Rants and Ramblings: random commentary about culture, media, politics, technology and whatnot.

information exchange

Poynter’s Jim Romenesko on Monday pointed out a recent column by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ombudsman about reader complaints regarding online registration at the paper’s Web site:

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution now requires ajc.com users to register and give out their income range, home address, telephone number and other information. “Some livid ajc.com users suggested we apologize for asking for such information,” says AJ-C ombud Mike King. “But just as we make no apology for charging you to subscribe to the print version of the paper or getting 50 cents from you when you buy it at the convenience store, we don’t feel compelled to apologize for asking you for a little information about who is reading our Web site.”

That seems to be a rather flip, almost uncalled-for, answer, particularly given the amount and detail of information the paper requires users to submit in order to access content. Even without site registration, a newspaper can track my activities to a great degree when I access their content online, arguably moreso than when I purchase the paper at my local convenience store. And with an online registration system, a newspaper can study online reader habits on an incredibly detailed level.

And it’s not a little information. It’s not just the birthdate/gender/zip code information that many sites ask for. It’s full site registration, requiring users to submit their address, household income and telephone number. Privacy policy or not, unless I’m purchasing a product from the AJC, I don’t see any need for them to know that information. (Particularly my phone number, because I’m one of those crazy “my cellphone is my home phone” people and would rather not give that number out.) So I faked the information I wasn’t comfortable with sharing.

I understand that newspapers are still figuring out how to make money from Internet content, and that databased information is an incredibly valuable commodity. But at the same time, with issues of personal information and privacy given so much attention lately, it seems foolhardy for the ombud to be so flip with customers who are wary about giving so much personal information away. (Although, given that the AJC seemingly has no intention to stop collecting all this information, it would be a bit silly for them to apologize for it … and then keep on doing it.)

Meanwhile, on a usability level, I have to add that despite King’s comments about improvements to the system, I think that the registration sign-up process is still overly cumbersome. The initial screen is a bit misleading, implying a quick sign-up process … only to bring the user to a second screen that looks exactly like the first, but with much more questions. And while there is a notice that “optional” questions are specially indicated, I didn’t notice any such indications onscreen. (An asterisk next to all required elements might have been more understandable … although it may have called even more attention to the quantity of information being collected.) Finally, the e-mail validation final step, while it ensures the quality of at least one piece of the collected information, is a perhaps unnecessary final hoop to require users to step through.