LinuxCommando.com

Web 2.0 and modern Internet technologies have capitalized on the value of user input. Content driven by the huge number of users, rather than the small number of writers and maintainers, provides a number of substantial benefits. Firstly, the volume of user generated content is typically far greater than the volume of maintainer-generated content. The sheer number of users makes them a valuable source of content as well as moderation. Furthermore, only the users themselves (in the collective sense) are capable of providing metrics for trends and public opinion, as well as any information about users.

Unfortunately, the undeniable value of user supplied information often spurs executives, marketers, and site owners to take the concept too far. Perhaps the most glaring and dangerous case of excessive user input is requiring such input from all users when its accuracy is irrelevant to the user and unmeasurable by the site owner or maintainer.

Take as a typical example a web contact form that requires users to enter a mailing address and phone number, as well as name and email. Users have gradually become comfortable with the concept of providing an email address to websites; and when they are communicating online, can easily appreciate the value of this information. However, they are likely to be cautious of providing their address or phone number online. The volume of unsolicited sales calls and junk mail may dissuade them from providing such information, or perhaps they are simply sensitive to the privacy and security of their personal information. For whatever reason, they have decide not to provide their phone number and mailing address.

The site owners have told their design and development team to require this information, because they see the value of geographically locating prospective customers and being able to follow up with a sales call. It is easy to see the benefit of having such information available. Unfortunately, content owners may be less sensitive to the concerns of consumers who don’t care to share such information. Furthermore, they haven’t realized that the value of this information is nullified if the information is wrong. They can’t of course verify the users’ mailing address; if they had some way to do so, they wouldn’t need to collect it. And the site users are unlikely to see the benefit for them in providing personal data that the website doesn’t need to perform whatever service they need, a large number of customers are likely to provide inaccurate data, typing in a falsified mailing address and phone number. They are also likely to be irritated by the attempt to collect their own data. In the modern age of identity theft and massive marketing communications, most Internet users have become wary of providing more data than they have to.

By unintentionally requiring unverifiable user data, the site owners have made their objectives virtually unachievable. Since they can’t verify the user provided data, they can’t trust it. Since they have required all form submissions to include the data, but the users don’t benefit from providing that data accurately, they’ve effectively invited their users to falsify the information. And so, just as they wanted, they’ve collected far more information than they would have otherwise obtained; but they have no reason to think that information is accurate. They may as well have just chosen random mailing addresses. Some of the form’s data might be accurate, but without a mechanism to verify which submissions are accurate and which are falsified, this data is worth nothing.

Requiring excessive user data is dangerous. It devalues the data that’s being collected and alienates many Internet users.

On the other hand, optional data provision is likely to result in much more accurate data, albeit in lower quantities. By making, say, a phone number optional, you give the users who don’t care to provide it an option other than falsification. Therefore the vast majority of phone number people choose to provide are likely to be accurate. Some might not realize that it’s not required, and providing incorrect information might appeal to others, but these groups are likely to comprise only a minority of internet users. (Who enjoys filling out forms inaccurately to the extent that they’d seek them out just to fill them out with misinformation?) Furthermore, making non-required data optional shows a level of respect for internet users who are sensitive to privacy concerns, or just don’t like filling out forms. In exchange, the site owners benefit from a high degree of confidence in the user supplied data and a better relationship with their users.

Another good example can be made of the observation that inspired me to write this post, my first addressing my own web design philosophies. A client’s website required users to input a rating for the site’s content before accessing more content. Ratings, of course are more or less impossible to verify. The client is forcing any users who don’t have a strong opinion about the content to make up a rating. The site owners may be pleased by the level of feedback they obtain, but only because they can’t be convinced that it’s essentially meaningless; they may as well randomly choose a rating whenever the content is viewed, because in that case at least they wouldn’t be alienating their users.

User information is valuable, but only insofar as it is accurate. That is exactly why required fields are appropriate only for data that must be collected. All other data submission should be optional.