4 ms·

2005? Man, I fell for this back in high school, sometime between 1996–2000. It was a site functionally identical to this one. I got an email about someone wh

2005? Man, I fell for this back in high school, sometime between 1996–2000. It was a site functionally identical to this one. I got an email about someone who had a crush on me, asked for either the email or the AIM screenname (I forget which) of people you had a crush on. I dutifully entered some girls at my high school and shortly thereafter I got a match: Julie. This was exciting, until she emailed me saying something along the lines of, "lol i was just trying to see who liked me." Soured the whole experience for me. I wonder if the SecretPoke designers have considered non-good-faith use cases? Is there any way to distinguish between good faith use, and manipulative, embarrassing, or purposeful outing use cases?

seabee 16y ago
You can mitigate it by restricting how many people can be matched with a single email/SN. It's hard to try and out someone out of your whole class when you can only have 3 'crushes' to use; the odds are low unless you're pretty sure you know who likes you, at which point the service is a little redundant.
bjonathan 16y ago
Hi Perceval, Sorry for Julie ;) Seabee is right, the limit of 3 free crushes help to limitate that side effect. We cant prevent 100% non-good-faith crushes but you could still have answered to Julie that you entered her email because it was obvious that she was in love in you ;) SecretPoke only reveal identity if it's mutual so if somebody was joking you, you can always answer that it was the same for you. (I know that it's a little childish but it's "effective") If you have any ideas to prevent Julies of the world to use SecretPoke to break our little hearts please share with me, we would love to implement some to see what is happening :) Thank for your feedback