Dossy, You are 100% correct. They will spam as long as there is some benefit for them doing so.
Spamming is like shoplifting. It's part of the cost of doing business if you own a store. You put measures in place to try and prevent it, but you can never prevent it all. Dewald On Jun 10, 11:36 am, Dossy Shiobara <do...@panoptic.com> wrote: > On 6/10/09 9:55 AM, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > > > It is a fact of life that, regardless of how benign or how powerful > > the tools are that you provide your users, 99% will use them in a > > sensible and responsible manner, and 1% will always try and abuse > > them. > > This is why I am ALWAYS very cautious about implementing a feature in > Twitter Karma - I weigh heavily on the potential for abuse and have > passed over implementing plenty of features because the severity of the > potential abuse far outweighs the benefits to legitimate users. > > I agree that Twitter shouldn't go shutting down applications - ten more > will sprout up from its corpse to take its place. Instead, simply keep > an eye on the application and suspend/punish users who use it to abuse > the system. Having a known ghetto is useful: it helps you focus where > to patrol. > > Of course, the problem is that Twitter's only recourse is to suspend > accounts - but, by then, the spammer's objective has already been met, > following 800-1200 people, triggering probably 400-600 email > notifications and subsequent click-throughs to a page full of link spam > tweets. > > As long as they get a non-zero CTR and non-zero conversion rate, it was > worth it. And, the proof of the spam is in the eating ... :-) > > -- > Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com |http://dossy.org/ > Panoptic Computer Network |http://panoptic.com/ > "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own > folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
