Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

There are a lot of issues with OpenID. Meta has a lot of questions related to problematic logon using OpenID and the Internet is pretty much full of horror stories related to OpenID. I've personally been hit a lot of times by problematic OpenID login to using Yahoo OpenID1.

Now I'm wondering: at which percentage of users encountering issues would you consider providing the usual site-specific email (and/or login) + password? 0.001% of users having problems? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 50%? 99%?

I'm clearly asking about using something else than OpenID, because to me this:

is just begging for more OpenID issues (at least being your own issuer I can see how it could help have less problems, but it still doesn't seem like a stellar idea).

That "Help us test and vet StackID" is a clear sign that OpenID is problematic: in that case it is explained that MyOpenID is repeatedly having issues. So MyOpenID is repeatedly having issues. Yahoo! too. Others probably too.

For example there's this question and the answer tells you to "write down the ID and contact us":

Cant log in with OpenID using Google Chrome

Some of the issues are so common that there's a "procedure" (a manual procedure, how is that even possible?) allowing for people to merge accounts.

So it's really an honest question. What's the percentage of users that need to have issues before you'd consider using something else than (and in addition to) OpenID?

For example should one day, say, Google or Yahoo! mess up royally their OpenID and should you have a gigantic number of users kept out of your sites, you'd have to do something right? And I can't imagine all these users having to cut/paste their ID and trigger your manual "account merging" procedure.

1Just FYI: today I can't log in using Yahoo! because everytime I'm sent from SO to the usual Yahoo! OpenID "J'accepte" (French email at Yahoo fr) I get redirected to the same Yahoo! page... but in English! And then clicking on "I agree" simply constantly redirects me to "I agree". I tried on several OSes and several browsers. No luck. And that's one time too many: I've got 6.5K rep on SO but this time I'm gone for good.

share|improve this question
(As an aside: you'll be back! With a better OpenID provider. Good.) – Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 16:41
+1 because this is technically a valid MSO question, but I think you'd have gotten a more positive response if you'd been less ranty and, uh, loquacious. – Pops Sep 30 '11 at 16:52
I've never had a single problem with OpenID on SO. Ever. (I'm using Google) – NullUserException อ_อ Sep 30 '11 at 17:23
Me either. I've been using it with Google since I started and have had no problems at all. – JNK Sep 30 '11 at 17:25
Using Yahoo here, never had any problems either. – Aillyn Sep 30 '11 at 17:26

At which percentage of failed logons would you consider switching to another OpenID provider? Or at least adding a backup?

I use MyOpenID (with StackID as a backup) and Chrome, and I've never had a single problem logging in. Anecdotes don't prove anything.

I'm not sure how StackID is subject to more issues than any other login system they could implement and host themselves, can you elaborate?

share|improve this answer
It's wrong to say something silly like "anecdotes don't prove anything", you're using fallacious logic, and basically calling him a liar. He's giving his personal experience, and I've certainly had plenty of OpenID problems. You don't have to agree with him, but please don't try and use that kind of argument. – Lance Roberts Sep 30 '11 at 16:43
@LanceRoberts Seriously? Saying "anecdotes aren't proof" is fallacious? Basing "there are a lot of problems with OpenID" on a few anecdotes is what's fallacious; "Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy". I'm not denying he has a problem (you may note I suggested a workaround), just denying that I'm aware of any more general and pervasive issue as claimed. – Matthew Read Sep 30 '11 at 16:47
they aren't just anecdotes, as he has pointed out there are many posts on OpenID problems, they are reality, not anecdotes. There are many more that have been deleted in the past. Your statement is just a form of an ad-hominem argument. – Lance Roberts Sep 30 '11 at 16:50
@LanceRoberts I don't see any stats here. "There are many" is a bit meaningless without quantifying how many compared to how many logins. Then you also have to evaluate alternatives via the same criteria. Anecdotes can simply never be proof of something systemic, otherwise they wouldn't be anecdotes. That's not an ad hominem. I gave an anecdote myself, and it also doesn't prove anything. That's not an ad hominem against myself either. I take offense to your claim that a simple statement about facts, directed at the facts and not at the OP, is treating the OP like crap. – Matthew Read Sep 30 '11 at 16:54
@LanceRoberts I think the OP proves the complaints are just anecdotal evidence when he states that there aren't even enough problems for Stack Exchange to need an automated process to deal with them. – agf Sep 30 '11 at 16:59
+1 - Op's argument is equivalent to saying "Let's stop using the internet because AltaVista sucks." It's the provider, not the system, that is the issue. – JNK Sep 30 '11 at 17:21
@LanceRoberts I wasn't trying to pile on with my previous comment; I just think you're wrong about the anecdotal evidence thing. But calling Matthew's argument "silly" and accusing him of "calling [the OP] a liar" rather than just pointing out what you perceive as a flaw in his logic are what set the tone of these comments; your tone is also what caused the comments on the thread yoda (unconstructively) linked to degenerate. I'm sure you don't intend to sound combative, but that's how your words are perceived. – agf Sep 30 '11 at 17:47
@Null, I was not referring to Matt. – Lance Roberts Sep 30 '11 at 22:15
@agf, I definitely get combative when defending people's right to have respectful dialog. Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. My comments had nothing to do with Matt's character, only the way he used his words (which is how I take your comments also, I don't mind constructive criticism). – Lance Roberts Sep 30 '11 at 22:19
@LanceRoberts Agreed to all of that. I guess I just don't see Matt's answer as lacking in respect, which is why it seems to me your comment changed the tone, rather than it having been set by Matt. I know there is a user who often answers / comments on the same questions as me on SO who has an extremely disrespectful and arrogant manner, and it drives me nuts (though I don't participate in meta discussion on SO itself so haven't addressed it), so I understand wanting to respond when you perceive that kind of behavior. – agf Oct 1 '11 at 4:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .