0

I'm having serious issues working with this OpenID concept. It's frustrating to say the least.

For over an hour I've tried to ask a question here but simply cannot log in. I've done it before, but now it wants me to log in with my OpenID.

I'm certain I did it with Google last time, so I click the Google option. It says it's not recognised, do I want to create it?

Fine. So I do, and then I lose my account. Seriously you guys?

Then I edit my "new" profile and it won't let me add my email because it's "already registered". But it's not, because the site won't let me login with my email. Only with OpenID.

Defend it all you want. I think it's lame bricks. Really lame. Nobody should have to log in with a 50 char long URL when they could just type in the email they remember.

13
  • I once saw on a wiki FAQ: your edits should be human parseable by 6 graders Id say status-bydesign. It isn't idiot proof (cletus has been throwing rats in the SO lake for quite some time), so I can't believe you are having so much trouble.
    – perbert
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 0:33
  • see Nick D's answer, maybe that will help. I had a lot of trouble getting OpenID to work the first time; after that - because of the cookie it leaves on my machine, and not because it's magic or wonderful - it's worked fine since then. Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:09
  • 3
    @random - I think your edit of this question was way too heavy-handed and unfair to the original poster. What the Hell are "lame bricks"? How can you justify added such bizarre language to someone elses question? Your edit changed the original nature and added nothing.
    – donnacha
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:39
  • @donnacha - Was trying to cut down on the vitriol and language used while keeping the topic of the actual question in the clear. But fair point on putting in slang that may well not be in line with that the asker was intent with.
    – random
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:44
  • Never heard the phrase "lame bricks" before, must be very localized slang.
    – Argalatyr
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 2:27
  • @random - fair enough, I understand that you were just trying to improve it, but I think you have to be a little more circumspect when editing, it's important to remember that changing someone's words is pretty insulting unless they've clearly made a mistake. In this case, I don't think the vitriol was a mistake, it was very much intended and appropriate to express his frustration.
    – donnacha
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 3:37
  • @Argalatyr - yes, must be, I just can't work out which locality. I thought it might be Australian but a quick Google only revealed sentences discussing actual bricks which were actually subpar.
    – donnacha
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 3:37
  • Google reports 226 known uses of "lame bricks" on the internet. Making it less popular than, say, "panda waffles", or "vegemite cheesecake".
    – John Fouhy
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 3:40
  • @[John Fouhy]: yet "feng shui web design" has about 1900 hits. Panda waffles sound delicious - and fuzzy! Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 5:26
  • Can't believe people haven't heard of the phrase "lame bricks" before. Yes, it's a tad on the low rage scale, which does take the sting and vehemence out of the original posting. It's a common enough phrase that pops up when annoyed/anger/aaargh is in the area. Somewhat hobbling the power of the expression of disgust with OpenID though.
    – random
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 10:19
  • @random: Would those be the kind of bricks which get shat?
    – P Daddy
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 12:57
  • @random - What area, what country? I've searched Google and, really, there doesn't seem to be any occurrence of those two words together that suggests its use as an expression.
    – donnacha
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 14:34
  • 1
    @random - Also, don't you think you should get in their and change "lame bricks" back to the poster's original "lame"? I mean, seeing as this expression seems to be very specifically local to your house.
    – donnacha
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 14:38

7 Answers 7

8

I had the same problem few days ago.
In my case, the solution was to go to Google page and log in.
Afterwards I could also log in Stack Overflow with the OpenID.

1
  • 5
    thanks for an actually helpful answer; i'm amazed that the highest-voted answers for this question are just "Rah rah" and completely unhelpful. This may be the meta site, but it's still a Q&A site y'all! Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:07
6

If you email us via the "contact us" link provided at the bottom of every page, we can fix your accounts.

This is typically done by merging two accounts.

For speedy service, please be sure to include the URL of both accounts, or at least the user ID.

4

It has been working well for more than 80000 users. There were a few glitches that are pretty much fixed now. Personally, I'm extremely happy with not having to memorize yet another username and password.

2
  • 1
    it works well once you get it created and logged in the first time; steep entry learning curve in some cases though Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:05
  • Steven: OpenID, the standard, isn't broken. Nor is the StackOverflow's implementation. If an OpenID provider sucks, it doesn't mean OpenID in general sucks.
    – mmx
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:10
2

OpenID rocks, it really rocks.

Seriously, this incredibly sane system just continues to amaze me. I delegate through my own domain, so my IDs are short and easy to remember. I have an account on each of the 4 SO "LoJ" sites, and never need to remember a password for any of them. I have several additional testing / mischief accounts on a couple of them, and again - never need to remember a password. Setting up a new account takes well under a minute - i can literally create a new account on SO in less time than it takes me to butter a waffle!

The only down-side i've encountered thus far with OpenID is that it occasionally becomes difficult and frustrating for less tech-savvy users. This results in whining, and whining ruins my appetite.

3
  • 3
    +1 for your feelings re: OpenID. Further, I am going to begin comparing lengths of time to the duration of a hypothetical waffle buttering session. "I could probably get that upgrade done for you in the amount of time that it would take me to butter, say, 87 waffles. Sound good?" Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 0:40
  • 4
    -1 hmmm...this looks like an "i'm so much smarter it works for me so i love it" kind of answer - and then insults the OP. Not up to your usual level of quality... Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 1:06
  • 7
    "have several additional testing / mischief accounts on a couple of them" yes, I am familiar with these accounts (hovers mouse over "delete" button) Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 2:12
1

Having recently implemented an OpenID system that works side-by-side with a standard login system, there are some keys to getting the system less frustrating.

  1. Google's OpenID implementation sucks: all you get back from the ax field is an email. There is no preferred login or user name.
  2. Yahoo's implementation sucks even more: you have to be on a preferred list (which fortunately SO is) to get an email back.
  3. Microsoft's implementation sucks most: it's not publicly available and you have to opt in to get it.

There is one thing that can be done to work around some limitations.

Intelligent auto associate: If you log in with an OpenID account from the Google provider (https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id) and an account already exists with the Google email address, just auto associate it with this OpenID.

0

If you don't like Google's implementation of OpenID, don't use it. Choose another OpenID provider.

1
  • And how would the average user have any clue that it's a provider-, not OpenID-related problem? People don't go around making test accounts and benchmarking.
    – Argalatyr
    Commented Sep 4, 2009 at 2:32
0

I use and recommend MyOpenID. It's straightforward and easy-to-use. I have never had a problem with their implementation, it doesn't suffer from the limitations of that the big players (Yahoo, Google, MS) bring to the table.