V3 Update is a mess!

Hi!

V2 was no longer legally compliant. The changes were absolutely necessary.

The new solution is based 100% on the published requirements of the data protection authorities.

A star for a free complete relaunch to meet new data protection developments is very disappointing.

(A new plugin would not have been a solution. Users of the V2 version would not have received an upgrade.

And honestly, anyone running 20 websites should test updates before rolling them out. Yes, the new version requires a lot of change – but only because it is required by law. So please to punish us for helping you to fullfill new legal requirements. One star would have been ok, if we would have left you at V2, not for providing V3.)

VERY good schreiben, aber 1 Stern geben, weil man 20 Websites – einfach mal so ohne sich die Updates vorher anzusehen – upgedated hat und dann etwas Stress hatte: sowos tuad ma ned!

Und na, Du hast die Websites ned repairn müssen, sondern hast die Websites dank unserer V3 rechtlich auf den neuesten Stand bringen k?nnen.

Convinced? If not, we invite you for a beer to get you over the shock that getting legally compliant can be some work. ?? Just email me.

LG Peter

I – of course – tested the upgrade. That does not change the fact I had to completely rework GDPR-compliance of most affected websites because I could not leave them with an outdated, unsupported version of a plugin, could I?

The poor rating was not for having that work to do – I get paid for that. It was for bad programming practise of publishing an upgrade that breaks current installations without prior warning. And it is for silently changing the policy on free/non-free components, stripping functions off running installations and making them premium.

Both factors let you seem unreliable and unpredictable to a certain degree, which people should be able to consider when evaluating the use of this software by reading reviews.

Oh, and before you get into your “come on, its a few bucks on functions only commercial users need”: I am not upset about having to pay. I am upset about HOW you made people pay.

So it’s funny you should invite me to a beer, because my complaint, as an open source guy who contributes a lot, is about the “free as in free speech” part, not the “free beer” part!

We removed functions (plural) from the free version? We removed Facebook Pixel. A tool that is useful for paid marketing campaigns.

We gave a lot of functions. The new popup, the generator for the privacy statement (which isn’t even included in many paid versioms of other tools), the styling options, the Matomo integration (which is super important for websites in the future as it’s an excellent and free way to get full analytics data). We took care that people that can’t spend a lot of money on their website can still have a legally compliant website.

So we took one tool that is really important for websites with paid advertising and gave on the other hand options that are essential for everyone. I call that a fair deal.

And to the beer. You finished your answer in German slang. Which sounded nice and made me belief that an explanation and a beer could be the right thing. A casual way to say sorry that we upset you.

Peter

Another word to “free as in free speech” not as “in free beer”.

Our change supports “free as in free speech” as it encourages to use Matomo.

Our change doesn’t support “free as free use of Facebook” anymore. Facebook isn’t free and Facebook Pixel isn’t free, too. The “free” use of Facebook Pixel is paid with the personal data of the website users (and a lot of money if the data is used for retargeting).

So no reason to support Facebook for free. Many reasons to exchange Facebook against tons of free code for cookie popups (weeks of coding) and tons of free legal text (weeks of legal work).

Best regards Peter

Thank you for adjusting the rating and for your detailled feedback! Peter