The plugin shows "Powered by OneAll" link below the social network icons.
WordPress plugin guidelines do not allow such links to be on by default.
What's worse, there's no Admin UI to remove the link which is gravely against WordPress provisions.
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/
#4 restriction
The plugin must not embed external links on the public site (like a "powered by" link) without explicitly asking the user's permission.
Posted 5 months ago #
i used this workaround:
<div style="overflow:hidden;width:37px;height:37px;">
<?php do_action('oa_social_login'); ?>
</div>Then it shows just the logo without anything else
Hello,
the plugin is fully compliant to the WordPress guidelines and has been reviewed and accepted by the WordPress.Org Plugin team. If required I can also provide the corresponding email.
Regards,
Posted 5 months ago #
i used this workaround:
<div style="overflow:hidden;width:37px;height:37px;">
<?php do_action('oa_social_login'); ?>
</div>Then it shows just the logo without anything else
Where did you put that?
By the way, the plugin clearly violates the terms but somehow is accepted by some wordpress webmasters.
The plugin developer said it was "absolutely necessary" to implement it to track the API and update the plugin, which is a big lie of course since the code shows it's only a label: an escamotage to try to make people pay...kinda low and incredibly greedy since it'll cost 9 dollars per month.
I strongly suggest to avoid this plugin, there are better ones with a better customization system. Even better icons.
@Claude Please produce aforementioned correspondence.
Sure no problem at all.
Hello.
I have no particular problem with that branding link or method of integration. The owner of the blog should be aware that there is a branding link associated with it, and for the viewer of the site the branding link is good insofar as that it shows that they are giving their credentials to a third-party and not to the owner of the site.Our concern is mainly hidden links or links stuck into the site footer and things of that nature. In this case, the owner of the site is explicitly having to choose to use your service, and probably has to sign up for said service as well, and so on. They're fully aware of what they're putting on their site.
In general, if it's not *deceptive* in some fashion, it's fine. It's especially fine if anything vaguely shady has the owner of the site first agree to terms or is required to explicitly turn-on that functionality. Our concern is with adding things to the site that users are not aware of or are surprised by. You can do anything if the owner of the site agrees to it first.
-Otto
Moderator and Tech Ninja - WordPress.org
otto@wordpress.org
You can see that you bad review is fully unjustified...
Our concern is with adding things to the site that users are not aware of or are surprised by.
Obviously Otto hasn't gone through the whole workflow of making the plugin work. The branding is clearly sneaked without the site-owner's knowledge or permission and therefore deceptive.
I have exchanged a lot of emails with Otto ...
Our concern is with adding things to the site that users are not aware of or are surprised by.
Sorry if you can't see the branding then you are blind.
The plugin by the way does not embed any branding. It embeds an external service and this service has a branding link. If you want to blame the plugin then also blame the hundreds of plugins that embed YouTube videos...
As I said before, there are thousands of happy web masters using this plugin. This really feels like a smear campaign...
I can see the branding AFTER activating the plugin. That's deceptive by definition. There have been plenty of plugins which have sneaked LEGIBLE links in widgets, footers etc and been asked to change or removed from WPORG repo.
If you want to put your link on the blog-owner's site, you need to explicitly ask for his/her permission. That's a simple WPORG rule.
It's irrelevant whether the link comes from the plugin or from the stuff inside the iframe.
You can't have a "Powered by" link on by default. And you need to provide a way to remove the link. The simple fact that you charge money (and encourage people) to remove the link is the clearest evidence that the link is not required for any security or technical reasons.
Trying to create false equivalence with YouTube can only work in your own mind.
Sorry its neither your nor my decision. It has been fully reviewed and approved by a WordPress.org moderator. Just use another plugin if you don't like it. As I said before, there are thousands of happy webmasters using this plugin. This won't lead to anything so I wont leave any other comments here.
Posted 5 months ago #
OC2PS: This form of branding is acceptable because it is attached as part of their service. We would not have problems with the watermark branding on a YouTube or Vimeo video. Similarly, we don't have a problem with this branding because it occurs within the framework of the login frame that comes from the other service.
It is important for branding to not be added without asking, but it is also equally important for the user of the "login service" to know where their information is going as well. This Social Login plugin works by routing logins through a third party service. The existence of that service being used, as opposed to direct communication with the website one is trying to log into, is important information.
The powered by link, in this case, is coming from the service, not from the plugin.
It's irrelevant whether the link comes from the plugin or from the stuff inside the iframe.
No, in fact, it is very much not irrelevant. If a third-party service provides services with branding, and a plugin exists to interface with that service, then the plugin is not at fault. Even if the authors are the same.
Furthermore, charging money for a service, even to remove that link, is also acceptable. Services requires servers, servers cost money. We may not much like their business model, but it is not an unacceptable one.
Also, I submit to you that I would never log in to any site using the OneAll service, because I would never trust my login credentials to a third party system. Therefore the branding is important because that way I know to whom my credentials would be going before they are sent there.
Otto,
Thanks for weighing in. I wouldn't use this plugin.
That said, can you clarify some aspects?
If a third-party service provides services with branding, and a plugin exists to interface with that service, then the plugin is not at fault. Even if the authors are the same.
What's that again? The service itself does not gain the site-owner's permission to display the links either, BTW.
Furthermore, I'd like to distinguish between "branding" and "linking", the latter being more insidious.
it is also equally important for the user of the "login service" to know where their information is going as well.
Furthermore, charging money for a service, even to remove that link, is also acceptable.
Don't we have a contradiction on our hands here?
If WPORG considers, as a matter of principle, it important for folks to know that their info is going to a 3rd party, then how is it acceptable that the 3rd party link is removed on payment of a fee by the site owner?
(w.r.t. business models, I understand people put in time, effort, resources like servers behind their services...they can charge for their plugin/service if they want...I just question the deception)
Posted 5 months ago #
What's that again? The service itself does not gain the site-owner's permission to display the links either, BTW.
They're using the service, therefore they have to agree to the terms of that service at some point. Also, if you're doing something to include content from a third-party, then you implicitly agree to allow that sort of thing.
Consider various sharing-service bars. Most of these work based on javascript which pulls the sharing code from that service. Those can display links to the sharing service as well. The code isn't in the plugin, or the javascript, it's in the data returned by the service. Should all of those be banned as well?
The guideline you're invoking is intended towards a specific type of behavior that we see a lot and which is harmful. The fact that it is written rather broadly is intentional (I know, I wrote it), because sometimes we need to use them in broad contexts in order to get the message across to people doing spammy things unintentionally.
But those guidelines are not intended to be absolute and not meant to be used as "clubs" to enforce our way of thinking. That's why I called them "guidelines" instead of "rules". In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the list at all. I wish the list didn't exist. But we need it sometimes, so it exists for those purposes.
When you use a service, then you have to accept that services conditions. If you agree to their conditions, then you agreed to their conditions. A plugin can do anything if the user must agree to it first. In this case, if you're installing a plugin and setting up a link to that service, then you're agreeing to it, in my view. Since the plugin is not being deceptive, and it's clear that it's using their login services, then you are expressly agreeing to whatever their conditions are.
Note that links inside iframes like that don't confer google juice in quite the same way that, say, hidden links in footers and such do. That sort of thing is the reason the guideline exists. Using it as a club to make services "behave" according to what we think is not its purpose and not our original intent.
Posted 4 months ago #
hello Xiomax
please where can i post the
<div style="overflow:hidden;width:37px;height:37px;">
<?php do_action('oa_social_login'); ?>
</div>
thank you
Posted 2 months ago #
Hello
How can I remove the branding "Powered by OneAll social Login" below the social login buttons?
Isn't there any way to do it ?
thank you.
Posted 2 months ago #
I would love to see the branding optional.
Posted 2 months ago #
The $9 a month access plan removes all the branding.
Posted 1 month ago #
@Otto
Thank you so much for the honest and clear review. You just saved me a huge headache should I have gone ahead and installed this plugin. The idea that I need a 3rd party service for this is just plain stupid and deceptive to anyone who comes across this plugin. Having seen and used a few other similar plugins (yours included) I know that there is zero reason to even consider involving a 3rd party.
Once again, thank you, your comments saved me from a serious headache down the road.
Posted 1 month ago #
I was looking for proper ways to remove the branding myself. I know already of two hacks that can easily remove this without altering any of the plugin's code.
However, I came here to ask Claude Schlesser, the plugin author, who is also the founder of OneAll by the way (*), whether he provides a way to remove the branding. This thread has been informative and I am now also considering moving away from OneAll and this plugin and use a plugin that doesn't require a 3rd party.
Anyone care to recommend a good plugin that doesn't involve a 3rd party?
Cheers.
(*) To Claude, if I may: it is rather disappointing seeing you calling someone else names (e.g. "blind") in a public forum, regardless of the context. As the founder/CEO of a public service, this kind of conduct is unprofessional enough for people to stop using your product even if it's a good one. Also, you seem to defend the plugin as completely unrelated to OneAll as "external" service, when in fact it's not. You provide both that "external" service and the plugin together but seemingly wish to be perceived differently here (on this forum, in relation to the plugin) and in relation to OneAll. It's a bit of a skewed stance, really.
I agree that some messages about your plugin or addressed to you in this thread were a tad aggressive, and I do understand your perspective, but I have a feeling that your intervention here has not helped you/your case very much. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted 1 month ago #
Several people asked how to hide the branding, and people actually know. But somehow no one can share the code/ a quick explication of how to hide it?
Posted 1 month ago #
I guess that's for several reasons, one being that the author will then change his code to counter it and then we're back to square one. The branding can always be hidden, regardless of how Claude changes his code so he may as well himself provide a way to remove it.
I'llmove away from OneAll in the future and will post my hacks here, but until then you can email me at normadize-at-gmail-com and I'll be happy to help you.
Posted 1 month ago #
Simple add this to your stylesheet
#social_login_container
{
width: 215px;
height: 35px;
overflow: hidden;
margin: 20px;
}
Have fun
Posted 1 month ago #
This plugin seems pretty sweet although I'm not sure the implications of using a 3rd party service down the road. The plugin branding is annoying but not a deal breaker. I know why it's there and I don't disagree with it. I don't think the branding IS that obvious. I fully installed the plugin and then realized the branding is there and you have to pay to remove it. ::head slap:: problem is, I couldn't find a comparable plugin that works on WPengine. WordPress Social Login seems legit but doesn't work on WPengine... Alas, I am forced to use this plugin for now.
Posted 3 weeks ago #
> I'm not sure the implications of using a 3rd party service down the road.
When you decided to connect with Google or whatever, you agreed to connect to a third party (Google) didn't you?
You must log in to post.
