Having a single confirmation step to prevent "oops" clicks doesn't seem like a dark pattern to me.

Confirmation steps should only be used if the action can't be easily undone.

It can't be easily undone if it was "clicked" by an automated process rather than a human being.

And when a user receives an email saying they've been unsubscribed because an automated system prefetched the link, they won't be concerned or worried or confused at all. (Especially when this happens _every time_.

And then the automated system clicks the undo link... Problem solved!

Which fires off a new email thanking them for re-subscribing.

Soon your inbox is full.

You are right, it doesn't seem like one, but to pissed off users it doesn't matter. If you, for any reason, piss people off to the point where they complain to your registrar or your hosting provider it is bad news. Doesn't matter why. So, the answer is to make it as easy as possible to get removed, which is why people use GET.

I have seen this with spam, and I have seen it with DMCA requests. My hosting provider will issue me a warning for any DMCA request that they will shut me down within 48 hours if I don't comply. Even when it is clearly not a valid request. Even when the content has already been removed. They don't even check, they just say "do it or else". And I pay them thousands per month. Godaddy is the same way, I have had people complain to them, and then they threaten to shut down the domain.

When you have been threatened repeatedly to be shut down for operating normally you don't take any chances. It isn't worth it.

Have a single "I clicked by mistake" button that resubscribes instead.

Yes, the automated system prefetching links will always click said button.

Not if the button issues a POST request.

The button I was responding about was an "undo unsubscribe". A bot won't click that button, but may follow a link.

Right, I assumed the button would be linked from a subsequent email confirming the unsubscription. You're right, a button in the unsubscription page doesn't help.

The majority of people who clicked on the link did it on purpose, so a better pattern would be to make it unsubscribe immediately with a "didn't meant to unsubscribe? click here to undo" link afterwards.

You're making the mistake that this very article is highlighting: it's not just "people" who click links. An overzealous mail client or browser preloading links would force unsubscribe you without your knowledge or ability to undo.

A single step, a button push, to confirm an unsubscription is fine.

> A single step, a button push, to confirm an unsubscription is fine.

No, it really isn't.

Lots of mailing lists operate exactly as the person you replied to mentioned where after unsubscribing you are given a chance to undo that action. That's a far more respectful way to operate.

The user isn't going to see the "Oops! I need to undo" button when their email client helps themself behind the scenes.

Yet somehow lots of places use the click-one-link-to-unsubscribe method and it seems to work. What are they doing differently?

The follow up confirmation screen feels slimy to me like some kind of cable company retention tactic. That's why I called it a dark pattern.

I don't think it's slimy. They could provide a simple, complete unsubscribe button in addition to a list of subtopics to check/uncheck. Maybe I only want to unsubscribe from their blog, or I still want to receive feature update news but not their sales catalog.

As a person who ends up clicking a lot of unsubscribe links: I definitely see it as slimy.

I would rather companies just didn't subscribe me, so having to click an unsubscribe link is already a problem. The more confirmation they have, the more I take it as biased and manipulative.

If I click a link to claims to unsubscribe me, then that's exactly what it should do. I have no problem with a page to manage account preferences, but don't label the UI element that leads there as unsubscribe.

Do you also not like links called "Contact"?

None of your responses acknowledge or challenge the very real problem that automated systems and expected behavior of GET reqeusts impact your desired behavior of click-to-unsubscribe.

In the spectrum of "buttholedesign", using proper web standards to make sure an action is being taken deliberately is far lower than "intentionally low-contrast skip buttons" and "call to cancel subscription".

Are we all going to just ignore the fact that lots of mailing list operators seem to be able to present a link to unsubscribe without triggering the bot problem?

I think having a URL that unsubscribes people just via a GET request is far more likely to cause problems, 'respectful', 'legal', or otherwise.

What definition of fine are you using?

I don't want to be presented with a confirmation box every time I change something. Nobody reads them - they just click the button that will make it go away.

> I don't want to be presented with a confirmation box every time I change something.

That's much broader scope than what's being discussed here.

> Nobody reads them - they just click the button that will make it go away.

That statement is false. Many people read and care about confirmations.

What you're talking about is very specific personal preferences, not what is generally considered "fine".

It's not all that specific. What I'm describing isn't that far off from what Microsoft found when Windows Vista was presenting a lot of UAC elevation prompts.

The thread is talking about situations where an automated system would 'click' the link though. The automated system is probably not going to go "oh oops, resubbed"

You could probably automate the POST action though. Equivalent of $('#unsub-button').click() on the unsubscribe page load

Github also does it for their logout button for good reason. Is that a dark evil pattern to keep you logged in to their ecosystem? Or just something someone would say who doesn't understand it?

I trust Github. If it were up to me, I'd remove the logout confirmation from Github but having it there doesn't particularly bother me.

When Facebook does it, I do have a problem with it because I don't think their motives are as pure.