I will try some other words in the future👊
Sorry Cougar, I believe there is some crossover between ISO certification and ICO requirements. I might have that wrong so apologies for any confusion.
Mine isnt measured in Tb
0.5TB? It's unlikely to make a difference in any case, unless you're still running Windows 95.
then this new feature came in as a work around.
Is it new?
There are clearly defined reasons for a Controller to be allowed handle your data. Some are easier to justify than others. Legitimate Interest is one of these reasons, but it comes with extra baggage over simply asking the Subject for permission.
You’ve seen if you look on any site where where this legitimate interest thing is, it is not a 1/2 a dozen but literally hundreds.
I'm looking at one right now, which is the reason this thread was started. The claim was "4 billion boxes," it's not "literally hundreds" either. There are literally hundreds of third parties yes, but why on earth would you want to manually sift through them all individually rather than ticking yes/no at the top of the tree?
If you want another example, there's a screenshot on my blog post. That's culled from The Sun newspaper's website. No particular reason for choosing it other than it was the first one I found which demonstrated the point I was trying to make.
If you go into vendor preferences its approx 283 boxes to untick
As above, why would anyone do that though? That's up there with reading a 40-page EULA for a printer driver.
If you have a tiny drive, you just have to be more disciplined with cleaning it out
If I had a drive where 3GB of storage was critical, I'd replace it.
It’s not a new thing.
No, it's a really old thing.
As above, why would anyone do that though? That’s up there with reading a 40-page EULA for a printer driver.
I do, have to untick them every week or so.
You go through the hundreds of vendors and untick them all individually? Seriously? Why?
You need to talk to Simon Quinlank.
You go through the hundreds of vendors and untick them all individually? Seriously? Why?
Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.
I'm going to have to go and listen to Fist of Fun now 🙂
If I had a drive where 3GB of storage was critical, I’d replace it.
So what you're saying is I/we dont have to do any sort of maintenance on our computers, and things like cookies in the tens of thousands or more(collectively) have no effect on its operation.
.
Just to clarify. I mean I've been quite diligent over the years performing these tasks, but in truth i didn't actually need to ?
Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.
What? There are six "legitimate interest" tick boxes under Manage Settings (and a few more "consent" boxes which are off by default). I just checked.
Once set, if you're prompted again (I think it's every fortnight?) it retains your previous choices.
So what you’re saying is I/we dont have to do any sort of maintenance on our computers
No.
things like cookies in the tens of thousands or more(collectively) have no effect on its operation.
Yes.
This is probably worth a separate thread if it's a genuine question.
Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.
This thread is the Singletrackworld equivalent of
It was. Which is why I directed the question at yourself, you being a whiz at this sort of thing.
Huh, weird, why isn’t that embedding?
/blockquote>
I prefer the radio show but thanks 🙂
I genuinely didn't know there was a radio version.
It was. Which is why I directed the question at yourself, you being a whiz at this sort of thing.
I'll start a thread. Probably after tea now though.
CougarFull Member
Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.
What? There are six “legitimate interest” tick boxes under Manage Settings (and a few more “consent” boxes which are off by default). I just checked.
For the last time…..”vendor preferences” at the bottom,
If I had a drive where 3GB of storage was critical, I’d replace it.
To be fair, the last computer i had this issue on, most of the chips were actually soldered to the board. Yes, it was cheap nasty. Monumentally cheap and nasty.
No, it’s a really old thing.
Positively steam powered!
So what you’re saying is I/we dont have to do any sort of maintenance on our computers, and things like cookies in the tens of thousands or more(collectively) have no effect on its operation.
If it's set up properly. It shouldn't need maintenance like that. If it's set up badly, like my dear old mums computer, set up by the shop she bought it from, you could end up with ~150Gb of temp files and cookies on a 500Gb drive, and that actually does start to slow it down.
To be fair, the last computer i had this issue on, most of the chips were actually soldered to the board. Yes, it was cheap nasty. Monumentally cheap and nasty.
I had a batch of a dozen bottom-feeder laptops in recently (long story). Two of them failed, one catastrophically and the other storage failure. "No problem," thinks I, "I'll just swap the drive over." 40+ screws and a buttload of those stupid plastic clips later I was met with this:
For the last time…..”vendor preferences” at the bottom,
Alright. I see what you mean now. This is a question for @Mark to clarify I fear.
Clicking the preferences states "Some vendors are not asking for your consent, but are using your personal data on the basis of their legitimate interest. You have the right to object to processing based on Legitimate Interest, which you can do via the settings found below this section." Disabling Legitimate Interest options and then clicking on the Vendor List still shows vendors with LI ticked. I am assuming - and I would very much hope - that this is simply a case of settings not being saved until you Save Settings.
What? There are six “legitimate interest” tick boxes under Manage Settings (and a few more “consent” boxes which are off by default).
Indeed, unticking the 6 boxes and then saving the settings seems to do nothing as if you then go back into Manage Settings > Vendor List all the boxes for each vendor remain ticked!
So if you actually want to remove your consent it looks like you have to go through and untick every box for every vendor.
Surely that's not right?!
Honestly, I've no idea. It shouldn't be.
The consent box is a third-party plugin. I'd be surprised if that was its default/intended behaviour.
I wish that there was a big button the first time I open a browser that says “click here to accept all cookies from all sites forever” – having to click accept all when I visit websites is bloody annoying
You need consent-o-matic
You need consent-o-matic
https://consentomatic.au.dk/
/blockquote>
Sweet, cheers!
You need consent-o-matic
It's good isn't it :). Doesn't work properly on all sites but makes life in the modern web a lot more tolerable
...and makes STW go out of business?
…and makes STW go out of business?
free member?, how about paying the £20ish for a digital sub.
I wasn't judging, merely reflecting the conversations to date.
Whether I recognise value in a digital subscription, see it as a payment to use the site, or feel the need to pay as a charitable donation to keep it alive is a wholly different subject matter.
…and makes STW go out of business?
I think you will find that simondbarnes has it set to approve rather than reject everything
I think you will find that simondbarnes has it set to approve rather than reject everything
Indeed, I'm not afraid of cookies, I just dislike having to press buttons repeatedly.
I’m not afraid of cookies
You monster!
Conversations on whether I recognise value in a digital subscription, see it as a payment to use the site, or just as a charitable donation to keep it alive is a wholly different subject matter.
Perhaps. But your answers to those questions are clearly "you don't," "you don't" and "you don't" respectively.
