Talk:Badoo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:01, 29 August 2009

Started in 2003 or 2006?

The current info contradicts itself. Luis Dantas (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

As Agoust 10, Badoo is still unavailable from South Korean IP's. It looks like is having a php problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.98.120.147 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This is now a site within the top 100 on Alexa and has featured in a report on Yahoo finance. I believe it now has sufficient notablity to be an article. Lumos3 13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Rewrite?

The current entry totally looks like an advertisement, or typed up by someone at Badoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.90.16 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

The reference No. 4 is a dead link. The Yahoo article has expired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.172.189 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badoo data mining!

I suspect the numbers on Badoo are pure hype! I apear to be a member even tho' I've never signed up or responded to any mail.... I'm sure it's pure cut and past info from numerous failed dating and networking sites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.96.26 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. The data is highly questionable. I only found out about Badoo because of their annoying spam. This article is an obvious advertisement for them, so I've put a cleanup tag at the top, in line with the various criticisms on this talk page. Palefire (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this warrants a change of the site's definition from "social networking site" to "scam." Unless we try to define something like "involuntary social networking" as a type of business activity. Most of the "members" are being harvested and signed up automatically and without their consent via links in spam emails, which create usernames and passwords for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

I see there is modification wars going around whether or not the "invitation" messages are spam. My personal experience couldn't be more telling; I got one of these "messages" telling me I've got a friend message at Badoo. Trying to see it I was forced to register. After registering there was NONE massages!! This is total scam, don't give ANY of your personal info to this site..... --81.197.76.159 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a similar thing - although I didn't bother registering, I could tell it was spam.

It's a bit of a difficult situation when it comes to articles like this. Badoo isn't a proper social networking site, it's just a small money-making scam - the claim that it has 22 million users is clearly rubbish. It's possible that a large number of people have been conned into registering, as you were, but I can't believe it's in the millions. So really the only piece of information the reader needs is "This is a scam site - avoid." But you're always going to get a few energetic users like Geeria (who is actually not a registered user, and whose only contribution to wikipedia has been to advertise Badoo) dragging us into a time-wasting edit war.

I suppose we need to ask an administrator to block the page. It's really an abuse of wikipedia to be PR-ing a scam site like this. And the unsigned and non-existent users who revert our edits are unsurprisingly refusing to discuss this on the talk page.

By the way, 81.197.76.159, it would help if you signed your edits too.

Palefire (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, I thought that was the case with Geeria, and Badoo indeed.. Just dislike the publicity on my part ;) But if it must be done to kill scams..

Oh, just noticed I dont even have an account, created. I have an older account at WP FI --Tntuof (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the spam experience as well, the spam part is true. Geeria, stop acting like an *-Hole arguing it's not proven and leave it there, it's true, they do exactly that. They trick new subscribees into giving away their login credentials to MSN and whetever else and spamming their entire cointact lists.

Kleena (talk)

Wow, I am so glad to see I am not alone. I am absolutely incensed by this article. It is blatant advertising and I can't understand why it is still there. I have added a paragraph about this which will no doubt be removed by the badoo representatives. How can we get rid of this? --Robotics1 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

I have received such a phony email as well, and wondering what it was as I suspected something fishy, I went to wikipedia to see what it said about it. The article confirmed my doubts. Therefore it is a useful article. --Anon (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.170.249 (talk) This user is NOT User:Anon[reply]

I totally agree with this comment. This article is also referenced from other pages as 'proof' that Badoo is a spam site. Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.164.204 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you are saying. You are saying in not so many words that truth should prevail. Badoo is a real entity therefore it is valid to have an article about it? But that article has to reflect the truth, that Badoo is pushing itself by less than ethical means. I guess once you have $30m invested there is a lot of pressure to succeed by fair means or foul. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

RfC: Is Badoo is spam site and should that claim belong on Wikipedia

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Wikipedia is not a place to slam Badoo. It is an encyclopedia, not a place to warn people of the evils of the world. The biggest policy here is WP:NOTSOAPBOX but these policies also have effect: WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:NOT#OR--TParis00ap (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. This is a unique situation and I see it has been in discussion for 2 years. Fact: Badoo is notable enough to warrant an article. Fact: it is indisputably based on unsolicited emails. The article should reflect the truth in a factual way. That would not be soapbox. On the other hand the very existence of the article may be soapbox because it is written in such a way as to promote the company. If we can not say for sure (because it has not been rigorously tested and we can not quote enough properly documented evidence) that the site relies on unsolicited emails then we should be able to say that it is "alleged". That certainly is a fact. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Can anyone provide a notable source that describes Badoo's spamming activities, until one is found they are all just individual POVs and are likely to be deleted.Lumos3 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just quietly deleted some verifiable evidence, the exact quote of their spambot campaign "You have a new message on Badoo!..." Also, scroll to the bottom of your own McAfee reference.

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 :: That is correct. This is a unique situation and I see it has been in discussion for 2 years. Fact: Badoo is notable enough to warrant an article. Fact: it is indisputably based on unsolicited emails. The article should reflect the truth in a factual way. That would not be soapbox. On the other hand the very existence of the article may be soapbox because it is written in such a way as to promote the company. If we can not say for sure (because it has not been rigorously tested and we can not quote enough properly documented evidence) that the site relies on unsolicited emails then we should be able to say that it is "alleged". That certainly is a fact. [[User:Robotics1|Robotics1]] ([[User talk:Robotics1|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 Can anyone provide a notable source that describes Badoo's spamming activities, until one is found they are all just individual POVs and are likely to be deleted.[[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] ([[User talk:Lumos3|talk]]) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+: You just quietly deleted some verifiable evidence, the exact quote of their spambot campaign "You have a new message on Badoo!..." Also, scroll to the bottom of your own McAfee reference.