Nagging web sites

[Dave2002]

I went to look at Garsington Opera's web site - https://www.garsingtonopera.org/

At the bottom of the page there is a section about Cookies - which asks if "you" are willing to accept cookies.

If the answer is "No" it insists on giving you info about Privacy policies etc., but the "nag" footer window does not disappear. My guess is that it won't disappear until "you" give a "Yes" answer.

This seems like a pretty poor thing to me. Pity, because otherwise I am moderately sympathetic to the organisation, but really I do think the "nag" footer should disappear once a decision by the user has been made, and there shouldn't be an implicit forcing of any user towards a "Yes" answer - which may cause all sorts of bother the user doesn't really want. Users are supposed to be capable of making up their own minds.

Oh - and yes I know that often the cookies and their use is fairly benign, and also that it's the law that users have to be given a chance to opt in, or opt out, but really opt out should really mean "opt out" - just like "Brexit means Brexit" (ha)!

This probably isn't the only website which does this, but it's the only one I've come across in recent times which is so persistently nagging.

[french frank]

I suspect it's the same with most websites which have a fairly amateur approach to running themselves. How do you disable cookies if people want to look at the website but don't want the cookies? I think the law is simply that people are warned that cookies are placed on their computers if they use the website. No want cookies? Don't look at website. And websites only have to be able to show that they have made a reasonable effort to inform users. Ours for the forum is a bit string and paperclips, though the main FoR3 website has an official message (can't remember what it says, as I no longer see it. I think it just asks you to agree to the cookies, or not - in which case, au reservoir?

The forum cookies are needed if people want to stay logged in permanently; and to show, sometimes a little whimsically, whether threads have been read or if there are new posts.

I can't say the 'nagging' worries me greatly …

[Anastasius]

Yes, the Nanny-Nag to accept cookies....thanks to the EU. Utterly pointless. If you don't accept cookies then a lot of sites simply don't perform. There are many better techie ways of doing this such as Ghostery but clearly beyond the comprehension of the Brussells sprouts. So we all waste time, day in and day out, clicking on that bloody stupid button.

[Frances_iom]

try viewing with javascript turned off - also stops google tracking etc - the cookie check is served via javascript and seems connected to Drupal
however if you prefer to allow any site owner to run arbitary code on your computer then fine ...

[Dave2002]

Yes, the Nanny-Nag to accept cookies....thanks to the EU. Utterly pointless. If you don't accept cookies then a lot of sites simply don't perform.

Not all web sites are like that I think. Surely some sites do function, but at a lower level of "functionality" - whatever that is if cookies are not accepted. If the sites are not going to function at all, then there might just as well be a "thug" warning - something of the form "We would like to put cookies on your computer. Under EU law we are required to inform you and give you the option of not accepting the cookies. If you do not accept the cookies it will be pointless trying to use this site, as it will not allow you access to any of the pages."

I am sure I've seen sites where partial access is permitted without accepting cookies.

It should also be possible to remove cookies for sites where previously a user had accepted cookies. Knowledgeable users may know how to do this through their browsers, but many will not.

Reading the information on the Garsington site does indicate some possible problems. ff seems to suggest that neither the nagging nor perhaps the cookies themselves are a major concern. I am also not too often bothered, but where sites collect information about me, my browsing and perhaps also on a very large scale which some certainly do, then I think there is cause for serious concern. I don't want even reputable organisations continually pestering me with email and/or sales phone calls because they have my details, and I had to "agree" to provide them for a web site to function. Some sites are operated by less than scrupulous outfits which will sell on details (even if they "say" they won't) to others, often equally or more unscrupulous.

So perhaps the EU was right after all!

In the case of the Garsington site, I doubt that there is any malicious intent, but it seems silly to irritate viewers by asking for cookies and putting up the nag displays if all that users want to do is to find out what is on, before deciding whether or not to engage with the organisation to become a client, either one off or regular. It is also possible that one person may decide to engage with the company and buy tickets, whereas his or her friends may simply want to look at the site to confirm dates, and they are not going to have a relationship with the company, other than for checking information, since they will not be buying the tickets personally themselves.