Would you prefer posting from Facebook/Twitter accounts?

You may have noticed that, for several months, blogs hosted on WordPress.com (like Burke’s Brainwork or the Legacy Five blog) have had the option to comment from your Facebook or Twitter accounts. A recent plugin upgrade has made that available to sites like this one—Wordpress sites that aren’t hosted on WordPress.com. Do you like the simplicity of having one option – posting with name/email – or would you like to see Facebook/Twitter options added?


For more Southern Gospel news and commentary—follow our RSS feed or sign up for our email updates!

36 Letters to the Editor

Southern Gospel Journal welcomes letters to the editor. We will post the most thoughtful and insightful submissions. Ground rules: Don't attack or belittle groups or fellow posters, or advance heresies rejected by orthodox Christianity. Do keep comments positive, constructive, and on topic.
  1. As long as we still have the option of commenting the old way, it’s okay with us. If it was exclusively Facebook and Twitter, we couldn’t comment.

    • Even though I technically *can*, if a site restricts comments to ONLY Facebook/Twitter, I typically won’t comment. I find the privacy settings on social networks to be consistently annoying. 🙂

  2. I agree. It is fine as an option, but not exclusively. I do wish the old way would maintain my sign in information (all of the other sites still do including WordPress ones), but that is another issue.

    • I was thinking you might be one of the ones that would prefer to have other options available!

  3. I echo the opinions others. Add whatever options you will, but if a Facebook/Twitter account becomes necessary I wouldn’t be commenting anymore.

    • I agree; I think that sites that have restricted it to Facebook/Twitter have lost more comments than just mine because of it. That’s probably my biggest concern with switching over to the new system option – on WordPress.com, they use this same option but do not allow the name/email option. I definitely don’t want that to go away.

  4. What can I say; I haven’t been commenting anyway. The good thing about life on an iPod Touch instead of a computer is it limits one’s browsing on the internet. Like it or not!

    But I will say it is very frustrating to type out an extensive comment and then be taken to a login page for a password I don’t have or don’t remember. I typically give up. Doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re planning on, though.

    • Yes, I’m definitely not going there! That’s more a blogger.com thing.

      Right now, I’m inclined to leave things just as they are unless quite a few people comment and are really excited about the prospect of posting with social media credentials. The more options added, the more confused people might/will get!

  5. I do not want Facebook.

  6. I would probably only post if the option was given to do it both ways. As a rule, I never ever post to a website that doesn’t give the option.

    • Are you saying that you won’t post on websites, generally, unless they have the Facebook option? Or are you saying that you only post if there’s a name/email option, which is also what I do?

      • Sorry Daniel, I should have made it clearer. . .

        I never post to sites that only give one option. I like choices, especially when it comes to the online experience. I don’t like the feeling of NOT having a choice, so if a site only lets me comment if I do it via FB or twitter, etc., then I just won’t comment at all.

      • I see!

  7. I like the name/e-mail option. I’ve had problems with the others and so I very rarely comment on those sites that require the additional sign-ins/passwords.

  8. I rarely comment, just read! I do appreciate what you (and others write). I do not do facebook or twitter because they are not private enough; so I would only use this option. You have some great SG discussions here. Keep up the great work!

    • It seems like there’s quite a consensus in favor of name/email. Thanks, everyone!

  9. no like email thanks

  10. Many people, like myself, do not use Facebook/Twitter. So I prefer posting with name/email only.

  11. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other because I don’t really do either. So it’s you all who use those medium’s call.

  12. Yes, yes, yes. Facebook, please!

    • Thanks for your input! I’ll be keeping an eye on the overall trend of preferences.

  13. Regular way and Facebook would be good.

  14. Facebook

  15. I have both Facebook and Twitter accounts, but between the two, find myself using Twitter 90% of the time. I’m fine with keeping the status quo for logging in, but may use the Twitter option from time to time as well, if it was available.

  16. I have a FB account (currently inactivd) which for me proved to be more of an aggravation than an asset. The rules of FB are forever changing, and there are security problems according to what I’ve read. If you couple that with the fact that you cannot cancel/delete an account and IMHO it’s more trouble than it’s worth

  17. I do prefer this method though.

  18. I use either, many times depending on what device I’m using.

  19. I don’t really care how we comment. It would be nice to have a feed like southerngospelcritique has on Facebook. You may already have this, but I don’t see it. It is nice to see all the new posts without coming to the site.

  20. The simplicity of just adding a name and email address is very nice, especially for those who do not have Facebook or Twitter accounts.

    Now, would this plug-in just give the option of commenting with FB/Twitter, or would someone who wishes to comment be required to comment with either one or the other? The latter can be definitely frustrating, and if that’s what the plug-in would do, then we suggest no.

    If it isn’t broken, don’t “fix” it. 🙂

    -TGF

    • It would give the option and wouldn’t require it.

      However, the WordPress.com version of the same plugin *requires* posting from FB/Twitter/a WordPress.com account – i.e., no name/email option.

      >>If it isn’t broken, don’t “fix” it.

      I’m inclined to agree. A preponderance of public and private responses prefer the current name/email system. I’m inclined to just leave it as it is, because the school of hard knocks has taught me that the more options someone has on a website, the more confused users I’ll be dealing with!

      • Okay, that’s relieving to hear! Yes, WordPress.com’s plug-in is extremely frustrating – especially when we don’t have a WP.com account, or certain members have forgotten usernames and passwords!

        “I’m inclined to just leave it as it is, because the school of hard knocks has taught me that the more options someone has on a website, the more confused users I’ll be dealing with!”

        Exactly. 🙂

        -TGF

      • Well, the plugin available here is the same one, but with name/email added back in. My annoyance level with the barrier to posting on, say, Wes Burke’s or Steve Eaton’s sites, is high enough that I was only going to install it if there was a huge demand for it.

      • Oh. Well, thankfully, as you said, it does not look like the majority of readers are clamoring for it. “Barrier” is a good description for that plug-in…

        -TGF

  21. Am on Facebook. Not much of a twitter person at all. Sorry!