No, I didn't. Think I'm opted in for all of the emails.

That's odd....here, check this link(if you'd be so kind) and see if any boxes are unchecked. :)

Considering that for the most obvious use case (mine as mentioned above) there is no serious potential for abuse I am openminded to it being intentional. They know that people dont like captcha (see the text which they add on the page with the captcha) yet they dont fix it. This is evidence of it being intentionally done.

I agree that they probably dont care about customers in the sense that 1 million customers having to deal with captcha for every such mail is less important to them than one web programmer spending 5 hours to fix it.

If that was the intent then you should have quoted me better and not something random from me which doesnt contain any presumed misrepresentation.

I meant intentionally done for malicious reasons....i'm sorry for not being more clear on that.

(As for being openminded[on gog's motives with regards to the thread topic], from your posts here you seem to be searching more for bad intent to prove your ideas[and quick to attribute gog's actions with regards to captcha to the same bad intent] and less on truly analyzing gog's behavior/intent from a neutral standpoint on the matter.....i.e. you seem to be looking for bad things gog has done or is trying to do here because of your distrust and dislike of google captcha)

You under represent the amount of effort needed here, I think....they'd have to test it and implement it across the site....that would likely take more than one person and somewhat more time to do(and cost them money as a result, both to pay the person doing it and the one who made the software/captcha if they paid for a commercial solution).

A good number of the posts you made seem to contain possible misrepresentation(on gog's intent behind using captchas, etc), though.....but fair enough....I will try to be more careful in the future.

They're all ticked (an there's nothing in my email spam folder). I don't really mind though because I likely wouldn't go for any of the offers anyway.

Edit: To be more on topic, I don't think Gog want to irritate their customers. I imagine they either don't care enough (or don't think a large enough number of their customers will care) to change the captchas or they're getting something in return from Google beyond protecting discount codes from bots.

ANY of them? So there's nothing you want from around half the catalog that's on sale? :)

This....agreed 100%....as the saying goes(more or less): "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity/laziness"

The evidence (unnecessary captcha use while knowing people dislike it) does point to something bad. So its obvious that I look into this direction. That doesnt change the 'openminded'. However I have not seen any evidence suggesting anything "innocent". So why would I assume "innocent". That doesnt make sense to me. And there is no need to particularly look for anything bad. The bad was put right into my face.
Note also that this thread is not just about the captcha use but also about not telling me upfront that a captcha is between me and the discount. If it would be the captcha implementaion only the 'laziness' argument would be more believable to me.

If you were looking first and foremost for truth and not a pre conceived notion(not saying you are, but it seems like it), you'd look for answers on either side(as to reasons for gog using such things) and not automatically assume bad intent. By doing such you are being somewhat closeminded and biased towards one set of stances/ideas on this topic.

In analyzing things for objective bad/good(or in general) one should analyze reasons for things being done(with proper evidence on both sides if available) and THEN come to a conclusion...NOT to start with a conclusion and then try to find things to support it.

(Also your somewhat misleading/biased thread title alone shows you likely have your mind already made up on the matter and seemingly just want to paint some of gog's actions as bad because you dislike captcha so much)

Again, by bad I mean really bad....as in if gog were trying to intentionally harm people somehow(financially/other ways)& for truly vile reasons...from what evidence i've seen this is less them being truly bad and more just being cheap and lazy....which is somewhat bad but not "bad" levels of bad(if you get my meaning) or them trying to be outright evil for some reason.

It's on the ENTIRE site(sales/some other functions)...so you should know this by now....it's not like it's some guarded secret(or some evil plot against the user base).

And yes it is very likely due to them being cheap and lazy, no matter what you want to read into it due to your dislike of google captcha.

Ghostery blocks those annoying CAPTCHA LEL!

I use a different approach which is based on evidence. I dont want to overspend on guessing what kind of reasons they could or couldnt have - I know far too little about GOG insides to do that.

The actions are bad. There is no need to paint them. You may be confusing actions with intent or sth. I dont see implication of intent in the thread title.

If thats so I dont know because apart from these Emails I have not seen evidence of captcha here for a very long time.

No, you seem to just go based on guesswork and assuming the worst based on a few emails and your dislike of google captcha, if this thread is any indication....that's not much in the way of evidence, and you seem to be looking for bad things instead of just what is the objective truth on the topic at hand due to your bias against google captcha.

You don't need to guess....common sense also works well, and it suggests that being cheap and lazy is likely why they do such.

The title is(in part) "gog captcha deception".....that alone is a somewhat loaded and biased title....you are framing it(the thread and how you want people to react) a certain way(even if unintentional or not for bad reasons) from the get go and it shows.

(Essentially what you are somewhat doing is akin to those "news outlets" that frame a story one way to get the desied response...example of said articles online: "these people are the baddest[or best] ever, and here's why you should think such"

Instead of just putting down the facts and letting people decide as they may without influence, you led[even if unintentionally] with an op post and title[and other posts] that can/could influence the outcome of how they take such presented information)

You also need it to log in if you log out and in too many times on one machine or login on other machines for the first time(iirc).....lucky for you that's not the case.
=======================================

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification. :)

Maybe you should contact gog and tell them about it? Your call.

I think you are also guessing too much about me and not just about GOG here... I try to express myself in a precise manner. You "smooth over" that and just get an "impression" which does not at all represent me nor my stance. You totally miss (which is obvious as pretty much everybody does it) that what I express here does not in a quantitave manner correlate with my opinion/s on GOG. This thread here has a purpose and I dont try to judge the whole of GOG in a fair manner or anything of the sort. I am pointing out a problem and posting stuff relating to it.

This is (what I meant with) "guessing". If you need to add "likely" to a statement to make it properly true it usually is "guessing".

Far as I can tell the thread title says exactly what it needs to say to describe the intended topic. Give an alternative instead to demonstrate your argurment?

Sorry for posting this way...I messed up the formatting and gog won't let me try posting it again and I don't want to rewrite it all again(numbered parts of your post correspond to numbered parts of my reply below it):

1. Well I am critiquing your posts and the topic, and to do so I have to critique(in general) the one posting them and list any flaws or negatives I see to present as thorough a response as possible so that the one I am replying to(in this case yourself) can see what I mean and why I think as such(and then take steps to reply accordingly).

Also it's not how precise you are/have been(with regards to the topic at hand) that I am trying to criticize, but your obvious bias against google captcha and how it influenced your stance and replies/posts here in this thread.
------------------------------------

2. So you don't think gog is doing very bad things by using google captcha or that google captcha is bad?
-------------------------------------

3. No, but it IS on your opinions on google captcha, from what i've read so far....and you seem to think gog is trying to do bad to the user base by using it(feel free to correct me if i'm wrong here).
-------------------------------------

4. If it's a problem why not report it to support and ask them about it? Or why not lead with a better more neutral thread title?
-------------------------------------

5. I was using such words to show that while it is close to certain i'm right there is a small margin for error and i'm trying to show that I could be(but likely am not) wrong here....to show some humility and be more open minded.
--------------------------------------

6. It is written in a way that would likely slant people's views to a more negative one(people tend to assume the worst when reading such things) and isn't written in a more neutral way.

Here's a good one(thought it up just now): "Gog using google captcha for sales email discount codes....your thoughts on this?"

That gives the facts of what is going on, paints it as neither good or bad(what gog is doing) and allows people to come into a thread without any influence(either way, good or bad) while asking people's honest opinions on the matter.

The problem with the title is that there is no deception. Your original argument is that them sending you a discount code should come with a disclaimer that there is a captha on the page if there is one. That doesn't make sense for several reasons.

1. It's a marketing email offering a discount, not a terms of service document.
2. The email still clearly outlines "This email is for information purposes only and does not constitute an offer." showing that it is only intended for information purposes and does not actually outline an agreement.
3. The fact that they don't outline general functionality of their website in the email isn't a deception. Would you say it's deceptive for them to not mention that you'll need to click a button on their page? It doesn't make any sense.
4. Captha's are a commonplace web tool that many websites use. It's not abnormal for there to be one being used on a site like this, in this circumstance so there is no reasonable expectation to warned that there may be one.


You want an alternate title? How about: I have an irrational fear of capthas and it makes me have unreasonable expectations that I should be warned about them whenever I may potentially encounter one.