Last week, we made a major change to our document preview system to prevent theft. (Details here.)
Within hours, we began receiving feedback from Doxpop users who had come to depend on the "scrolling pane" preview system that we have used for many years. Apparently that method of previewing documents has been built into many business processes, and the sudden change ruined the week for many people.
Although the change was made for good reasons that will have to be addressed in the long run, we obviously screwed up by not understanding the value that the scrolling pane system provides. We're going to put the old preview back, and then spend some more time looking for a better solution. Thanks to everyone who provided immediate feedback. We needed to hear your message, and we appreciate it.
So... What's next? We still have to deal with the image theft that is occurring for several important reasons:
- Indiana and Michigan Statutes make it clear that copy fee income is to be used as a partial funding source for Recorders (Indiana) and Registers of Deeds (Michigan.) If we allow this theft to continue, it ultimately hurts the taxpayers.
- The majority of businesses that don't engage in theft are forced to compete with the few dishonest businesses that reduce their expenses through thievery. That's not fair.
- Doxpop has an obligation to protect the Recorders & Registers we work with. We are aware from observing other vendors that when companies who work with public offices don't take the trust that is placed in them seriously, substantial losses can occur in a very short time.
3 comments:
Thank you! There has to be technology to determine who is doing that and can you you the state attorney generals in all these states to go after them?...David
While I do very much understand your predicament, and the need for security in order to protect state legislated income for Recorders, forcing users to purchase every single viewed document is clearly not a fair solution, when many of those documents are not required by users to be printed. We already pay a subscription for the convenience of viewing documents remotely. To collect fees on behalf of Recorders for documents that users simply want to view without printing would seem to run contrary to the law as written, underlining the fact that there is a question over the legality of Recorders collecting fees for unprinted documents. I am glad that you rolled back the recent changes.
I would also say that the small preview pane is a not a particularly 'great' answer, but it is a workable and understandable compromise. I would encourage you to keep this solution while developing methods to track and tackle the few who use this site contrary to its terms and conditions.
You mention your competitor who faced a serious issue regarding document theft. I am aware of the incident you're referencing. I would note that despite this setback happening some time ago, this company has not resorted to restricting access to viewing documents in any way, whether wholesale or through a partial screen viewer.
Thank you for going back to the previous way documents are shown. Like many other companies that you heard from, Diversified National Title depends on the ability to view documents to see exactly what we need to purchase to provide the services our clients expect to see. Theft is vile and those who practice it deserve to punished, but I am willing to wager the thieves are in the minority of those using your services.
Post a Comment