4 ms·

Man, I was so bummed I didn't have to make an account and everything /s I mean, for what it's worth, this gets high marks from me for ease of use and seems to

Man, I was so bummed I didn't have to make an account and everything /s I mean, for what it's worth, this gets high marks from me for ease of use and seems to be consistent with just about every advice you see surface here about getting your users through an ordering funnel. Of course the fact that the cost is 0 here makes it a simpler problem for them, but given that it is a gov't project I could have envisioned a lot, lot worse.

paxys 5y ago
What works in their favor is they have a verified database of every address in the US. For this purpose that is, effectively, your account.
- atwebb 5y ago
  Would it matter? The address has to be valid and once input it is the unique key. I didn't see any address validation on my end (which is also an option for other forms).
  - paxys 5y ago
    The worst case is you input someone else's address (whether by mistake or on purpose) and...they end up getting free COVID tests. Not really something worth validating. USPS does have ways to validate your address, for example when you set up mail forwarding or the daily digest thing.
    - joezydeco 5y ago
      They also offer free access to this validator: https://www.usps.com/business/web-tools-apis/address-information-api.pdf https://www.usps.com/business/web-tools-apis/address-informa...
- flax 5y ago
  And it's really nice that they're actually using the physical address for this instead of the given email address. Especially since some imbecile put my email address in when ordering her tests. I was concerned that I would not be able to order my own since my email was already used. But no, I was able to. USPS gets points for practicality and execution, but is yet another service that performs zero email address verification and ends up with idiots that don't know their own email sending me their info.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > And it's really nice that they're actually using the physical address for this instead of the given email address. It's a little problematic if, say, four roommates share an address.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      The business requirement is one shipment per household. Roommates are members of a household as defined.
    - paxys 5y ago
      I assume the logic is that if one person is a household is positive, you should just assume that everyone else is as well.
tych0 5y ago
They wouldn't accept my .pizza e-mail address as valid though, so there's still room for improvement :)
qbasic_forever 5y ago
The US post office gets a lot of crap thrown at it when in reality it is quite well run. They're totally bootstrapped (stamp sales pay for everything) and take no money from taxes. They service every household in the country, rain or shine. They've scaled from nothing to hundreds of millions of customers and survived hundreds of years. They move millions and millions of physical goods across the entire country in days. If this were a startup or private company we would be in awe of their track record.
- nickff 5y ago
  This isn't quite true; the USPS was formed in 1971, out of the United States Post Office Department.[1] It didn't '[scale] from nothing'. The USPS also enjoys a monopoly on mailbox deliveries, as well as price protections, in the form of a floor imposed on potential competitors. This doesn't seem particularly admirable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act
  - claudiulodro 5y ago
    However, on the flip side, they are not really allowed to shut down unprofitable service areas in the middle of nowhere and are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - flutas 5y ago
      > are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations Because other companies can simply cut the benefits, USPS cannot. The best explainer I've seen is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/?sh=2d451e447f5d https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p... > ALL companies are required to fund any pension promises they make to their employees. (...) NONE of them are permitted to take a “pay as you go” approach but must contribute to a pension fund an amount equivalent to what a worker has accrued that year in benefit promises, regardless of how far into the future that worker will be retiring, and must make up for any shortfalls due to asset losses or other reasons. The USPS and private sector companies use the same general actuarial principles to do so, though there are differences in assumptions, particulars of the calculations, etc. > What is distinctive about the USPS is that, a a result of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), they are also required to pre-fund their retiree medical promises. However, what is also distinctive is that any private-sector company may simply cancel its retiree medical benefits at any time; the funding requirement for the USPS exists because only an act of Congress would enable them to cut these benefits. > However, even here, again, all companies which promise retiree medical benefits must account for them in their financial reporting even if they don’t prefund. As well as this line when discussing the USPS Fairness Act, which would eliminate the pre-funding requirement. https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the... [PDF Warning] > passage of the bill will not reduce our underlying retiree health benefits liability, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position.
SubiculumCode 5y ago
I was astonished. But it makes good sense. You don't want barriers, you want tests out to the people.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
Literally my only complaint is that they ask for first/last name rather than full name. But I wonder if that’s some kind of legal/regulatory requirement in this case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragontamer 5y ago
Does anyone know if "18F" was involved with this? The 18F group is the US Government's "elite" IT-team, including web programming. ------- If it wasn't 18F, who did it?

paxys 5y ago

What works in their favor is they have a verified database of every address in the US. For this purpose that is, effectively, your account.

atwebb 5y ago
Would it matter? The address has to be valid and once input it is the unique key. I didn't see any address validation on my end (which is also an option for other forms).
- paxys 5y ago
  The worst case is you input someone else's address (whether by mistake or on purpose) and...they end up getting free COVID tests. Not really something worth validating. USPS does have ways to validate your address, for example when you set up mail forwarding or the daily digest thing.
  - joezydeco 5y ago
    They also offer free access to this validator: https://www.usps.com/business/web-tools-apis/address-information-api.pdf https://www.usps.com/business/web-tools-apis/address-informa...
flax 5y ago
And it's really nice that they're actually using the physical address for this instead of the given email address. Especially since some imbecile put my email address in when ordering her tests. I was concerned that I would not be able to order my own since my email was already used. But no, I was able to. USPS gets points for practicality and execution, but is yet another service that performs zero email address verification and ends up with idiots that don't know their own email sending me their info.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > And it's really nice that they're actually using the physical address for this instead of the given email address. It's a little problematic if, say, four roommates share an address.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    The business requirement is one shipment per household. Roommates are members of a household as defined.
  - paxys 5y ago
    I assume the logic is that if one person is a household is positive, you should just assume that everyone else is as well.

tych0 5y ago

They wouldn't accept my .pizza e-mail address as valid though, so there's still room for improvement :)

qbasic_forever 5y ago

The US post office gets a lot of crap thrown at it when in reality it is quite well run. They're totally bootstrapped (stamp sales pay for everything) and take no money from taxes. They service every household in the country, rain or shine. They've scaled from nothing to hundreds of millions of customers and survived hundreds of years. They move millions and millions of physical goods across the entire country in days. If this were a startup or private company we would be in awe of their track record.

nickff 5y ago
This isn't quite true; the USPS was formed in 1971, out of the United States Post Office Department.[1] It didn't '[scale] from nothing'. The USPS also enjoys a monopoly on mailbox deliveries, as well as price protections, in the form of a floor imposed on potential competitors. This doesn't seem particularly admirable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act
- claudiulodro 5y ago
  However, on the flip side, they are not really allowed to shut down unprofitable service areas in the middle of nowhere and are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - flutas 5y ago
    > are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations Because other companies can simply cut the benefits, USPS cannot. The best explainer I've seen is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/?sh=2d451e447f5d https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p... > ALL companies are required to fund any pension promises they make to their employees. (...) NONE of them are permitted to take a “pay as you go” approach but must contribute to a pension fund an amount equivalent to what a worker has accrued that year in benefit promises, regardless of how far into the future that worker will be retiring, and must make up for any shortfalls due to asset losses or other reasons. The USPS and private sector companies use the same general actuarial principles to do so, though there are differences in assumptions, particulars of the calculations, etc. > What is distinctive about the USPS is that, a a result of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), they are also required to pre-fund their retiree medical promises. However, what is also distinctive is that any private-sector company may simply cancel its retiree medical benefits at any time; the funding requirement for the USPS exists because only an act of Congress would enable them to cut these benefits. > However, even here, again, all companies which promise retiree medical benefits must account for them in their financial reporting even if they don’t prefund. As well as this line when discussing the USPS Fairness Act, which would eliminate the pre-funding requirement. https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the... [PDF Warning] > passage of the bill will not reduce our underlying retiree health benefits liability, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

I was astonished. But it makes good sense. You don't want barriers, you want tests out to the people.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Literally my only complaint is that they ask for first/last name rather than full name. But I wonder if that’s some kind of legal/regulatory requirement in this case.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragontamer 5y ago

Does anyone know if "18F" was involved with this? The 18F group is the US Government's "elite" IT-team, including web programming. ------- If it wasn't 18F, who did it?