5 ms·

Users on HN complain every single day about service companies like Google who remove content or close accounts that haven't broken any rules. Do you have anyth

by adgar2 14y ago

Users on HN complain every single day about service companies like Google who remove content or close accounts that haven't broken any rules. Do you have anything to say to those users, as an operator of a large SaaS provider that deals with fraud/spammers daily?

Dylan16807 14y ago
That's mostly because Google has zero customer support. They rely purely on their automated systems. False positives by themselves are not the issue.
- adgar2 14y ago
  It sounds like the person I'm asking is doing the exact same thing, but they haven't scaled up to the tens of billions yet. I'm asking how he intends to scale his model.
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    I'm asking how he intends to scale his model. Heh, as I alluded to in my reply to your other comment, for TweetingMachine at least, I have zero intent of scaling; tt's a small tool, and will remain a small tool (can't even remember if I've done any work on it in the whole of 2012) whilst I focus my energies elsewhere. So, being quite so harsh was a means to an end. At the same time, if I experience abuse of any of my other services, it'll definitely be a marker I'll use for more manual investigation.
brandonb 14y ago
I think it's really important to have an "appeals process." Many of our customers don't use Sift to block users unilaterally, but rather to ask for further verification. For example, if the Sift score is high, they might call the user to verify their identity. That's a great way to get rid of most of the fraudsters, while giving good users a "way out" for those cases where the algorithms get it wrong.
mootothemax 14y ago
Do you have anything to say to those users, as an operator of a large SaaS provider that deals with fraud/spammers daily? A quick point of order: I am definitely not "an operator of a large SaaS provider" ;) Now, affected users can get in touch directly with me - the owner of the website - and I generally respond in a matter of minutes. That's way better than a lot of the big companies out there, but I recognise it's a result of my small size. I agree that it sucks for the legitimate users, but for reasons I won't go into, the site in question is never going to scale to anything mass market. Also, as I said, my time is limited, and I'd much rather be spending my time on stuff that improves services for users and makes a better product than on writing systems to tell the difference between spammers and legitimate users. Remember, my scale is tiny and, frankly, if I lose a few customers because of this, that's money well spent.

by adgar2 14y ago

Dylan16807 14y ago

That's mostly because Google has zero customer support. They rely purely on their automated systems. False positives by themselves are not the issue.

adgar2 14y ago
It sounds like the person I'm asking is doing the exact same thing, but they haven't scaled up to the tens of billions yet. I'm asking how he intends to scale his model.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  I'm asking how he intends to scale his model. Heh, as I alluded to in my reply to your other comment, for TweetingMachine at least, I have zero intent of scaling; tt's a small tool, and will remain a small tool (can't even remember if I've done any work on it in the whole of 2012) whilst I focus my energies elsewhere. So, being quite so harsh was a means to an end. At the same time, if I experience abuse of any of my other services, it'll definitely be a marker I'll use for more manual investigation.

brandonb 14y ago

I think it's really important to have an "appeals process." Many of our customers don't use Sift to block users unilaterally, but rather to ask for further verification. For example, if the Sift score is high, they might call the user to verify their identity. That's a great way to get rid of most of the fraudsters, while giving good users a "way out" for those cases where the algorithms get it wrong.

mootothemax 14y ago

Do you have anything to say to those users, as an operator of a large SaaS provider that deals with fraud/spammers daily? A quick point of order: I am definitely not "an operator of a large SaaS provider" ;) Now, affected users can get in touch directly with me - the owner of the website - and I generally respond in a matter of minutes. That's way better than a lot of the big companies out there, but I recognise it's a result of my small size. I agree that it sucks for the legitimate users, but for reasons I won't go into, the site in question is never going to scale to anything mass market. Also, as I said, my time is limited, and I'd much rather be spending my time on stuff that improves services for users and makes a better product than on writing systems to tell the difference between spammers and legitimate users. Remember, my scale is tiny and, frankly, if I lose a few customers because of this, that's money well spent.