Why no "Reject All" option in the cookies manager banner?

Maybe you could email Mark and ask him?

Hate it when websites don't have a reject all button. Just says they don't GAF to me.

I believe it goes against the GDPR guidelines along with the use of pre-ticked boxes for consent and I find it annoying that I have to go through and untick something like 21 boxes.

if you go into “vendor” at the bottom left you’ll be unticking approx 280 boxes

As an aside, you’re a free member, how about joining up for a digital sub to help out?

the site won't work if you reject all cookies, as some are used for doing things like allowing you to be logged in when you open a thread, or post a reply, etc etc. without cookies all of that would require your user/pw every single time (unless they did something like pass around a session id in the header of every request)

what you want is a "reject all non-mandatory cookies" or something to that effect.

The whole cookie warning window thing has just made browsing a worst experience for end users in my opinion. Was way better before

Yes, Singletrackworld is not compliant with GDPR, as it doesn't offer a "Reject All" option.  GDPR states that you have to make it as easy to reject cookies as accept them.
This article (from 4 years ago FFS) explains it all:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/cookie-consent-most-websites-break-law-by-making-it-hard-to-reject-all-tracking/

I usually just surf away from websites that don't offer "Reject All".  STW is the exception, but I do go through and untick all those "legitimate interest" boxes.

The whole cookie warning window thing has just made browsing a worst experience for end users in my opinion. Was way better before

I like being able to reject non essential cookies and do so on most sites.  I don't on here because 1) I think they are a reasonably ethical company and 2) they might make a few bob out of it

But my default is to reject all non essential cookies

I think they are a reasonably ethical company

I do too. I'm not quite so sure about all the third party software and ad providers though.

Poor Mark, he'll be sitting there waiting for the ICO letter to drop now.

I think Mark did explain this recently. Something about not being compelled by law to do it yet, and resisting it until it becomes law as it would mean losing a load of ad revenue?

That's it in a nutshell.

The button for me to do this is right there in our ad admin panel.

Singletrack is not (yet) in a position to be able to throw that switch as it will hit our ad revenues hugely. Enough to put us out of business in a matter of weeks. I'm trying, harder than I've ever tried, to get Singletrack to the point where I can comfortably throw that switch - that's why we are creating new ways to get advertising on the site that will replace our reliance on these programmatic ads. Sponsorship of parts of the site, mag, podcast, newsletters etc. When are better off I will happily throw that switch. But right now it would be irresponsible.

Gotcha..... Thanks for the reasoning.

What does annoy me, and it’s nothing to do with STW, but there are some sites I access through Flipboard that give you a cookie option popup but with a second popup asking for your permission over the top of the first one!
That’s just taking the piss! 😖

Thanks for clarifying this.👍

If we reduce that response down a bit, STW are saying - we make a significant amount of money from knowingly scamming people's data , we can't survive without scamming them so until further notice we will continue to scam them.

Saying it would be irresponsible to follow gdpr guidelines seems a bit off to me.

Fwiw, I have no issue with ads or the site cookies, it's the response that has triggered me a little. Have I missed something obvious here?

If we reduce that response down a bit, STW are saying – we make a significant amount of money from knowingly scamming people’s data , we can’t survive without scamming them so until further notice we will continue to scam them.

That's not how I read it.

I'm saying regardless of the GDPR requirement if I hit that switch now Singletrack would go bust very quickly and the site would be gone. I'm not overstating that.

To say we are deliberately scamming is somewhat disingenuous I think. You CAN control your cookie preferences. We are not yet compliant with the requirement to make reject as easy as accept but we are working towards it and the guidance from the ISO we have is that as long as we can demonstrate that we are genuinely doing that then we are ok. The ISO does not want to websites to have to close down because of this requirement - their current strategy is a soft approach to the regulation of this requirement precicely in order to allow businesses to adapt to it. At some point in the future they will start being more demanding of companies - it's my intention that I will be in a position to throw that switch long before that point.

Is that an ok explanation and reasoning?

that’s why we are creating new ways to get advertising on the site that will replace our reliance on these programmatic ads. Sponsorship of parts of the site, mag, podcast, newsletters etc.

So basically going back 20 years when banner swaps were normal. I'm good with that, it was a far nicer experience.

Ah the old coffee and cream website.  Gone but not forgotten, yet to be bettered!

we make a significant amount of money

Not according to the accounts they don't 😆

Laces come to mind.

WTF?
Why should I put up with comments like that? I swear there’s a group who just won’t be happy until Singletrack fails and shuts down.

I’m finally bailing out of this now. My appetite for being open and honest with everyone has left me.

Thanks for giving a bit more info on the gdpr guidelines👍 it does help.

I wasn't trying to be disingenuous fwiw, I  assumed STW didn't offer the choice of reject all/accept all due to website issues or something beyond their current capabilities.

When you said STW have that switch readily available and deliberately hide it from people so that STW gain financially, it sounded a bit off. It's certainly not the biggest scam in the world but it's a scam. Yes, users can still manage their cookies but you are openly telling me you are deliberately making that awkward for significant financial gain. Just think that through for a moment, apply that logic to something that you aren't connected to..

It's not the worlds biggest issue and I'm just replying to an open public thread with my opinion on that business practice.

Bet you’re a riot at parties.

"Scam - a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation"

Don't be a dick mate. It's deliberately awkward UX, not fraud.

Not according to the accounts they don’t 😆

Again, don't be a dick mate.

Some people do seem to want STW to fail. No one is scamming you, you can opt out or not visit the site.

I appreciate the honest approach we've seen lately and it has made me aware of the work going on behind the scenes to make the site better and prepare it for the future.

Running a website costs money and people need to make a living. Perhaps some would prefer a large company buying STW out, making big losses and then binning the whole thing.

Hope Mark is still reading to see that, Woodster, because I too have appreciated the explantions. I don't wish to see STW go the way of Bikemagic.

Who TF is shrinktofit? I've never seen this user before.

And  Free Member moaning about cookies and throwing around the word "scam" - breaking rule 1.

I’ve never seen this user before.

Well I don't remember seeing you before, so... 🤷‍♂️

Plenty of people use this site without even having an account, doesn't mean this issue does not apply to them. Let's leave the personal comments out of this?

Cookie & privacy concerns apply just as much to free sites as paid ones, businesses, charities and anything else... the (original) issue being discussed here is not really relevant to what kind of member you are. Unless you're the "breaking rule 1" kind of member 😁

ossify

Well I don’t remember seeing you before, so… 🤷‍♂️

Touche

I yhink a lot of folk forget what this place is.  Its not a democracy.   Its not a public service.   Its a private playground

Personally i think there are things wrong with how its run. But it ain't up to me.

I get a lot from here.   The foibles can be  worked around.   Its one of two things I pay for on the internet.   Its one of a handful of sites i let set cookies both so a few bob goes to their pockets to keep it running.

edit: no point

Perhaps the wording of the cookie banner could be updated a bit? Simpler and more user-friendly, something like:

"Hey, we need all these cookies to make the ads work, you're welcome to turn them off if concerned about privacy but please be aware this is the same as blocking all ads and we need the income to survive"

Result: "Oh ok, maybe I'll allow them for this site"

Rather than the current wording, which is read like this:

"Wall of legalise" *ignores*

Result: instant click of "reject all" (if there was one 😉)

Its a private playground

AKA a "benevolent dictatorship" 😉

edit: no point

Wisest person on the thread so far!

Again, don’t be a dick mate.

Nope. My point was in defence of STW. In that others saying they're rolling in cash when the accounts suggest a completely different scenario.

From that info in companies house, it certainly appears STW cash flow is far lower than other businesses. Which is the point i was trying to make.

I thought that was obvious, but fair enough. You want to be abusive then go to hell.

I yhink a lot of folk forget what this place is.  Its not a democracy.   Its not a public service.   Its a private playground

The phrase coined by Mono BBS was "benevolent dictatorship."  (It may predate that, I don't know, but that's the first time I heard it.)

[EDIT - note to self: refresh page before posting]

hide the truth to make significant financial gains.. that’s a scam all day long.

No truth is being hidden. This is histrionic nonsense.

You want the button but it's not there. That's not a scam, it's not fraud, it's not deceitful. It's a UI choice that you happen to dislike.

No, this thread is about gdpr requirements not my personal preferences. Truth, deceitful, dishonest are all words that have a huge variation in their use too. Like I said, if you want to call it bad business practice instead of scammy that's fine with me. We are generally in agreement here, Mark 'has' to provide the button and he has explained his reason (financial) for not doing so 'yet' , while also explaining how hard he is working to fix that 'issue'

He called me disingenuous and I've explained my reasoning for the use of the word scam. You don't like that word, totally fine by me.

If it's a scam then it's a pretty shit one, what with him coming on here to explain it all and everything.

Mark ‘has’ to provide the button and he has explained his reason (financial) for not doing so ‘yet’

Well ATM he doesn't specifically have to provide the button: but it's very much walking on thin ice and there is no doubt the ICO would be unimpressed.

The UK will very likely align with other parts of the EU to require a reject all button in the not too distant future to make it mandatory and I'd say this is a very good thing.

But for now Mark has his [compelling] reasons and we just have to accept that - but that doesn't make it cool.

Oh, and I wouldn't call it a scam.  It's not "nice", but business isn't always nice.

it’s very much walking on thin ice and there is no doubt the ICO would be unimpressed.

Um...

We are not yet compliant with the requirement to make reject as easy as accept but we are working towards it and the guidance from the ISO we have is that as long as we can demonstrate that we are genuinely doing that then we are ok. The ISO does not want to websites to have to close down because of this requirement – their current strategy is a soft approach to the regulation of this requirement precicely in order to allow businesses to adapt to it. At some point in the future they will start being more demanding of companies – it’s my intention that I will be in a position to throw that switch long before that point.

Seems fair enough to me. 👍 Anyway, what's the alternative? Close down?

Anyway, what’s the alternative? Close down?

Or just wait till Chrome phases out cookies for good which IIRC is/was on the roadmap....

Still is I believe but delayed slightly.

Cougar, the data harvesting (dyswidt) is actually very lucrative, it pays a significant chunk of the bills which is why it's an awkward dilemma for STW as Mark explained

Mark was explaining the system without any thoughts of it being a bit 'underhand' so I got a little triggered and the conversation began. Agree, disagree, no biggy

Consider this.

It's no different from many, many other websites.  Are they all scammers also?

Now consider,

How many of those sites have a discussion forum where you can ask questions and get answers from the actual site owner rather than just have negative comments deleted?  I can't think of any others offhand.

The issue you're hitting I think is that you don't fully understand what those preselected boxes are and how they relate to GDPR (apologies if I'm wild off the mark here).  Which is fair enough, most people don't.  I didn't until I did a bit of legwork and then wrote a blog post about it.

The TL;DR (if you don't want to encourage my shameless self-promotion😁) is that explicit consent has to be opt-out by default, whereas legitimate interest doesn't (yet) have to be.  Legitimate interest does not require your consent, though it requires extra work to justify rather than just have you tick an unticked box.  I have no idea beyond blind guess but I can only assume that this is what Mark's alluding to when he says we're not quite there yet.

He has also explained he is working very hard to fix the issue.

and you still keep trying to ram home your ridiculous ‘SCAM’ idea, trying to make out that there is something going on where there quite clearly isn’t.

Who is forcing you to log in? You accept the terms of being here, what do you hope to achieve?

^^ bin dun numerous times.

Your heart is in the right place, I know you mean well and I think you are trying to be supportive so thankyou for that. But it’s your use of the word scam that’s offensive. A scam is something criminally misleading with intent to harm. I’m not happy with you using that word. Perhaps find a different word?

you are openly telling me you are deliberately making that awkward for significant financial gain.

OR "you are openly telling me you are deliberately making that awkward in order to stay in business so there is actually content for us all to enjoy".

If I throw that switch we are toast.

Until I can make up the loss somewhere else.

Bit of a Hobsons choice I guess. What would you do?

btw, I didn't turn that off. It's off by default.

Well I think we've found out who contacted the ASA anyway 😉

Nope. My point was in defence of STW. In that others saying they’re rolling in cash when the accounts suggest a completely different scenario.

Your comment made it look like you found it hilarious that STW is on the brink, like you were rubbing Mark's nose in it.

I'm sure I'm not alone in reading it that way.

The OP asked a pretty valid question in my opinion
Mark has responded with a full answer
The OP has replied with his view of Mark's answer

I think that's the conversation about wrapped up other than people arguing for the sake of arguing.

The OPs primary points are valid, as are Mark's reasons to keep a platform live that gives us all entertainment/information as well as (presumably) keep the wolf from his own front door.  There's really nothing more to say - we can all make our choices to stay or leave.

My view for what it matters?  Yes, it is a faff having to click lots of buttons and I never like just clicking 'Accept'.  However, if that's the worst thing to happen today ... it's been a good day.  First world problems.

Your comment made it look like you found it hilarious that STW is on the brink, like you were rubbing Mark’s nose in it.

I’m sure I’m not alone in reading it that way.

Well it wasnt as I've explained. So now you have become fully aware, feel free to offer up some sort of apology.

.

As to the actual cookie content, specifically under 'legitimate content' That itself is a scam, or at the very least a con, or even could be looked upon as 'misleading'

But none of that is directed at STW(Just to clarify, don't want you throwing out accusations by mistake), and more towards the advertising industry, and its regulators for allowing it.

Personally outwith a site I actually pay for, Im against 'legitimate interest(lets call it 'misleading') Normally If I happen on a website that doesnt have a reject all, and by "reject all" i include the legitimate interest cookies I'll click the back button and just not bother.I dont want to just look at a bike or a single news story and end up with more bloody cookies. Did a clean up and there was nearly 3gb of cookie type stuff to get shot of.

I dont do that here because i have a paid membership. Or on Retrobike, or on EMTB(Paid membership), or on UKworkshop(Paid membership) Because here and on those sites I have a vested interest. They dont have millionaires or billion pound hedge funds behind them, they are small down to earth forums, so sticking your hand in your pocket, or allowing them some advertising revenue is perfectly acceptable a thing to do.

............

On  a side note

" Well I think we’ve found out who contacted the ASA anyway 😉 "

Is this another of your 'mistakes' in that you are accusing that user as having reported the lack of reject all without any proof. And lets face it, it is a bit of the rich side especially when Mark sent out the emails asking for people to actually sign up and pay towards the running you didnt bother your arse.

You've been here as long as I have, and far far more prolific in posting replies and threads, so don't you think its a bit overdue and you could just take up membership. Might at least look a bit less hypocritical as it comes right down to income that keeps the site running.

.

If a website offers a choice of ‘accept all’ or untick 4 billion boxes, do you consider that fair game? The ISO don’t, Mark doesn’t, I don’t… You?

It's not 4 billion, it's half a dozen.  "Fair game" is a curious choice of words, I think it's a pain in the arse but it's not unfair.  You're making out like this is something unique to STW, it really isn't, I have to go through the same rigmarole on every new site I visit.  If I could set global cookie preferences in the browser and never have to confirm/deny those silly bloody tick boxes again, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  This is the reality of the web for EU visitors and for us as former EU, other countries often don't even get the option to decline.  I've had sites go "not available in your country" because they can't (or won't) conform with UK GDPR.

What's this ISO you keep banging on about?  Do you mean ICO?  ICO enforces GDPR, ISO is a standards body.

As to the actual cookie content, specifically under ‘legitimate content’ That itself is a scam, or at the very least a con, or even could be looked upon as ‘misleading’

If you don't understand what you're agreeing to, or objecting to, that's a "you" problem.  Chances are, the vast majority of people simply don't care, certainly not enough to be faffing around clawing back a couple of gig of space on a hard disk measured in terabytes.

I do agree that the meaning of "Legitimate Interest" is not immediately intuitive.  It's why I did the legwork and then wrote the blog post I linked to earlier, so that others won't have to.  I ran it past Mark before going public and offered to pull it if it was going to cause issues for them, he said to go ahead and publish it.  The scamming bastard.

I wish that there was a big button the first time I open a browser that says "click here to accept all cookies from all sites forever" - having to click accept all when I visit websites is bloody annoying.

certainly not enough to be faffing around clawing back a couple of gig of space on a hard disk measured in terabytes.

Mine isnt measured in Tb

.

I do agree that the meaning of “Legitimate Interest” is not immediately intuitive.

I think its more than that. Its a was advertising has implemented to get around the regulations of 'reject all' A number of years back when the general public were given the right to 'reject all'. This obviously meant those companies who use the analytics couldnt function, so then this new feature came in as a work around. So people can reject cookies, but effectively allow the same cookies under this new heading, so it is clearly far from being intuitive and more towards being misleading.

.

Its like having a box that says 'do you agree' options are yes or yes. In truth there is no 'No' option. That is what legitimate interest is.

.

You've seen if you look on any site where where this legitimate interest thing is, it is not a 1/2 a dozen but literally hundreds. It always surprises me as to how many analytics companies there are out there. But i suppose thats not surprising as there's millions to be made off advertising by these large companies.

It’s not 4 billion, it’s half a dozen.

If you go into vendor preferences its approx 283 boxes to untick - which is high, I notice that this cookie box is used on numerous websites and I don't bother visiting those as I can't be arsed unticking all,

Perhaps if mark asked for a donation or charged a nominal fee for use of the classifieds if a sale is successful that would help out, or perhaps the numerous long term "free members" who are very active on the forums could dig into their pockets and buy a digital sub.

Mine isnt measured in Tb

If you have a tiny drive, you just have to be more disciplined with cleaning it out, much like i had to on my old laptop (256Gb mechanical drive).

It's not a new thing.

Thanks Mark for trying to understand my posts and views,👍

Apologies for any offense caused and thank you for the polite request, I am kinda happy with my definition of the s word and it's use in this context. However in the spirit of your polite request I will try some other words in the future👊

Sorry Cougar, I believe there is some crossover between ISO certification and ICO requirements. I might have that wrong so apologies for any confusion.

Mine isnt measured in Tb

0.5TB? It's unlikely to make a difference in any case, unless you're still running Windows 95.

then this new feature came in as a work around.

Is it new?

There are clearly defined reasons for a Controller to be allowed handle your data. Some are easier to justify than others. Legitimate Interest is one of these reasons, but it comes with extra baggage over simply asking the Subject for permission.

You’ve seen if you look on any site where where this legitimate interest thing is, it is not a 1/2 a dozen but literally hundreds.

I'm looking at one right now, which is the reason this thread was started. The claim was "4 billion boxes," it's not "literally hundreds" either. There are literally hundreds of third parties yes, but why on earth would you want to manually sift through them all individually rather than ticking yes/no at the top of the tree?

If you want another example, there's a screenshot on my blog post. That's culled from The Sun newspaper's website. No particular reason for choosing it other than it was the first one I found which demonstrated the point I was trying to make.

If you go into vendor preferences its approx 283 boxes to untick

As above, why would anyone do that though? That's up there with reading a 40-page EULA for a printer driver.

If you have a tiny drive, you just have to be more disciplined with cleaning it out

If I had a drive where 3GB of storage was critical, I'd replace it.

It’s not a new thing.

No, it's a really old thing.

As above, why would anyone do that though? That’s up there with reading a 40-page EULA for a printer driver.

I do, have to untick them every week or so.

You go through the hundreds of vendors and untick them all individually?  Seriously?  Why?

You need to talk to Simon Quinlank.

Mmm... weak lemon drink.

You go through the hundreds of vendors and untick them all individually?  Seriously?  Why?

Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.

I'm going to have to go and listen to Fist of Fun now 🙂

If I had a drive where 3GB of storage was critical, I’d replace it.

So what you're saying is I/we dont have to do any sort of maintenance on our computers, and things like cookies in the tens of thousands or more(collectively) have no effect on its operation.

.

Just to clarify. I mean I've been quite diligent over the years performing these tasks, but in truth i didn't actually need to ?

Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.

What?  There are six "legitimate interest" tick boxes under Manage Settings (and a few more "consent" boxes which are off by default).  I just checked.

Once set, if you're prompted again (I think it's every fortnight?) it retains your previous choices.

So what you’re saying is I/we dont have to do any sort of maintenance on our computers

No.

things like cookies in the tens of thousands or more(collectively) have no effect on its operation.

Yes.

This is probably worth a separate thread if it's a genuine question.

Because there is no “uncheck all/reject all button.

This thread is the Singletrackworld equivalent of

I’m going to have to go and listen to Fist of Fun now 🙂

Huh, weird, why isn't that embedding?