3 ms·
> 1. "Our email provider won't send to them". That excuses OP's part in the thing, although now we need to ask why the email provider is being stupid. Nope, ac
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> 1. "Our email provider won't send to them". That excuses OP's part in the thing, although now we need to ask why the email provider is being stupid.
Nope, actually, it doesn't. If your reaction to noticing that some service that you are using is incompetent is to adopt the same incompetence, that doesn't excuse anything.
> 2. "We don't do validation links, they cause too many lost users". I have serious problems with this, but from a pure-business standpoint they decided that rejecting valid emails loses fewer users than using account confirmation.
> Number two is vaguely horrifying to me, but in terms of "new users gained" it probably works out.
Well, sure, it's as much a reason as "I don't like your nose!"
If they don't do verification emails, they might as well just not ask for an email address in the first place (or make it optional). Misguided "validation" doesn't help with most mistyped addresses anyhow.
- Bartweiss 10y agoI oversold 'excuses'. Let's say "means the original error lies elsewhere". I also wonder who the hell they're using - who ever heard of an email service that bans domains for being likely misspellings? The "it's as much a reason" I disagree with. Validating common typos will catch more errors than false positives, so you do get more users through your funnel than if you abandon it. "I don't like your nose" is a strict loss, this causes corrections to get real emails. So they'll still miss most typos, but it's a net gain compared to not doing it. Of course, again, I don't endorse any of this. Decide if you're ok with bad emails, follow through on that decision, use verification, and get a not-incompetent email service.