Why no “Reject All” option in the cookies manager banner?

Why is this not an option?

I believe it goes against the GDPR guidelines along with the use of pre-ticked boxes for consent and I find it annoying that I have to go through and untick something like 21 boxes.

Not only would it be easy to implement but it would also make the site seem a bit less like it’s trying to extract every bit of data from the visitors.

(Sorry if this has been done before)

Maybe you could email Mark and ask him?

Hate it when websites don’t have a reject all button. Just says they don’t GAF to me.

I believe it goes against the GDPR guidelines along with the use of pre-ticked boxes for consent and I find it annoying that I have to go through and untick something like 21 boxes.

if you go into “vendor” at the bottom left you’ll be unticking approx 280 boxes

As an aside, you’re a free member, how about joining up for a digital sub to help out?

the site won’t work if you reject all cookies, as some are used for doing things like allowing you to be logged in when you open a thread, or post a reply, etc etc. without cookies all of that would require your user/pw every single time (unless they did something like pass around a session id in the header of every request)

what you want is a “reject all non-mandatory cookies” or something to that effect.

The whole cookie warning window thing has just made browsing a worst experience for end users in my opinion. Was way better before

Yes, Singletrackworld is not compliant with GDPR, as it doesn’t offer a “Reject All” option.  GDPR states that you have to make it as easy to reject cookies as accept them.
This article (from 4 years ago FFS) explains it all:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/cookie-consent-most-websites-break-law-by-making-it-hard-to-reject-all-tracking/

I usually just surf away from websites that don’t offer “Reject All”.  STW is the exception, but I do go through and untick all those “legitimate interest” boxes.

The whole cookie warning window thing has just made browsing a worst experience for end users in my opinion. Was way better before

I like being able to reject non essential cookies and do so on most sites.  I don’t on here because 1) I think they are a reasonably ethical company and 2) they might make a few bob out of it

But my default is to reject all non essential cookies

I think they are a reasonably ethical company

I do too. I’m not quite so sure about all the third party software and ad providers though.

Poor Mark, he’ll be sitting there waiting for the ICO letter to drop now.

I think Mark did explain this recently. Something about not being compelled by law to do it yet, and resisting it until it becomes law as it would mean losing a load of ad revenue?

That’s it in a nutshell.

The button for me to do this is right there in our ad admin panel.

Singletrack is not (yet) in a position to be able to throw that switch as it will hit our ad revenues hugely. Enough to put us out of business in a matter of weeks. I’m trying, harder than I’ve ever tried, to get Singletrack to the point where I can comfortably throw that switch – that’s why we are creating new ways to get advertising on the site that will replace our reliance on these programmatic ads. Sponsorship of parts of the site, mag, podcast, newsletters etc. When are better off I will happily throw that switch. But right now it would be irresponsible.

Gotcha….. Thanks for the reasoning.

What does annoy me, and it’s nothing to do with STW, but there are some sites I access through Flipboard that give you a cookie option popup but with a second popup asking for your permission over the top of the first one!
That’s just taking the piss! 😖

Thanks for clarifying this.👍

If we reduce that response down a bit, STW are saying – we make a significant amount of money from knowingly scamming people’s data , we can’t survive without scamming them so until further notice we will continue to scam them.

Saying it would be irresponsible to follow gdpr guidelines seems a bit off to me.

Fwiw, I have no issue with ads or the site cookies, it’s the response that has triggered me a little. Have I missed something obvious here?

If we reduce that response down a bit, STW are saying – we make a significant amount of money from knowingly scamming people’s data , we can’t survive without scamming them so until further notice we will continue to scam them.

That’s not how I read it.

I’m saying regardless of the GDPR requirement if I hit that switch now Singletrack would go bust very quickly and the site would be gone. I’m not overstating that.

To say we are deliberately scamming is somewhat disingenuous I think. You CAN control your cookie preferences. We are not yet compliant with the requirement to make reject as easy as accept but we are working towards it and the guidance from the ISO we have is that as long as we can demonstrate that we are genuinely doing that then we are ok. The ISO does not want to websites to have to close down because of this requirement – their current strategy is a soft approach to the regulation of this requirement precicely in order to allow businesses to adapt to it. At some point in the future they will start being more demanding of companies – it’s my intention that I will be in a position to throw that switch long before that point.

Is that an ok explanation and reasoning?

that’s why we are creating new ways to get advertising on the site that will replace our reliance on these programmatic ads. Sponsorship of parts of the site, mag, podcast, newsletters etc.

So basically going back 20 years when banner swaps were normal. I’m good with that, it was a far nicer experience.

Ah the old coffee and cream website.  Gone but not forgotten, yet to be bettered!

we make a significant amount of money

Not according to the accounts they don’t 😆

Laces come to mind.

WTF?
Why should I put up with comments like that? I swear there’s a group who just won’t be happy until Singletrack fails and shuts down.

I’m finally bailing out of this now. My appetite for being open and honest with everyone has left me.

Thanks for giving a bit more info on the gdpr guidelines👍 it does help.

I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous fwiw, I  assumed STW didn’t offer the choice of reject all/accept all due to website issues or something beyond their current capabilities.

When you said STW have that switch readily available and deliberately hide it from people so that STW gain financially, it sounded a bit off. It’s certainly not the biggest scam in the world but it’s a scam. Yes, users can still manage their cookies but you are openly telling me you are deliberately making that awkward for significant financial gain. Just think that through for a moment, apply that logic to something that you aren’t connected to..

It’s not the worlds biggest issue and I’m just replying to an open public thread with my opinion on that business practice.

Bet you’re a riot at parties.

“Scam – a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation”

Don’t be a dick mate. It’s deliberately awkward UX, not fraud.

Not according to the accounts they don’t 😆

Again, don’t be a dick mate.

Some people do seem to want STW to fail. No one is scamming you, you can opt out or not visit the site.

I appreciate the honest approach we’ve seen lately and it has made me aware of the work going on behind the scenes to make the site better and prepare it for the future.

Running a website costs money and people need to make a living. Perhaps some would prefer a large company buying STW out, making big losses and then binning the whole thing.

Hope Mark is still reading to see that, Woodster, because I too have appreciated the explantions. I don’t wish to see STW go the way of Bikemagic.

Who TF is shrinktofit? I’ve never seen this user before.

And  Free Member moaning about cookies and throwing around the word “scam” – breaking rule 1.

I’ve never seen this user before.

Well I don’t remember seeing you before, so… 🤷‍♂️

Plenty of people use this site without even having an account, doesn’t mean this issue does not apply to them. Let’s leave the personal comments out of this?

Cookie & privacy concerns apply just as much to free sites as paid ones, businesses, charities and anything else… the (original) issue being discussed here is not really relevant to what kind of member you are. Unless you’re the “breaking rule 1” kind of member 😁

ossify

Well I don’t remember seeing you before, so… 🤷‍♂️

Touche

I yhink a lot of folk forget what this place is.  Its not a democracy.   Its not a public service.   Its a private playground

Personally i think there are things wrong with how its run. But it ain’t up to me.

I get a lot from here.   The foibles can be  worked around.   Its one of two things I pay for on the internet.   Its one of a handful of sites i let set cookies both so a few bob goes to their pockets to keep it running.

edit: no point

Perhaps the wording of the cookie banner could be updated a bit? Simpler and more user-friendly, something like:

“Hey, we need all these cookies to make the ads work, you’re welcome to turn them off if concerned about privacy but please be aware this is the same as blocking all ads and we need the income to survive”

Result: “Oh ok, maybe I’ll allow them for this site”

Rather than the current wording, which is read like this:

“Wall of legalise” *ignores*

Result: instant click of “reject all” (if there was one 😉)

Its a private playground

AKA a “benevolent dictatorship” 😉

edit: no point

Wisest person on the thread so far!

Again, don’t be a dick mate.

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.

From that info in companies house, it certainly appears STW cash flow is far lower than other businesses. Which is the point i was trying to make.

I thought that was obvious, but fair enough. You want to be abusive then go to hell.

I yhink a lot of folk forget what this place is.  Its not a democracy.   Its not a public service.   Its a private playground

The phrase coined by Mono BBS was “benevolent dictatorship.”  (It may predate that, I don’t know, but that’s the first time I heard it.)

[EDIT – note to self: refresh page before posting]

I don’t have any malice towards STW and I have no reason at all to hurt Marks feelings, it’s absolutely nothing to do with this thread about gdpr requirements, I’m just thinking Mark might be a little blinkered to what he’s doing. He doesn’t see it as a scammy technique. I do.

I’m a proud freeloader speeder, a big part of Marks business model btw. I provide loads of lovely clicks, click and buy tat from ads, happy to have ads, to watch ads and I also watch the vids provided. You could start a thread complaining about Marks business model (ironing)

Fwiw, I too like Marks honesty and now I know the scam and the reasoning, I’m completely happy to click ‘accept all’ on STW to help out, maybe others would surprise him if he were able to give people a fair and informed choice👍 we all agree it’s going to happen, there is no big dispute here, it’s bad practice and everyone agrees on that hence the need for change.

I think the word scam sums it up well and others seem triggered by that word, like it has some strict legal definition

It’s definitely a scam within the wide range of definitions of the word. Be honest and upfront and there’s no scam, hide the truth to make significant financial gains.. that’s a scam all day long. If ‘you’ want to call it bad business practice instead that’s fine with me. We can then all agree that’s what it is and sometimes in life we have to make those calls as Mark has explained.

Just think about it in a different context, one that you’re not emotionally attached to.

No biggy.

hide the truth to make significant financial gains.. that’s a scam all day long.

No truth is being hidden. This is histrionic nonsense.

You want the button but it’s not there. That’s not a scam, it’s not fraud, it’s not deceitful. It’s a UI choice that you happen to dislike.

No, this thread is about gdpr requirements not my personal preferences. Truth, deceitful, dishonest are all words that have a huge variation in their use too. Like I said, if you want to call it bad business practice instead of scammy that’s fine with me. We are generally in agreement here, Mark ‘has’ to provide the button and he has explained his reason (financial) for not doing so ‘yet’ , while also explaining how hard he is working to fix that ‘issue’

He called me disingenuous and I’ve explained my reasoning for the use of the word scam. You don’t like that word, totally fine by me.

If it’s a scam then it’s a pretty shit one, what with him coming on here to explain it all and everything.

Mark ‘has’ to provide the button and he has explained his reason (financial) for not doing so ‘yet’

Well ATM he doesn’t specifically have to provide the button: but it’s very much walking on thin ice and there is no doubt the ICO would be unimpressed.

The UK will very likely align with other parts of the EU to require a reject all button in the not too distant future to make it mandatory and I’d say this is a very good thing.

But for now Mark has his [compelling] reasons and we just have to accept that – but that doesn’t make it cool.

Oh, and I wouldn’t call it a scam.  It’s not “nice”, but business isn’t always nice.

it’s very much walking on thin ice and there is no doubt the ICO would be unimpressed.

Um…

We are not yet compliant with the requirement to make reject as easy as accept but we are working towards it and the guidance from the ISO we have is that as long as we can demonstrate that we are genuinely doing that then we are ok. The ISO does not want to websites to have to close down because of this requirement – their current strategy is a soft approach to the regulation of this requirement precicely in order to allow businesses to adapt to it. At some point in the future they will start being more demanding of companies – it’s my intention that I will be in a position to throw that switch long before that point.

Seems fair enough to me. 👍 Anyway, what’s the alternative? Close down?

Anyway, what’s the alternative? Close down?

Or just wait till Chrome phases out cookies for good which IIRC is/was on the roadmap….