"Powered by" link below Social Network icons

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 www.ads-software.com Plugin team. If required I can also provide the corresponding email.

Regards,

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 – www.ads-software.com
[email protected]

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 www.ads-software.com 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.

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)

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.

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

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.

I would love to see the branding optional.