Paid Service and DG Account

I'm seeing a similar/same question "White Label User Login Possible" and replies from DG.  Sorry.  This topic can be closed/deleted.

Velu

Hi Velu,

Thanks for your questions. I have added them to our internal discussion which sprang from the while label issue you mention - tracking internally as #AN-19133. We are still finalizing our paid offerings, so feedback like this is incredibly important.

We do not have any plans to move away from a centralized authentication system in the foreseeable future.

Thanks George.

Do you think white labeling will be available in March 2011 release?

Regards,

Velu

Hi Velu,

That's part of the discussion in #AN-19133. I will let you know how it pans out.

So when will you remove the DG logo and link to your terms of service from the login/registration block? It's fine in the free plan, but in the paid plan, not a good idea.

I doubt that anyone who is serious about his business will use DG if you don't change this.

The DG logo and terms of service link is a very, very bad idea. I personally won't use DG if you don't change this, and I think a lot of other users think the same!

Thank you for the feedback, bence. We're still looking into exactly how we'll handle this, so it's very valuable to us. I have added your comments to #AN-19133 .

Yeah, that DG logo and link to your TOS is a suicide. Your service is otherwise great, but you will lose a lot of paid customers if you don't remove that logo.

Or at least pay affiliate commission for the referrers. You ask for something (to promote Drupal Gardens), and you don't want to give back anything in return?

The Drupal Gardens logo in the footer is much less annoying than the logo in the login block.

I agree with the posters above.

I am certainly happy to pay for DG and all it offers if things evolve in terms of speed of connection and extra themes etc but not if the DG logo is on the login

Thanks for posting your thoughts about the DG logo in the footer and in the login overlay. We've been talking about a white label option for a while and there are different levels of white labeling that we could do. There could be "light" white labeling where the DG logo is removed from the footer and the login. And for customers who have the budget for more comprehensive white labeling, we could offer a custom home page. From what I've read in this discussion, it sounds like you're describing the need for light white labeling. We've got a full plate of work for the next few months but we'll definitely consider adding this to the roadmap. If other people want the same thing, please speak up so we know.  Thanks

Linea Rowe
Drupal Gardens Product Manager

I can quickly bring in some customers for DG if at least the "light" white labeling is included in the March release.  I'm into helping with building and maintaining web sites for the customers who don't have computer knowledge nor having the interest/time to learn.  Without white labeling, it is not possible to convince them.  Can we expect the light version in March release?

Velu

And what about the link to your TOS? It is written in English, what if my audience doesn't speak English? What if I want to use my OWN Terms of service text?

Maybe this central login feature is not so great; it certainly has advantages, but a lot of disadvantages, too.

Hi all,

Thanks again for your feedback. As Linea mentions, the roadmap for the next few months is pretty well established, but if we see many more requests for this kind of whitelabeling, we may be able to make adjustments.

We probably wouldn't allow for a totally custom ToS, since members of a site still have to agree to the Drupal Gardens terms as long as the site is hosted on the service, but I created a project to investigate allowing addendums specific to a site - tracking internally as #AN-22603.

I think DG has just signed its death warrant for commercial uptake.  We have decided to move on.

What's the point of the single sign on feature? I understand that you can promote DG for free that way, but is it any good for the Gardeners?

You reinvented OpenID, which is a better solution by the way, Drupal core supports it as of version 6.0.

I think the ToS from DG should be for Site owners and not for Site Members/Visitors.  The Site Owner in turn should have their own ToS (which obviously should not violate any of DG's ToS, and this should be one of the terms from DG to Site Owner).

When a Site Member violates a term, then DG should notify the Site Owner of the same and have the Site Owner warn the member.  If Site Owner is not taking enough action, then DG should remove the member and warn the Site Owner.  If problem still persists, then DG should warn the Site Owner or remove the Site or Site Owner.

Couple of things I noticed relevant to white labeling.

Even if I have mapped a Site to a domain (eg. www.mycompany.com), when I click the Login link in the Forum page, it shows waiting for 'www.drupalgardens.com/......' in the status bar.

Also in the login page, when you hover over the Cancel and Register links, the DG url is shown in the status bar.

"I think the ToS from DG should be for Site owners and not for Site Members/Visitors"

I agree with above post.

I also agree, TOS should be for site owners, not for registered users.  DG is a great service, it will be a big shame if issues with TOS and whitelabeling prevent take up. 

Don't shoot yourselves in the foot!  This could be a deal breaker for many agencies thinking of using DG.  It would be for us.

Once a person joins your site, they become a Drupal Gardens user with the rights to create sites and often to create content on the site they joined. Because of this, they have to agree to the Drupal Gardens Terms of Service. Even if they don't create their own site, the fact that they can create content on someone else's site means that they have to agree to the Gardens terms.

I hope this clarifies why all users - both site creators and the people who join sites - agree to the same agreement.

Linea Rowe
Drupal Gardens Product Manager

joining posters. happy to pay for white label. major issue when it comes to build and maintain a site for a client. even worse is the 'turn off' to end users. the glue to DG is already in the quality of the service itself.. it's gets too sticky here for myself as a business owner.

Linea, we understand why it is currently like this.  But see it from a site visitor's stand point.  It's very confusing.  Any serious business will think twice to confuse their site visitors by asking them to agree to ToS of their hoster's directly.

By site visitor I meant some one who wants to participate in a forum.

Velu

But what if my registered users DON'T want to create Drupal Gardens sites? Then why should they register at DG?

I understand that this is a marketing channel for you to generate leads. But sorry, I don't want to promote DG for free, on top of the monthly fee, which is higher than the fee of a general web hosting service.

The relatively higher monthly fee is justified, because you provide automatic upgrades and module compatibility, and extra bug fixes. This is what an average hosting company won't perform. But if you say that on top of the fee I have to promote DG for free, and I cannot opt out, then it is too much for me, I will host Drupal myself. If DG is great, then I will refer other people, but don't force me to advertise it on my own website.

About the TOS: it is my responsibility to create a TOS for my visitor, not yours, provided you get rid of this central login/register feature.

I'm evaluating whether to use DG for smaller clients of my business and couldn't agree more with all the concerns above:

- I can't sell this to my clients without at least the light white labeling

- If I pay for a white label version, I'd like to set up my own TOS and not have my client be a general DG user. I don't want them to be able to create their own site. That's what I expect to pay for as part of the white label price. Otherwise, as mentioned before there's no incentive for me to switch over.

Would love to see this in the March release, have some clients where this would be a great fit, but not under the current structure.

We are considering light white labeling for login dialog, etc.  Currently designing the implications to resolve this soon - stay tuned.

Just thought i to should weigh in to make sure i have done my part to stress the importance of this issue.  I am currently designing two websites using DG.  These two websites are planned to be hosted on the paid service, plus many more down the road.  I cannot stress enough how vtial the white labeling is for a designer like myself.  The last thing i need is for my clients to feel like my service is no longer needed.  We all know that even with the great tools provided in DG alot of other skill sets are still utilized to create a well organized and functional website.  If my clients feel like creating these websites is as easy as making a video in i-movie it can seriously hurt my price point.  Implied ease of use can be devistating.  

And what about non-English DG sites? Linking to a TOS written in English on non-English sites is unprofessional and ugly. Or you don't support non-English content?

I and my clients don't mind paying for hosting, but would never use DG unless it provided white labeling. You have a nice service, but you're going to lose a lot of business if you don't provide it.

Thanks for your feedback. As we noted in earlier posts, we're consering white labeling for the login dialogs and TOS. We'll have updates on this in the coming weeks.

Linea Rowe
Drupal Gardens Product Manager

+1

We have already implemented this feature for enterprise customers (those w/ more than 100 high traffic sites) - we need to work on the delivery of this feature to the mass market - but be certain we are going in that direction.