[RFC|Merged] Delete "Confirm e-mail address"

[KnocksX]

It does not make much sense to me to cater to people who want a particular username but cannot be bothered to spend a few seconds reading back the email address they entered, at the expense of wasting the time of everyone who actually does check that what they enter (or don't care to register again).

You're not catering to them specifically, but typos do happen, and not getting your desired user name is a stupid price to pay for a typo.

[Oleg]

Account access should be possible given either username + password or email address. If you got your username entered correctly you should be able to log in and change your password. This may not currently be possible but this is the direction in which we should be moving.

[Pony99CA]

I would also support adding language to the effect of "you should receive an email from us shortly, if you don't check if you entered your email address correctly".

And how would they check that? Here's what the message says (for User activation):

Your account has been created. However, this board requires account activation, an activation key has been sent to the e-mail address you provided. Please check your e-mail for further information.

There's no E-mail address there to check.

If you want to add that language, you'll have to change "sent to the e-mail address you provided" to "sent to the e-mail address you provided ([email protected])" or something similar (like "sent to [email protected]").

Personally, I don't see why this needs to be removed. Lots of sites ask for E-mail confirmation, it can help prevent typos and people who don't want to type it twice can either use a form filler or copy/paste from the first field into the second (a whole three keystrokes -- Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V).

Or what if your board doesn't require activation? The user can log in just fine, probably figuring the E-mail got lost. If he later forgets his password, how does he recover?

Steve

[KnocksX]

Or what if your board doesn't require activation? The user will just log in just fine, figuring the E-mail got lost. If he later forgets his password, how does he recover?

I'd like to know how this would be addressed too.

[nickvergessen]

If the user used crtl + c/v with the confirm field the exact samething happens.

[Pony99CA]

If the user used crtl + c/v with the confirm field the exact samething happens.

Of course, but that's the user's fault for avoiding the safeguard of confirmation. If I don't put a fence around my pool and you drown, that's partly my fault; if I have a fence and you climb it and drown, that's all on you.

The point is that people don't have to do that much work if they don't want to retype their E-mail address. Removing the safeguard to save seconds for some complainers seems penny wise but pound foolish. Not having the confirmation field should be a MOD (or extension).

Yes, people should check their E-mail addresses as they type, but I bet most of them are so used to typing them that they can't believe that they'd make a typo. And, yes, some people might make the same mistake twice, but that's far less likely than making it once. As for the bold message mentioning that a valid E-mail address should be entered, don't we all know how often most users actually read instructions? If everybody did, phpBB.com would have no need for Moderators.

Steve

P.S. Weren't you opposed to this change? I saw two posts from you opposing the change.

[Senky]

...Not having the confirmation field should be a MOD (or extension)...

Sorry, but I think having the confirmation field should be a MOD (or extension).

Anyway, I just do not understand why you discuss already merged patch. It has been merget, it will not be changed anymore. You can create new RFC and ticket to revert changes, but it is to be discussed in another topic...

[Pony99CA]

...Not having the confirmation field should be a MOD (or extension)...

Sorry, but I think having the confirmation field should be a MOD (or extension).

Given that phpBB 3.0 currently has confirmation, I think that you're wrong.

Anyway, I just do not understand why you discuss already merged patch.

I don't understand why you're asking me when KnocksX was the person who restarted the discussion.

It has been merget, it will not be changed anymore.

Are you the development team leader and can make that decision? If not, unless somebody on the Development team states that discussion of this feature is no longer welcome here or the topic is locked, I think that the feature is still open for discussion. What's merged can be "unmerged", I presume.

Steve

[Senky]

Sorry, Steve, that "you" was pointing to anyone participating in this conversation.

I am not development leader, however I just consider Merged patches to be merged. Process before merging is called discussion, because it is to be discussed before. After that, it should be implemented, merged, and kept... at least this is how I see development process...

[DavidIQ]

What's merged can be "unmerged", I presume.

Steve

You presume correctly and this has happened at least once already (subsilver2 removal).