Link to dw_codesharing on the "create account" site missing

[jana]

Title:
Link to dw_codesharing on the "create account" site missing

Area:
invite codes, account creation, commenting

Summary:
Add link to dw_codesharing on the "create account" site and explain why invite codes are used.

Description:
People who are not logged in but want to leave a comment are given the option to *create a dw account now* if they don't have one. However, the link provided only tells people that they have to purchase a account if they don't have an invite code, but no more information is given as to where they can get an invite code.

Suggestion: Add a link to dw_codesharing on the "create website" (https://www.dreamwidth.org/create), and also explain why invite codes are used in the first place (or link to this information).

Drawbacks: None. I think people are more willing to go look for an invite code if they know *where* to look and *why* it is necessary.

Poll #2027 Link to dw_codesharing on the "create account" site missing

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 36

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
32 (88.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (2.8%)

(I have no opinion)
3 (8.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[triadruid]

Actually, one drawback is that by putting dw_codesharing in the 'official' process, it reduces the revenue from people purchasing accounts.

[jana]

I'm not sure that keeping back information from potential new users is the right way to go here. And invite codes are already mentioned on the "create site", so if dw would not want people to know about them, they shouldn't mention them to begin with. As it is now, the text basically tells people "Well, you know, you could create an account with an invite code, but we won't tell you how to get one, so why don't you give us your money already? It saves you the time & energy to go looking for one, and we can make some money". Not the most effective and friendly way to attract new users... (I'm sure that's not how the information presented is intended to be understood)

Besides, I think that many people like to start out with free accounts, to test the waters so to speak, and not everyone wants to pay for an account. Sure, a month of paid time is not much, but you have to pay with your credit card etc., and not everyone is comfortable with supplying personal information. When people buy paid time it should be because they want to,and not because it just seems less hassle free (okay, getting an invite code is probably also viewed as a hassle by many people...)

[thorfinn]

One presumes that is self-correcting - invite codes are only issued if the ratio between paid/unpaid is high enough. Plus there's a conversion rate from unpaid to paid users, and provided that outweighs the conversion rate from paid to unpaid, that's fine.

[afuna]

We do already link to dw_codesharing from the logged-out front page, so I think it's not a huge step to also put it in the create form. I think that the advantages of getting new people who may be interested, but only if it's free/not a hassle to sign up, outweigh the risk of directing them to not pay. (Hopefully we manage to entice people to be willing to pay once they're in by making them happy with the site!)

[triadruid]

I'd forgotten that DW already links it - that seems so weird to me, since they're meant as a throttle on site growth.

[foxfirefey]

DW could use more growth--invite codes give site administrators the option of throttling site growth if necessary. In our current state, invite codes serve mainly to throttle spam, scourge of all user content generated sites!

[sophie]

I suspect it's not so much to control site growth now as it is a community feature. Remember that Mark and Rah felt comfortable enough with the underlying infrastructure that they were discussing the possibility of removing the requirement for invite codes entirely at one point.

They kept it mostly because the community had interpreted or heard from other sources that invite codes were going to be permanent, although the official word was only ever that they had no plans to remove invite codes; partly my fault, since I know I had interpreted it the wrong way and had told others as such, but obviously not just my fault.

As such, they weren't willing to break a promise, even if the promise only stemmed from a wrong interpretation of what they said. I personally think this says a lot about both Mark and Rah.

(That said, I think Rah was against removing the codes anyway, but that wasn't the primary reason they didn't get removed - the above was.)

[foxfirefey]

I totally disagree! There was actually a bug I did not too far back that was all about making dw_codesharing more visible (ie, on the logged out front page, etc, like others mentioned). I don't think that people purchasing accounts just to get an account are a huge source of revenue--it's much better to have people get accounts, get involved, make content, which makes paid features more useful, which makes them more likely to pay for an account long term instead of just the $3 to get it!

[triadruid]

That's fine, and I'm an unpaid user so my opinion may not matter beans in this situation... I just happen to think dw_codesharing is about the second clunkiest way of handling invite codes I can think of, and wish there wasn't so much energy spent on it... but then, it's somewhat decentralized energy, which has its appeal to management I'm sure.