4 ms·

If I clicked on that button and received that response, everything I could find connected with you and your domain would go on my blacklists. Misleading people

If I clicked on that button and received that response, everything I could find connected with you and your domain would go on my blacklists. Misleading people is a poor way to build trust.

grwthckrmstr 9y ago
Yes you're right on your count, but you have to consider this scenario (which involves thinking beyond yourself) - - it's only you, and 20 others - - who would be mildly mislead (considering you actually didn't pay anything) Now the dev can go build a working version putting in 200-500 hours into the MVP and find the next set of 20 people who are ready to use that software, with validation at hand. However, I agree that better messaging can be used instead of straight up misleading people. Since if it does become widely practiced, people will generally become mistrustful (again, the odds of that happening is low). ~ 2 cents
- crispinb 9y ago
  > but you have to consider this scenario (which involves thinking beyond yourself) I'm not denying that poor behaviour can net more customers -- on the contrary, it's by far the easiest way of doing so. My response was in the domain of ethical, not commercial, calculus.
logicuce 9y ago
Exactly. Don't think of people landing on the site as an infinite stream of people. There are influencers who land first and you don't want to be in their bad books.
- ivanhoe 9y ago
  Not necessarily, you can buy adds and get random visitors for testing purposes that way. Also you can write a better explanation, so that people don't feel tricked.
roel_v 9y ago
Really? You maintain a 'blacklist' somewhere on Dropbox or so, and every time you make a purchase you look through who is somehow connected to it, and cross check your 'blacklist'? I think it's much more likely you're showing some internet outrage here, but when you actually run into it, you won't even remember a week later.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Yes I do maintain a blacklist. The main vehicle is: when I see something I find unconscionable from a company with I'll add an Adguard rule to block their domain name. It's hardly water-tight, but what is? Your "I think it's much more likely" is a bit odd considering what you know about me (ie. almost nothing). "Outrage" is also pretty exaggerated. There are millions of commercial outfits out there in the world, the vast majority of which I'll never have anything to do with. There's a low bar for me to exclude just one more from consideration.
asadlionpk 9y ago
Respectfully, there is plenty fish in the sea. I would have validated the viability at the cost of losing one customer. I think most would be willing to take that loss.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Only if you take a point of view that ethics can be shelved in the interests of business. It's a common point of view, in fact pretty clearly it prevails. It doesn't happen to be mine.

If I clicked on that button and received that response, everything I could find connected with you and your domain would go on my blacklists. Misleading people is a poor way to build trust.

grwthckrmstr 9y ago

Yes you're right on your count, but you have to consider this scenario (which involves thinking beyond yourself) - - it's only you, and 20 others - - who would be mildly mislead (considering you actually didn't pay anything) Now the dev can go build a working version putting in 200-500 hours into the MVP and find the next set of 20 people who are ready to use that software, with validation at hand. However, I agree that better messaging can be used instead of straight up misleading people. Since if it does become widely practiced, people will generally become mistrustful (again, the odds of that happening is low). ~ 2 cents

crispinb 9y ago
> but you have to consider this scenario (which involves thinking beyond yourself) I'm not denying that poor behaviour can net more customers -- on the contrary, it's by far the easiest way of doing so. My response was in the domain of ethical, not commercial, calculus.

logicuce 9y ago

Exactly. Don't think of people landing on the site as an infinite stream of people. There are influencers who land first and you don't want to be in their bad books.

ivanhoe 9y ago
Not necessarily, you can buy adds and get random visitors for testing purposes that way. Also you can write a better explanation, so that people don't feel tricked.

roel_v 9y ago

Really? You maintain a 'blacklist' somewhere on Dropbox or so, and every time you make a purchase you look through who is somehow connected to it, and cross check your 'blacklist'? I think it's much more likely you're showing some internet outrage here, but when you actually run into it, you won't even remember a week later.

crispinb 9y ago
Yes I do maintain a blacklist. The main vehicle is: when I see something I find unconscionable from a company with I'll add an Adguard rule to block their domain name. It's hardly water-tight, but what is? Your "I think it's much more likely" is a bit odd considering what you know about me (ie. almost nothing). "Outrage" is also pretty exaggerated. There are millions of commercial outfits out there in the world, the vast majority of which I'll never have anything to do with. There's a low bar for me to exclude just one more from consideration.

asadlionpk 9y ago

Respectfully, there is plenty fish in the sea. I would have validated the viability at the cost of losing one customer. I think most would be willing to take that loss.

crispinb 9y ago
Only if you take a point of view that ethics can be shelved in the interests of business. It's a common point of view, in fact pretty clearly it prevails. It doesn't happen to be mine.