Talk:Badoo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:54, 26 August 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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]

I have not had any spam (yet), but Bad(oo) is bad - it raided my Address Book and e-mailed all in it. Very embarrassing. BEWARE. DON'T TOUCH IT. Spanishexile :::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishexile (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got such a mail just yesterday. The person who was written in that mail as sender swears, that he did not send a Badoo invitation e mail to me. Maybe some kind of data mining and abuse of data. -88.130.107.203 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from all the edit wars so far that Lumos3 (talk) is the main biased party aiming to legitimize this entity. Why? May be he should gracefully recuse himself from further editing this one article. Just a suggestion. Not only on the spam issue. Look at the recent "Cyprus based" vs "London based." question. We had the wrong "London based" (which sounds more reassuring for the thousnds getting the scam emails who look at Wikipedia to see whether this is a legitimate enterprise or whether the privacy laws they expect apply to them), while the company is really based in Cyprus?!? Nobody bothered to look, but we leaving no stone unturned to prove or disprove if they spam or lie in the spam messages (for which I have about 10 proofs in my mailbox). The company location, for some reason, may be part of Badoo's deception strategy, because the Cyprus based company definitely wants to create an impression that they are based in the UK, for example by writing things like "...sensitive personal data, may be accessed from countries outside the UK. Please note that countries outside Europe may have lower standards of data protection than the UK." And why did Lumos3 (talk) add the London offices in the infobox after finding out that he can't revert the Cyprus edit ad this is not a London based company? Why don't we add them all: Chile, Russia, Mexico, Brasil and other locations where they have offices? I think the corporate HQ is enough for the infobox, no? Wikipedia should not be used to make Badoo more legitimate!!! After all "It is a privae club with 45 million carefully selected members..." (ha, ha... we have to give it to them for the humor!) why should it need more legitimacy. Thanks for litening, Yours, multiple-time carefully selected nominee and, without my permission, multiple time member of the Badoo private club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.179.20 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lumos3, any disclosures under WP:CONFLICT?

10 spam emails in your inbox is not a WP:RS as far as WP:Verifiability. The spamming issue needs independant coverage. Not a million "I got spammed" on the talk page.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, but because it is a fact (they do spam, they do harvest email addresses and they do trick naive users into creating accounts and giving their email passwords...), it will be hard to hide behind the "lack of evidence" wall for very long. Some diligent Wikipedian will find or formulate the acceptable evidence for us. I am starting by adding their 'privacy scorecard' according to Cambridge U. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is fine if they do, I am not in Europe, have never used the site, and don't care if it spams or not. But without WP:RS it is an unsourced attack. Wikipedia is not the place to warn users. It is a place of fact supported by reliable sources. If a reliable source is found, it should be included. Until then, original research and opinion should not be in the article. Just because "everyone knows it's true" does not mean everyone knows it's true.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection with Badoo and am not a member. All my edits are based on verifiable sources. Someone saying they recieved an email saying x is not a reliable source for an edit to an article. Both the Daily Telegraph and Guardian articles say it is British/ London based. The company does have registered offices in Cyprus and is open about this - the citations for this are from its own pages. Lumos3 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please stop the British/London based madness already? Wikipedia can be more accurate than the Guardian and less easily fooled. They are an offshore company. An IBC. In Cyprus!!! OK? Not in London. Some of their other hosting registrations and netblocks belong to another offshore company in Bermuda. Also easy to look up. Please look at the Wikipedia entries for offshore company and International Business Company (IBC). And why people use these. If, whoever wants to get the benefits and anonymity of operating as an offshore company, they might just have to live with the slight disadvantages of not being able to claim the prestige of their own country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, by far the most common complaint on the Internet about Badoo are spam, deceitful way of recruiting users and disregard for privacy. From blogs in prestigious sites like LaStampa and blogs by unknown bloggers to the majority of comments on security forums:

http://www.lastampa.it/cmstp/rubriche/stampa.asp?ID_blog=141&ID_articolo=85 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/badoo.com http://raoulteeuwen.blogspot.com/2009/06/badoo-sucks-evil-spam.html http://badooit.blogspot.com/2008/11/spam-badoo.html http://www.bloggercorner.com/2009/07/07/794/ http://www.mondoinformatico.info/elenco-dei-socialnetwork-e-dei-loro-servizi_post-6617.html etc. etc.

How many more do you need? Why can't these be synthesized and refrenced? To let the "... but McAfee didn't think so" (BTW, see user comments to that same reference) be left as the misleading conclusion of the spam issue in this article will be a travesty and a triumph of demagogy over reality. 76.166.179.20 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. If this is an issue then it must have been covered in the media somewhere. My searches have found nothing. All we have at the moment is gossip. Lumos3 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lumos3, blogs are not reliable sources because they are not editted. Any person can create a blog and type whatever they wish. McAfee is an established company with expertise in security and privacy, it is a much better source with experts with college degrees in computer science versus regular users who just want to connect with high school alumni. Further, it seems Lumos3 has found creditable information disproving Badoo as a spam site. Please read the Koobface article.

Users can be easily fooled. A spoof site can trick users into believing they are on Badoo when they are actually on a fake. They enter their personal information and BAM they get spammed. Further, many virus' could spread spam like the Koobface one. Facebook and MySpace are hit with similar attacks all the time. Infact, myspace as instituted new technology that verifies links before it will let users access them so they can block these spoofs at will. Security experts know how to tell the difference between spoofs, viruses, and legitimate sites. Bloggers do not. 1 million blogs means only that 1 million users have no technical computer background at all but like to blog about their problems. That is an easily believed scenerio.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users should only be warned if reliable sources can be found, and it looking at the current blogs it doesn't seen any have been found.--Otterathome (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam reports and Koobface

I suggest that the recipients of the spam mentioned here are victims of the Koobface worm which affects most social networking sites including Facebook, and MySpace. Lumos3 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are trying too hard. You wish. But you are wrong. Not everyone on this discussion page who investigated the spam problem is stupid. This spam is being willingly perpetrated by Badoo, has been going since long before Koobface, comes from Badoo's own mail server farms and network ranges, which are even verified with current spf records for badoo.com (v=spf1 ip4:87.245.192.0/21 ip4:66.175.123.0/24 ip4:194.228.191.0/24 ip4:66.119.86.0/24 -all). Don't blame it on Koobface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is still original research unless you have a reliable source. Take your information to a reliable newspaper and have it published. Wikipedia is not the place to post original work. I have nothing against posting the information about Badoo as long as it can be supported by independant coverage from a reliable source.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smilarity to Tagged

I give up. For the benefit of your own edification, please be advised that Badoo's "user recruitig" operates exactly as the one for Tagged (Tagged is even higher on the Alexa lists but has no other notability than its spam, phishing and dishonesty...) You can compare this page: http://eu1.badoo.com/import/ to the complaints against Tagged, for example: http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/phishing/taggeddotcom.jpg I hope sooner or later enough people complain about Badoo, so that you can stop ignoring their voices in your superficial Googling of notable sources. Until then, this article is neither useful nor truthful. We made a site that has absolute no notability other than its traffic (how manty porn sites do you find notable because of their traffic?) worthy of an article?! Instead of saying that it spams and harvests emails or not saying anything at all, we now lead people to believe that the site is quite safe... Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to reply something uncivil but I will just once again point out that user opinions are not fact, they are opinions. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not how many people agree that a website spams their inbox.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, mates, there is a reliable description of the "40 million and counting" user signup process and proof of the fact that they send unsolicited bulk mail. the badoo import contacts page, quoted above, says that it will import contacts from msn, yahoo, aol, gmail "and 43 other webmail services." their privacy policy page, already referenced in the main article, says "...an email invitation will be sent on their behalf, to the email addresses of the contacts that have been uploaded and then selected to be invited."76.166.179.20 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can use that information to write a sentance or two, feel free. I don't have an account or I might give it a go.--TParis00ap (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but i think someone more gifted in the art of wikipedia prose should do it. it probably fits with the lowest privacy standards from ~~the guardian~~ the daily telegraph reference. or with the claim that they have 40 mil. users, i don't know... 76.166.179.20 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNS lookup

Registrant:

Badoo WorldWide Limited

Blake Building, Suite 306,

Corner of Eyre and

Hutson Street

Belize City, Belize ---

BZ

442070999939

Fax:442070999940

Record last updated 05-19-2009 11:53:54 AM

Record expires on 05-26-2012

Record created on 05-26-2003

dnsstuff

PS: Why not just publish this talk as the page?

Mplungjan (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mcafee on unsolicited emails

The article currently states, "Badoo has been accused of increasing its membership through unsolicited emails but McAfee did not find evidence for this." This is misleading. The unsolicited emails that are referred to in the various blogs etc. judged above to be non-notable are sent to addresses in the address books of Badoo members. In other words, a person with no affiliation to Badoo may receive an unsolicited email if someone who has that person's email address in their address book joins Badoo. See our article on contact scraping. The current wording falsely implies that McAfee investigated this practice. My understanding is that all that McAfee would have done is signed up to Badoo using a purpose-made email address and waited to see how many emails that address received. So this test does not contradict the claims of unsolicited emailing.

For now I'm just removing the whole sentence. If someone finds a reliable source describing Badoo's emailing practices they should add it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is McCafe, a leading corporate designer of anti-spam and anti-virus software, not a reliable source?--TParis00ap (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to clarify. There are two questions here:

(1) Does Badoo send unsolicited emails about Badoo to people who have never signed up to Badoo, by retrieving those people's email addresses from the address books of people who have signed up?

(2) Does signing up to Badoo cause the person who signed up to receive spam from third parties?

The debate on this page is about question (1). Various sources claim yes, but as yet, none has been judged sufficiently reliable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

McAfee routinely checks whether signing up to a particular website with a throw-away email address causes that same email address to receive spam. This pertains to question (2). McAfee is a reliable source and I trust their conclusion that the answer to question (2) is no. But to my knowledge, they have not investigated question (1). The sentence I removed from the article implied that McAfee had investigated question (1).

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. In that case, would it not help the case for those who believe it is a spam based site to include it with that explanation you just gave me but Wikified? Although it would have to be written so as not to be WP:OR and not give WP:UNDUE.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. (2) is not worth mentioning in the article as the fact they don't cause you to receive third-party spam is unremarkable. (1) would certainly be worth mentioning if we can find a reliable source... but the consensus seems to be that we haven't found one yet. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't write this article properly, we should delete it

Reading through these comments, the one thing that clearly comes through is that there's a flaw in wikipedia policy on citing sources. To any user who has fallen victim to Badoo's spam (and who is sufficiently computer literate to distinguish it from the third-party spam that was being mentioned) this is fact, not conjecture. If a journalist from the Guardian or the Telegraph - who generally have no qualifications in the fields they write about - were to describe this in a published article, it would become no more or less true. Wikipedia provides a service to its users (including journalists!) - it supplies information. A key piece of information that any visitor to this page would want to have is that Badoo sends unsolicited e-mails. But for whatever reason we are unable to supply this imformation, simply waiting for some journalist to say it first so we can hide behind them as a source - which they may never bother doing because no newspaper editor may consider Badoo spam a subject worth writing about. The result is that the only important information can be obtained by reading the talk page, not the article itself, which is a sad state of affairs. The only solution I can offer is to nominate this article for deletion, on the grounds that we can't write it properly until mainstream media do so first, which seems to be the unfortunate reality. Palefire (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. It is not to supply information. It is an encyclopedia. It does not store any or all information nor does it store indescriminitly. Wikipedia must maintain a nuetral point of view and not give undue weight to a particular side, especially without reliable sources. I already went to WP:3 about this and they agreed that it should not be added without reliable sources. Please, let's not drag this subject out anymore until someone finds a source for the claims. I am not in the UK, have never even heard of Badoo before this article, and am not signed up, I am a completely nuetral party trying to stick to the policies of Wikipedia.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Palefire and others here seem to understand better Wikipedia's purpose which is more than mindlessly repeating the rules. We also need a rule for common sense. If anyone is interested in the systematic problems that this discussion reveals, they are quite simple: Reliable sources frequently rely on unreliable or commercial sources. (duh!) Reliable sources can be used to construct unreliable statements. The Guardian article and the McAfee "clean bill of health" here, so widely used in previous revisions, are simple but symptomatic examples. The Guardian aricle is a despicable press-junket; it printed what the Badoo PR department offered as "a source" to some fake softball questions. Reliable newspapers print and rehash commercial press releases all the time. Is this a surprise to you? They also print ads. The McAfee robot database of "innocent until proven guilty" websites answered a different spam question than the one being discussed and was not any verification that Badoo doesn't spam. (Thanks to those editors who managed to point this out and fix the outrageous BS reality that this article was constructing at one point...) Seriously, people, if you think that infomercials which are on TV are reliable because TV is a reliable and established broadcasting medium, then there is something wrong with the system. Or, if you think that because Symantec said that Brian Madoff's computers were new and up-to-date, it means that Symantec verified the reliability of Madoff's corporate financial systems... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.113.48 (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with both Palefire and 75.215.113.48 above in that maintaining a high standard of verifiability is coming at the cost of the completeness of this article. But I still think deletion is an over-reaction. I note that the second sentence of the current version of this page is "In a Cambridge University report, [Badoo] was given the lowest score for privacy among 45 social social networking sites examined." That really ought to set off alarm bells to any clueful reader. And 75.215.113.48 — we do have a rule for common sense — see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#Use common sense. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability is a policy and states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Just because we say it is true doesn't mean it can be included. Also WP:LIBEL is a Wikimedia policy, which trumps WP:IAR which is a Wikipedia policy. Just because we say it is true doesn't mean it can be included. Wikipedia cannot defame Badoo without reliable sources, it would open the WMF up to being sued. Unless reliable sources are found, we just cannot add anything about the spam from the site. Unfortunately, others mistake Wikipedia as being a source of information rather than a collection of encyclopedic content. I've already openned up one RfC for this and the result was not to include the information without reliable sources. If you feel it is neccessary to do it again, feel free. I am not mindlessly citing rules, I am supporting my argument against the addition of the information with community agreed upon rules. Don't be upset that your position cannot likewise be supported.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear who you're referring to in your last sentence, TParis00ap. Palefire and I understand your arguement and are not pushing for the inclusion of unreliable sources. Seems to me that all of us, including the IP above, are simply frustrated we can't make this a better article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha. Sorry if I implied your lack of understanding. I've been at this debate for quite awhile and most folks don't seem to get it. I understand folk's fustration and I am sure I'd be fustrated too if I received those emails. Anyway, sorry again.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries, my post wasn't as clear as it could have been. If only there were as many good sources about Badoo as there are about Tagged. :-( Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use by scammers

217.33.234.250 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Badoo i find is well known to the ghanan/Nigerian Scamming fraternaty, they freiquently steal photos from any site they can get onto, showing someone in one or two poses, then they create a profile on badoo, saying they are british/american, either high powered business men or service men. they then start chatting to any woman who comes accross as wanting company. they then move the person onto msn/yahoo straight away, bombard them with messages and nudges just so that the female chatter is concentrating on them totally. after a brief period of chatting the scammer then tells the female that they are divorced/widdowed and have a child, the scammer suddenly has to go overseas to work, and they have run out of money to pay the nanny. they then start badgering the female to send money via a money order to pay for the nanny or a flight home. the owners of badoo do little to stop this, the scam profiles are easy to find, just keep an eye out on the education listing, they normally put a british and or american collage then post either ghanan or nigerian place too. other dating/networking sites, have filters in place to stop the scammers getting through, but it seems that badoo do little to stop the scams[reply]

That's odd. Is that based on your observations, or did you read it somewhere? If you read it somewhere, could you post a link? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to update this page

I am a public relations consultant working for Badoo. I would like to update the current page to include more detailed information about the company. I am keen to ensure that we abide by Wikipedia's rules, and only wish to update the page with factual information. My proposed update for the Badoo page is below - I would welcome feedback from the community before I make the update. If nobody objects, I would like to make this update on 30th August 2010.

Proposed update: Badoo is a social networking website, launched in 2006, which currently claims over 70 million registered users. Although available in most of the world, the site is particularly popular in France, Spain and Italy, as well as Latin America. (Source: Google Trends for Websites) Alexa.com ranks Badoo as the 52nd most popular site in France and the 150th globally.

Rather than enabling users to manage their existing social circles in an online environment, as with other social networks, the primary purpose of Badoo is to enable users to meet new people who they are not already socially connected to. According to the Crunchbase profile on Badoo, it “focuses on the forgotten area between social networks and dating websites, where people just want to socialize with new people and have fun.”

The site allows users to create profiles, send each other messages, and rate each other’s profile pictures at no cost, but charges fees for features which are designed to make the user’s profile more visible to other users, thereby increasing the opportunities to attract attention.

Charging for these enhanced visibility features is the site’s primary business model. Depending on their country, users can make payments by premium rate mobile SMS, PayPal, or credit card.

Badoo includes a geographic proximity feature, which identifies users’ locations based on analysis of their network connection. This lets users know if there are people near to their current location who may wish to meet.

The site also offers a mobile application, which also allows users to connect with others based on their location.

History The site was founded in 2006 in London. In January 2008, the Russian investment firm Finam paid $30m USD for a 10% stake in Badoo. Badoo first launched in Spain and is now one of the leading socializing sites in France, Italy, Spain and Latin America with over 70 million users worldwide

Badoo was founded by Andrey Andreev, an internet entrepreneur has had a successful career creating, running and successfully exiting online business ventures across Europe over the last decade. He created Begun (www.begun.ru) - Russia’s first contextual advertising services agency in 2002, and in 2004, founded Mamba (www.mamba.ru) - Russia’s biggest socializing platform. The companies Andrey was involved in, always attracted interest from many VCs and PE firms.

Open Source Contributions Badoo has release several pieces of software under an open source licence, including various improvements to the PHP scripting language, the Pinba real time statistics server, and the Blitz template engine. (Source: http://dev.badoo.com/)

In the Media Badoo was profiled in the Guardian’s PDA blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/mar/05/elevatorpitchwhybadoowants) in 2008. In January 2010 TechCrunch published an article (http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/01/05/social-network-badoo-is-banned-in-iran/) claiming that the service had been banned in Iran.

Criticism In a Cambridge University graduate student report, it was given the lowest score for privacy among 45 social networking sites examined.

92.238.40.49 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]