Re: How to know whether a person clicked a link in an email

[Lou Quillio <public -at- quillio -dot- com>]

Dick Margulis wrote:
> David Neeley wrote:
> 
>> Although I generally agree with Lou's comments regarding privacy,
>> there are still some proper uses for knowing whether a message was
>> opened.
> 
> Agreed. I've worked in situations where there was a legitimate purpose
> to knowing whether the recipient had indeed accessed a document. Whether
> using a technique is ethical or not depends on the purpose for which it
> is applied.

No.  It depends on whether the purpose and practice are disclosed.

> Lou jumped to an unfortunate conclusion about both Caroline's intent

No.  Since it's obvious that forthright acknowledgment requests are
always available -- on paper (initial here), in person (handshake),
or electronically (let me know when you receive this) -- what is the
need for stealth?  Seriously, something's up with that.

Don't say user convenience ...

> If you want to know whether an email
> has been read, just tag it for a return receipt.

... because we already have that.  One click.

> The technique I offered was not meant to conceal anything other than to
> conceal a long and ugly URL behind a one-word hyperlink. Sending a plain
> text email with the link spelled out would work just as well.

Yes, I understand.  Nevertheless, you have tagged the link with
personally-identifying information and not disclosed the fact.

Your intentions may be benign in the eyes of all involved.  They may
be benign in your eyes and malevolent in your target's.  They may be
malevolent all-around.  Straight shooters disclose what they're
doing, so that the other party may decide for itself whether it
wants to play your game.

Less than that is manipulation, and lying.  Even small lies are lies.

All we need do is ask ourselves if any of the targets of such ploys
would object if they knew the details.  The answer is always yes,
since we can't know.  Therefore, explain it, or don't do it.

We tacitly ask this sort of permission all the time.  "Click here to
confirm your subscription", for example.  The user knows he's
identified himself, natch.  Same here:  "Click here to login to
*your* account."  Nobody's got a problem with that.

"I want to know which of my correspondents actually followed a link
I sent them, but I don't want the Heisenberg taint of telling them
I'm monitoring."  There's no doubt in my mind which side of the line
that falls on.

Our friend Caroline's company is exploring its options.  I hope I've
shed some light on the ethical shortcomings of undisclosed (or
under-disclosed) user tracking, and that it'll help inform their
practice.  I've used admittedly strong terms because it's a very
serious matter.  This is an area where normally ethical people start
to wobble and rationalize.  That's a bad mistake.  And it can
backfire, besides.

LQ

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

Doc-To-Help 2005 now has RoboHelp Converter and HTML Source: Author 
content and configure Help in MS Word or any HTML editor. No 
proprietary editor! *August release. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.