Hacker News Reader

Comment by someone7x | Hacker News Reader

The thing about dark patterns is that feels like an abuse of the commons. Because of scummy practices like this I am absolutely less willing to explore a site that requests my email, or buy something from a random site (I just see if it's on amazon and buy it there).

For example, a few days ago there was a Show HN about PlateJoy, which sounded really interesting. But, the only way I could learn about it was to enter my email and take a quiz. Now enters the part where the antics of countless other bad actors takes its toll on an otherwise innocent website; I decide it isn't worth the risk and move a long.

View on HN

Yep, AllTrails recently went with a dark-pattern, want to see any info on the trail? Sign-up. If you don't you'll get a brief flash of the detail page before redirecting to a sign-up form.

Is that a dark pattern, or poor ux?

Does it really matter?

Yes? That is the entire point of this discussion. That just strikes me as a sign-up for more info. Granted I haven't signed up there so who knows if there are nefarious pre-checked boxes and massive ToS agreements, but signup for access to the site doesn't seem malicious.

I really shouldn't ask leading questions, because they are technically equivalent to blaming statements.

What I meant was that "it does NOT matter" whether it's a UX bug or an intentional pattern. The effects can be the same. If a company doesn't have a lot of money to produce a good UX because they spent it all on trips up to Tahoe for a "workcation", and people rely on that software, it's the same damn thing no matter how you look at it.

i.e. a lack of intent is just as bad as ill intent, in some cases.

Requiring someone to log in to use your site or service is not a dark pattern though. There's nothing nefarious going on there. As another poster said somewhere in this chain, if upon signing up you have to give your life away via the TOS, or there's pre-checked boxes signing you up for mailing lists, those are dark patterns. Simply requiring a user sign up is not.

That's not what the users say.

Sure, it could be darker. But when you see a bit of a crummy pattern you usually walk away instead of checking out just how bad it could get.

Then the 'users' are incorrectly using the term dark pattern; most likely because they don't really know what one is.

"A Dark Pattern is a user interface that has been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things."

Simply making a user sign up to use your service is hardly a 'carefully crafted trick'.

Yes it does matter. A bug or poor design can be fixed, while a dark pattern is intentional. Yes, the end result to the user is the same, but long term the it's a difference.

That does not sound like it's trying to trick you. They're offering something valuable in return for your email address. That is what every startup guru advises companies to do.

Apparently the value wasn't high enough for you to sign up. That's fine. But why is it a "dark pattern"?

Because you can't fairly evaluate the offering if you can't see it until after you've already given away the item of value (in this case, your email address) in exchange for which the offering is made.

> That is what every startup guru advises companies to do.

A lot of things that "startup guru" advise are light shades of scams. A honest business deal is when a customer is given enough information to evaluate the proposal and then gets an option to decide - without influencing - to enter the transaction. One needs to keep that in mind.

In this case - it's what 'throwanem replied - "you can't fairly evaluate the offering if you can't see it until after you've already given away the item of value".

I just looked at AllTrails, and it's pretty clear what the value is - you get to download and print the maps, and use them on your phone.

I appreciate what you're saying about an honest transaction, but "dark patterns" is a useful term that is being diluted to apply to any company that doesn't offer everything for nothing. If asking you to create an account to use the product is a "dark pattern", what do we call moving buttons to capture accidental tricks, getting you to open your contact list with tricky wording and spamming everyone, etc? Surely those aren't the same as "please create an account to use our product"?

Sure, those are worse, but it's a difference of kind rather than degree. I mean, I can download, print, and view offline maps from OpenStreetMap, too. That's free and it doesn't play cheesy games to get my information. Why should I care about AllTrails, which does?

(I feel like I should note that the default presumption here is of sketchiness, not uprightness. Maybe that's unfair, and maybe there are a lot of us out here who've been hosed often enough by bait-and-switch games that anything which smells of yet another one gets tarred with the same brush. I don't think that's an argument against the article's thesis, you know?)

This is basically what any discussion on dark patterns i have ever seen devolves into: "a service i use has an interaction i don't like. it's a dark pattern." the whole term is basically a meaningless buzzword now.

requiring an email address to access a service is no more of a dark pattern than requiring payment to access a service. they're taking something of value in exchange for providing something of value. it's only a "dark pattern" if they trick you into providing your email address somehow.

Loading the content then redirecting to or popping over an uncloseable email form is a bait and switch, especially if you are coming from a search engine result.

Exactly, its a SEO scam. I'm sure Google will figure out a way to stop it and give them the 40th page result they deserve.

Also it used to not be this way, there were more details hidden behind the login but the general info used to be accessible with no login, it's only in the recent months that they switched to hiding most content.

There is no guarantee that what they're providing will be anything of value--and in fact, usually isn't.

Emails on the other hand can reliably fetch prices/be put to use.

It's my impression that a dark pattern is not so much a con, and more like when a ballot is intentionally printed in such a way that a voter intending to vote for Obama is misled and unwittingly marks the ballot for Romney instead, or vica versa.

There is literally no way to use the email they took from me that isn't a dark pattern.

They're in part a community-driven content site though, that's understandable. The trails, and feedback about them, is all user-derived.

If they are showing one thing to users, and another to search engines, that is expressly prohibited by Google and you can report them. This is what got Expertsexchange.com busted way back in the day.

Is that true? Most pay-walled newspapers work this way.

Most pay-walled newspapers show you some content initially (which is what is getting indexed), or give you X number of free articles before hitting you with it. For others (like WSJ), they offer a "Web" link of some sort that they bury the hell out of, but that technically exists and is visible to users. So people from search engines don't get hit with the paywall, but anyone from social, email, referral, etc. does.

I don't think Amazon is completely innocent either. I signed up for prime accidentally recently because EVERY time you buy something they try to sell you prime for a year and I guess I misread something. They canceled and refunded after an email, but it was still obnoxious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com