10 ms·

Want to Spam Your LinkedIn Contacts and Be Humiliated? Try FounderDating

289 points by tlrobinson 14y ago

mtrimpe 14y ago
Surprisingly enough this is one thing I really like Facebook for. I always select "Visible only to me" (and of course never grant messaging rights.) The app can't tell the difference and if I really like it I'll green light it once I see what they actually post on my behalf. Given that your relationship with your contacts list on LinkedIn is much more fragile I'm really surprised they haven't given this more attention yet.
obviouslygreen 14y ago
It's surreal that, after all the blow-up-in-your-face moments that social media apps have had after doing underhanded things like this in recent memory, companies are still pushing under-the-radar hard sells like this. It has to take an incredible combination of obliviousness and ethical failure to still consider something like this a good idea. Also, this gives me a very vivid sense of deja vu; I swear I read this exact article at some point last year... strange.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > It has to take an incredible combination of obliviousness and ethical failure to still consider something like this a good idea. Sadly people don't have to be stupid or evil to think this stuff is acceptable. Bob sees other people do it, and Bob knows it's bad when those people do it, but when Bob does it it's different somehow. There's a reason somewhere that means what other people do is bad spam, but what Bob does is not. When Ann looks at what Bob is doing she thinks it's pretty clearly dodgy. These kinds of cognitive biases are tricky to spot in ourselves.
  - eropple 14y ago
    Carving an exception like that for oneself strikes me as immediately disingenuous. I personally can't see how that doesn't make you either stupid or evil or both. I don't think "cognitive bias" doesn't make you not-a-dick.
    - steven777400 14y ago
      Carving exceptions for oneself I think is very common and may not be obvious to the person doing it. My wife hates when people talk on their phone while driving, to the point of screaming obscenities at them. Yet, if her phone rings while she's driving, she often answers it. If I point out the discrepancy, she dismisses it, as her call is "important" or "short" or she's "still watching the road". I suspect I do the same thing, although (like my wife and her phone) I don't realize that I'm judging others for behavior I myself engage in.
    - jimktrains2 14y ago
      _You're_ doing it for a valid reason that makes sense to you _They're_ doing it because they're pricks and trying to get as many eyes as possible. That's normally what I see happen.
      - eropple 14y ago
        Sure, but self-analysis isn't optional.
        jimktrains2 14y ago
        No, it isn't, but it becomes much more difficult when you feel justified in your actions. This is one of the areas that having "no-men" is a good idea. Someone who will force you to reëxamine your idea and lay out alternatives.
    - criley 14y ago
      As frustrating as it is, actor/observer asymmetry[1] is a reality and you can't simply say it's "unacceptable" unless you're willing to find a lot of people's normal behavior to be "unacceptable". It's a line that if you draw, it becomes hard to not appear dickish in normal situations. Because sadly, everyone abuses actor/observer bias. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetr...
    - DanBC 14y ago
- apalmer 14y ago
  It still happens because, when your seeking that viral edge sometimes the cost benefit analysis turns out in favor of pissing off a certain percentage of your members. As far as the ethics involved, I don't really expect corporations to be ethical at any level. I would like them to, but I don't expect them to. I am a strong proponent of extreme fines/legal action because really if it doesn't effect the bottomline I dont feel it will change behavoir of a business.
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. You're right in that being unethical is the best way to get ahead in the game, and it might be a good idea to make it so that's not the case. That said, the US of A is an adversarial society.
    - brazzy 14y ago
      > I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. Not if the shareholders want them to be ethical more than profitable. Arguably, shared ownership tends to promote turning a blind eye to that aspect.
      - kevinpet 14y ago
        Not for a public C corp. They must maximize shareholder value, or a minority shareholder could sue and win. Patagonia changed their corporate structure to a California B corp to allow this.
        brazzy 14y ago
        Sounds like a caricature of the actual laws.
    - il 14y ago
      A corporation is just a group of people. It's not possible for a corporation to be ethical or unethical, a corporation doesn't have a soul or a conscience. It's possible for specific people inside a corporation to behave in unethical ways. However, the definition of maximizing shareholder value is not simply "make the stock price as high as possible in the short term." It's perfectly possible for executives in a corporation to take the high road as the optimal strategy for maximizing shareholder value.
- notahacker 14y ago
  The problem is, it works. It is, after all, why LinkedIn itself has such a strong network (my father used once and apologised many times for using, although you'd never guess that from looking at his 170-contact network). It is the only reason I ever had a Bebo account.
- jusben1369 14y ago
  This reminds me of "Why is there tele-marketing when everyone hates telemarketers and getting calls at 7pm when you are sitting down to dinner?" Because it worked! It was profitable. Now, interestingly we then hit a tipping point where there was enough outrage (US) that a "Donotcall" list was created - very effectively. How long till there is a "Donotemail" equivalent? The industry is arguably not policing itself well enough. I'm really glad the CEO showed up her to defend his/her company but "Hey guy didn't pay enough attention so what are ya going to do?" is too cavalier. Imagine if social services had to check all email addresses given out like this against a central list to see if they were on the "no social offers no matter what"
  - jyu 14y ago
    The email equivalent is CAN-SPAM and carries hefty fines for violators.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- jfarmer 14y ago
  It's not really an under-the-radar hard sell. Here's the page in question, which nobody in this thread can be arsed to look at: http://cl.ly/image/2V302C3j290B http://cl.ly/image/2V302C3j290B Now, I can see how one might miss the fact that this will send an email. Things you can say if you're being intellectually honest: * The fact that this will send an email should be more prominent * The content of the email should be more explicit * The tone of the email was overly personal * The from: field appears as if it's from the person, not FD Things you can't say if you're being intellectually honest: * The form is opt-out * There's no copy on the page indicating an email will be sent * The copy on the page is hidden below the fold * The copy on the page is worded designed to mislead the user * The fact that clicking submit will send an email is obscured * There is no indication about the content or tone of the email that will be sent Looking at this page, the most aggressive case I can make is for a slightly confusing design that should better highlight the consequences of choosing vouchers. It doesn't seem in any way misleading and doesn't show any of the fingerprints of someone looking to trick a user into accidentally emailing their friends.
  - wooster 14y ago
    That's not the page the blog post is talking about. The page the blog is talking about is the one people are sent to after they vouch for someone who has filled out that page.
    - jfarmer 14y ago
      Fair enough. Before people jump on the "omg spam" train they should take it upon themselves as thinking individuals to look at the primary source. I just created a fake LinkedIn account and will post a similar (and honest) analysis after I receive the invite. The fact that nobody in this thread bothered to do their due diligence before pouncing is enough for me to discount their opinions as uninformed. But we'll see what the actual page looks like in a sec.
      - will_work4tears 14y ago
        Any luck on that page?
- orangethirty 14y ago
  They do it because it works. And will continue to do so until it stops working.
hoopism 14y ago
Your social contacts are currency these days. I could see being burned by this, so I won't say something stupid like he deserved it... but I also feel like he deserved it.
homosaur 14y ago
Honestly, I don't know what the hell some of these companies are thinking but sure wish I had a blacklist of all of them that abuse contacts so I can never ever patronize them.
- nym 14y ago
  I would use this chrome/ff extension!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
natrius 14y ago
Aside from this being really uncool, FounderDating doesn't really work anyway. I've done it. Gathering a whole bunch of people who have an idea they want to work on in one place doesn't lead to very many of them pairing up and ditching one of the ideas. It's a lot easier to meet future co-founders, potential hires, and potential bosses before you actually need them. That's how networking works. I'm toying around with a free, open source solution to this problem that reflects its true nature. If you're interested in contributing, contact info's in my profile.
- acgourley 14y ago
  I think it's more likely to be effective than blind networking. Building an early team just a fundamentally hard problem with no single / quick solution. FWIW I've met very helpful (non-cofounder) people through the site. In it's capacity to be a more startup-specific linkedin, it's interesting.
jmalter 14y ago
Actually, I'm the CEO of FOunerDating and what's surprising is that no one has actually asked if this is what really happens. We not only state (in white writing) on black backgroud) that "a message will be sent to your chosen linkedin contact) and let you see the message but it's also completely opt-in - no tricks where you can't find the "x". People can choose to a) not send or choose who they send a message to. There is nothing sneaky about it. If someone doesn't read the line "this will send a message" there isn't much we can do about that.
- ncallaway 14y ago
  Does this warning about the message include the text of the message that will be sent? Does the warning say that the message will be signed by the person who sent the message (a message to X from FounderDating saying I clicked a thing is very different than a message to X from _me_)? Does the warning say that you are highly recommending to the person that they join? Or does it just say you are vouching for them? (These are all actual questions, as I haven't gone through that flow. I'm not trying to be snarky)
- bkanber 14y ago
  Rather than getting defensive in the face of what's a very valid criticism, why don't you work on improving your product? Being more transparent about the message that you're going to send, as well as adding the ability for the user to edit that message, would help you much more than a half-assed defensive statement on Hacker News ever would.
  - jmalter 14y ago
    I'm not being defensive (which I know sounds defensive) I'm just explaining how things actually work. That there is a message, but like many things on the internet people don't always read everything.
    - timjahn 14y ago
      "but like many things on the internet people don't always read everything." I agree that many people don't read everything they see on sites, but I believe we should optimize our sites/products for that, to help those people pay attention to the details that matter to them.
tzm 14y ago
I generally assume that every site that gains access to my contact list will try to exploit them without my consent. It's very easy as a developer to do, so I look for dark patterns in the onboarding process that give me red flags into their principles. FounderDating was one that I initially used and immediately deleted after realizing they were attempting to spam.
nollidge 14y ago
> I figured behind the scenes maybe they would send notes to these people, telling them their contact Brian Morearty had used FounderDating, and suggesting that they try it too. How is that even acceptable? Obviously it's far less insidious, but it still sucks.
vertis 14y ago
It's because of similar experiences to this that I will avoid using a social network to sign up for things if it has access to anything more than my details.
joelandren 14y ago
Congrats, you have been GrowthHacked™!
awolf 14y ago
I'm the first to jump into the pit and start publicly shaming companies that abuse my privacy but in this case I'm not sure FounderDating deserves as much flak as it's getting: 1) Selection of which contacts to message was opt-in. The OP decided that he wanted to send a message to a particular subset of his contacts. 2) There was a View/Edit message link that the OP didn't bother to utilize. So between 1) and 2), we have case where somebody opted-in to having a service message their contacts, didn't look to see what that message was going to be even though they had the option to, and then got angry when they discovered they didn't like the content of the message that they could have viewed or edited beforehand. The "I highly recommend applying... you'll thank me later" piece of the message is certainly inappropriate because this was a "get friend to vouch for you" feature, not a "recommend founder dating feature". Still, I don't see this as "spamming your LinkedIn contacts" nor a massive violation of trust. Also, OP's failure to mention the existence of the View/Edit Message link in his rant seems rather dishonest. Edit: I'd love if the early down-voters could explain why they disagree. You seem to have read my entire message in about 20 seconds..
- BMorearty 14y ago
  Good points. A clarification (also stated in the first paragraph of the post): this was not "get a friend to vouch for you." This was "who would you vouch for?" I am the OP.
  - awolf 14y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I'd say as long as it was clear that a message was going to be sent, then a the "Who would you vouch for?" context actually makes the recommendation less inappropriate and puts FD even more in the right. (Of course, there is still the questionable practice of writing such an enthusiastic endorsement in the first person, but again you had final veto powers on the wording and you opted in to it. Such practices are unfortunately "par for the course" nowadays.)
    - doktrin 14y ago
      > Such practices are unfortunately "par for the course" nowadays This is the most extreme faux-1st-person endorsement I've ever seen. It makes schoolFeed look positively reserved. Even if it were the norm (which, based on the response here, it clearly isn't), something being common doesn't make it the least bit right. That's the worst kind of complacency.
jayp 14y ago
The name sounded familiar. This company is a bit spammy anyway. I am part of the Silicon Valley Java User Groups meetup. I got this e-mail from one of their employee in early March: ==== Hey fellow Dev's, I'm a ux designer who just joined the community and I wanted to share info about a great service that seems super relevant for this crew - FounderDating (no, it's not romantic). FounderDating (FD) is an invite-only, online network for entrepreneurs to connect with cofounders. Why FD? High Quality - members are carefully screened for quality and readiness (no recruiters, etc.) Applications and members’ identities are confidential, but a few of the folks who are part of the network are former founders or early employees from: stackmob, Salesforce, Zynga, Loggly and Gilt just to name a few. Balanced - 50% engineering & 50% non-engineering Reach- FD’s online network allows you to connect with people in your city and beyond to share ideas and begin building something you’re passionate about. No Idea Necessary - FD is about the people, so you don’t need to have an idea, just be ready to work on a serious side project The deadline is April 8th, so apply now. http://members.founder[redacted].com/application http://members.founder[redacted].com/application Cheers and feel free to reach out to me off-list with questions, Abby === BTW, this is "Abby's" meetup page: http://www.meetup.com/sv-jug/members/8035133/ http://www.meetup.com/sv-jug/members/8035133/. Not sure if she also goes by another name (Gail) or what. Let's give her the benefit of doubt. Who joins a new meetup and right away sends plugs for their own project? At least, I don't think that's the norm.
- ysapir 14y ago
  Maybe Abby is Abby Beck, Designer Extraordinaire who makes user friendly products - http://founderdating.com/about/who-we-are-2/ http://founderdating.com/about/who-we-are-2/ On various meetup pages, Abby also describes herself as a designer. I am sorry now I signed up to unlock my city.
  - francesca 14y ago
    I've had similar issues. People in my group asked me to stop approving FounderDating posts because they felt it was spammy. Clearly something needs to change with their tone and overall marketing because it could be a great resource for some people with project ideas!
alain94040 14y ago
Happened to me too. Very spammy (I reported it to LinkedIn too, I hope they kill their API access). First, I received a private email from a close friend I trust. Didn't know he was quitting his job and starting something new. All he was asking was for me to vouch for him. Ok. Then a few days later, he told me I should join too. That got really weird. Looks like I wasn't the only one being played.
mnicole 14y ago
Hey guys -- jmalter is the founder of FounderDating. jfarmer is the founder of Everlane. Both have terrible UX, but only one of them is being a total ass in this thread (vs. pretending to be oblivious to dark patterns). Mind who you're insulting about their behavior.
- mmorett 14y ago
  "but only one of them is being a total ass in this thread" lol. And the winner is: jmalter.
mariusz331 14y ago
This reminded me that one of my friends wanted a recommendation from me on FoundersDating. I got to the form you're talking about and here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/KSsinEq http://imgur.com/KSsinEq On the bottom left corner, you'll see they tell you that they'll send a message to your chosen contacts. You can also edit the message. http://imgur.com/yA8tHNP http://imgur.com/yA8tHNP The text is really small. I may not have noticed it had I not been looking for it. Also, I don't know when this was added.
- TannerLD 14y ago
  Seeing the screenshot (not having looked at the site or anything), the "see/edit this message" is pretty small. Everyone else isn't exaggerating when they say it is small. I also think it's important to notice that the big, friendly button says "Agreed". "Agreed" doesn't lead me to think that it will send a message, just that I will vouch for them.
  - mmorett 14y ago
    The button should say "Agreed. And send the message to my Contacts." No one would press that. Hence the fraud.
jarjoura 14y ago
LinkedIn is full of embarrassments. I have no idea why it continually begs me to scrape my gmail inbox for contacts? There is no way my inbox represents business associations that I want shared with anyone let alone LinkedIn.
evolve2k 14y ago
[CEO responded, see buried comment from 'jmaleter' currently about half way down the comments].
devgutt 14y ago
I'm in SF for a month and stumbled upon this web site that seems interesting to find co-founders and like minded entrepreneurs to exchange ideas and maybe some early feedback about my upcoming launch startup. I tried to sign up but dropped in the middle and received the follow email: Hey, I saw that you started to apply for FounderDating yesterday but haven’t finished it yet. Just wanted to reach out and see if there is anything I can help with - I’m on the community team? Happy to answer questions or if you’re set highly recommend taking 3 minutes to finish it up Finish it up and submit here >> Here to help, Kristen I responded: Hi Kristen, I don't have a LinkedIn account. This is the reason that I haven't finished. The answer surprised me. No workaround. Hi: We do require a LinkedIn account, it's the easiest way for applicants to save time and pull in past experience and education. Would love to see your application, Kristen Why on earth a company rely so tightly in another company like that. Well, the post gave me a clue.
davidmspi 14y ago
This happened to me! I had to apologize to so many people.
davidmspi 14y ago
This happened to me! I had to apologize to so many people.
kalleboo 14y ago
This is a deceptive, but it's not anything who hasn't used a Facebook app in the past 5 years hasn't been trained to avoid. It makes the OP sound very naive.

289 points by tlrobinson 14y ago

Surprisingly enough this is one thing I really like Facebook for. I always select "Visible only to me" (and of course never grant messaging rights.) The app can't tell the difference and if I really like it I'll green light it once I see what they actually post on my behalf. Given that your relationship with your contacts list on LinkedIn is much more fragile I'm really surprised they haven't given this more attention yet.

obviouslygreen 14y ago

It's surreal that, after all the blow-up-in-your-face moments that social media apps have had after doing underhanded things like this in recent memory, companies are still pushing under-the-radar hard sells like this. It has to take an incredible combination of obliviousness and ethical failure to still consider something like this a good idea. Also, this gives me a very vivid sense of deja vu; I swear I read this exact article at some point last year... strange.

DanBC 14y ago
> It has to take an incredible combination of obliviousness and ethical failure to still consider something like this a good idea. Sadly people don't have to be stupid or evil to think this stuff is acceptable. Bob sees other people do it, and Bob knows it's bad when those people do it, but when Bob does it it's different somehow. There's a reason somewhere that means what other people do is bad spam, but what Bob does is not. When Ann looks at what Bob is doing she thinks it's pretty clearly dodgy. These kinds of cognitive biases are tricky to spot in ourselves.
- eropple 14y ago
  Carving an exception like that for oneself strikes me as immediately disingenuous. I personally can't see how that doesn't make you either stupid or evil or both. I don't think "cognitive bias" doesn't make you not-a-dick.
  - steven777400 14y ago
    Carving exceptions for oneself I think is very common and may not be obvious to the person doing it. My wife hates when people talk on their phone while driving, to the point of screaming obscenities at them. Yet, if her phone rings while she's driving, she often answers it. If I point out the discrepancy, she dismisses it, as her call is "important" or "short" or she's "still watching the road". I suspect I do the same thing, although (like my wife and her phone) I don't realize that I'm judging others for behavior I myself engage in.
  - jimktrains2 14y ago
    _You're_ doing it for a valid reason that makes sense to you _They're_ doing it because they're pricks and trying to get as many eyes as possible. That's normally what I see happen.
    - eropple 14y ago
      Sure, but self-analysis isn't optional.
      - jimktrains2 14y ago
        No, it isn't, but it becomes much more difficult when you feel justified in your actions. This is one of the areas that having "no-men" is a good idea. Someone who will force you to reëxamine your idea and lay out alternatives.
  - criley 14y ago
    As frustrating as it is, actor/observer asymmetry[1] is a reality and you can't simply say it's "unacceptable" unless you're willing to find a lot of people's normal behavior to be "unacceptable". It's a line that if you draw, it becomes hard to not appear dickish in normal situations. Because sadly, everyone abuses actor/observer bias. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetr...
  - DanBC 14y ago
apalmer 14y ago
It still happens because, when your seeking that viral edge sometimes the cost benefit analysis turns out in favor of pissing off a certain percentage of your members. As far as the ethics involved, I don't really expect corporations to be ethical at any level. I would like them to, but I don't expect them to. I am a strong proponent of extreme fines/legal action because really if it doesn't effect the bottomline I dont feel it will change behavoir of a business.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. You're right in that being unethical is the best way to get ahead in the game, and it might be a good idea to make it so that's not the case. That said, the US of A is an adversarial society.
  - brazzy 14y ago
    > I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. Not if the shareholders want them to be ethical more than profitable. Arguably, shared ownership tends to promote turning a blind eye to that aspect.
    - kevinpet 14y ago
      Not for a public C corp. They must maximize shareholder value, or a minority shareholder could sue and win. Patagonia changed their corporate structure to a California B corp to allow this.
      - brazzy 14y ago
        Sounds like a caricature of the actual laws.
  - il 14y ago
    A corporation is just a group of people. It's not possible for a corporation to be ethical or unethical, a corporation doesn't have a soul or a conscience. It's possible for specific people inside a corporation to behave in unethical ways. However, the definition of maximizing shareholder value is not simply "make the stock price as high as possible in the short term." It's perfectly possible for executives in a corporation to take the high road as the optimal strategy for maximizing shareholder value.
notahacker 14y ago
The problem is, it works. It is, after all, why LinkedIn itself has such a strong network (my father used once and apologised many times for using, although you'd never guess that from looking at his 170-contact network). It is the only reason I ever had a Bebo account.
jusben1369 14y ago
This reminds me of "Why is there tele-marketing when everyone hates telemarketers and getting calls at 7pm when you are sitting down to dinner?" Because it worked! It was profitable. Now, interestingly we then hit a tipping point where there was enough outrage (US) that a "Donotcall" list was created - very effectively. How long till there is a "Donotemail" equivalent? The industry is arguably not policing itself well enough. I'm really glad the CEO showed up her to defend his/her company but "Hey guy didn't pay enough attention so what are ya going to do?" is too cavalier. Imagine if social services had to check all email addresses given out like this against a central list to see if they were on the "no social offers no matter what"
- jyu 14y ago
  The email equivalent is CAN-SPAM and carries hefty fines for violators.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
jfarmer 14y ago
It's not really an under-the-radar hard sell. Here's the page in question, which nobody in this thread can be arsed to look at: http://cl.ly/image/2V302C3j290B http://cl.ly/image/2V302C3j290B Now, I can see how one might miss the fact that this will send an email. Things you can say if you're being intellectually honest: * The fact that this will send an email should be more prominent * The content of the email should be more explicit * The tone of the email was overly personal * The from: field appears as if it's from the person, not FD Things you can't say if you're being intellectually honest: * The form is opt-out * There's no copy on the page indicating an email will be sent * The copy on the page is hidden below the fold * The copy on the page is worded designed to mislead the user * The fact that clicking submit will send an email is obscured * There is no indication about the content or tone of the email that will be sent Looking at this page, the most aggressive case I can make is for a slightly confusing design that should better highlight the consequences of choosing vouchers. It doesn't seem in any way misleading and doesn't show any of the fingerprints of someone looking to trick a user into accidentally emailing their friends.
- wooster 14y ago
  That's not the page the blog post is talking about. The page the blog is talking about is the one people are sent to after they vouch for someone who has filled out that page.
  - jfarmer 14y ago
    Fair enough. Before people jump on the "omg spam" train they should take it upon themselves as thinking individuals to look at the primary source. I just created a fake LinkedIn account and will post a similar (and honest) analysis after I receive the invite. The fact that nobody in this thread bothered to do their due diligence before pouncing is enough for me to discount their opinions as uninformed. But we'll see what the actual page looks like in a sec.
    - will_work4tears 14y ago
      Any luck on that page?
orangethirty 14y ago
They do it because it works. And will continue to do so until it stops working.

hoopism 14y ago

Your social contacts are currency these days. I could see being burned by this, so I won't say something stupid like he deserved it... but I also feel like he deserved it.

homosaur 14y ago

Honestly, I don't know what the hell some of these companies are thinking but sure wish I had a blacklist of all of them that abuse contacts so I can never ever patronize them.

nym 14y ago
I would use this chrome/ff extension!

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

natrius 14y ago

Aside from this being really uncool, FounderDating doesn't really work anyway. I've done it. Gathering a whole bunch of people who have an idea they want to work on in one place doesn't lead to very many of them pairing up and ditching one of the ideas. It's a lot easier to meet future co-founders, potential hires, and potential bosses before you actually need them. That's how networking works. I'm toying around with a free, open source solution to this problem that reflects its true nature. If you're interested in contributing, contact info's in my profile.

acgourley 14y ago
I think it's more likely to be effective than blind networking. Building an early team just a fundamentally hard problem with no single / quick solution. FWIW I've met very helpful (non-cofounder) people through the site. In it's capacity to be a more startup-specific linkedin, it's interesting.

jmalter 14y ago

Actually, I'm the CEO of FOunerDating and what's surprising is that no one has actually asked if this is what really happens. We not only state (in white writing) on black backgroud) that "a message will be sent to your chosen linkedin contact) and let you see the message but it's also completely opt-in - no tricks where you can't find the "x". People can choose to a) not send or choose who they send a message to. There is nothing sneaky about it. If someone doesn't read the line "this will send a message" there isn't much we can do about that.

ncallaway 14y ago
Does this warning about the message include the text of the message that will be sent? Does the warning say that the message will be signed by the person who sent the message (a message to X from FounderDating saying I clicked a thing is very different than a message to X from _me_)? Does the warning say that you are highly recommending to the person that they join? Or does it just say you are vouching for them? (These are all actual questions, as I haven't gone through that flow. I'm not trying to be snarky)
bkanber 14y ago
Rather than getting defensive in the face of what's a very valid criticism, why don't you work on improving your product? Being more transparent about the message that you're going to send, as well as adding the ability for the user to edit that message, would help you much more than a half-assed defensive statement on Hacker News ever would.
- jmalter 14y ago
  I'm not being defensive (which I know sounds defensive) I'm just explaining how things actually work. That there is a message, but like many things on the internet people don't always read everything.
  - timjahn 14y ago
    "but like many things on the internet people don't always read everything." I agree that many people don't read everything they see on sites, but I believe we should optimize our sites/products for that, to help those people pay attention to the details that matter to them.

tzm 14y ago

I generally assume that every site that gains access to my contact list will try to exploit them without my consent. It's very easy as a developer to do, so I look for dark patterns in the onboarding process that give me red flags into their principles. FounderDating was one that I initially used and immediately deleted after realizing they were attempting to spam.

nollidge 14y ago

> I figured behind the scenes maybe they would send notes to these people, telling them their contact Brian Morearty had used FounderDating, and suggesting that they try it too. How is that even acceptable? Obviously it's far less insidious, but it still sucks.

vertis 14y ago

It's because of similar experiences to this that I will avoid using a social network to sign up for things if it has access to anything more than my details.

joelandren 14y ago

Congrats, you have been GrowthHacked™!

awolf 14y ago

I'm the first to jump into the pit and start publicly shaming companies that abuse my privacy but in this case I'm not sure FounderDating deserves as much flak as it's getting: 1) Selection of which contacts to message was opt-in. The OP decided that he wanted to send a message to a particular subset of his contacts. 2) There was a View/Edit message link that the OP didn't bother to utilize. So between 1) and 2), we have case where somebody opted-in to having a service message their contacts, didn't look to see what that message was going to be even though they had the option to, and then got angry when they discovered they didn't like the content of the message that they could have viewed or edited beforehand. The "I highly recommend applying... you'll thank me later" piece of the message is certainly inappropriate because this was a "get friend to vouch for you" feature, not a "recommend founder dating feature". Still, I don't see this as "spamming your LinkedIn contacts" nor a massive violation of trust. Also, OP's failure to mention the existence of the View/Edit Message link in his rant seems rather dishonest. Edit: I'd love if the early down-voters could explain why they disagree. You seem to have read my entire message in about 20 seconds..

BMorearty 14y ago
Good points. A clarification (also stated in the first paragraph of the post): this was not "get a friend to vouch for you." This was "who would you vouch for?" I am the OP.
- awolf 14y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I'd say as long as it was clear that a message was going to be sent, then a the "Who would you vouch for?" context actually makes the recommendation less inappropriate and puts FD even more in the right. (Of course, there is still the questionable practice of writing such an enthusiastic endorsement in the first person, but again you had final veto powers on the wording and you opted in to it. Such practices are unfortunately "par for the course" nowadays.)
  - doktrin 14y ago
    > Such practices are unfortunately "par for the course" nowadays This is the most extreme faux-1st-person endorsement I've ever seen. It makes schoolFeed look positively reserved. Even if it were the norm (which, based on the response here, it clearly isn't), something being common doesn't make it the least bit right. That's the worst kind of complacency.

jayp 14y ago

The name sounded familiar. This company is a bit spammy anyway. I am part of the Silicon Valley Java User Groups meetup. I got this e-mail from one of their employee in early March: ==== Hey fellow Dev's, I'm a ux designer who just joined the community and I wanted to share info about a great service that seems super relevant for this crew - FounderDating (no, it's not romantic). FounderDating (FD) is an invite-only, online network for entrepreneurs to connect with cofounders. Why FD? High Quality - members are carefully screened for quality and readiness (no recruiters, etc.) Applications and members’ identities are confidential, but a few of the folks who are part of the network are former founders or early employees from: stackmob, Salesforce, Zynga, Loggly and Gilt just to name a few. Balanced - 50% engineering & 50% non-engineering Reach- FD’s online network allows you to connect with people in your city and beyond to share ideas and begin building something you’re passionate about. No Idea Necessary - FD is about the people, so you don’t need to have an idea, just be ready to work on a serious side project The deadline is April 8th, so apply now. http://members.founder[redacted].com/application http://members.founder[redacted].com/application Cheers and feel free to reach out to me off-list with questions, Abby === BTW, this is "Abby's" meetup page: http://www.meetup.com/sv-jug/members/8035133/ http://www.meetup.com/sv-jug/members/8035133/. Not sure if she also goes by another name (Gail) or what. Let's give her the benefit of doubt. Who joins a new meetup and right away sends plugs for their own project? At least, I don't think that's the norm.

ysapir 14y ago
Maybe Abby is Abby Beck, Designer Extraordinaire who makes user friendly products - http://founderdating.com/about/who-we-are-2/ http://founderdating.com/about/who-we-are-2/ On various meetup pages, Abby also describes herself as a designer. I am sorry now I signed up to unlock my city.
- francesca 14y ago
  I've had similar issues. People in my group asked me to stop approving FounderDating posts because they felt it was spammy. Clearly something needs to change with their tone and overall marketing because it could be a great resource for some people with project ideas!

alain94040 14y ago

Happened to me too. Very spammy (I reported it to LinkedIn too, I hope they kill their API access). First, I received a private email from a close friend I trust. Didn't know he was quitting his job and starting something new. All he was asking was for me to vouch for him. Ok. Then a few days later, he told me I should join too. That got really weird. Looks like I wasn't the only one being played.

mnicole 14y ago

Hey guys -- jmalter is the founder of FounderDating. jfarmer is the founder of Everlane. Both have terrible UX, but only one of them is being a total ass in this thread (vs. pretending to be oblivious to dark patterns). Mind who you're insulting about their behavior.

mmorett 14y ago
"but only one of them is being a total ass in this thread" lol. And the winner is: jmalter.

mariusz331 14y ago

This reminded me that one of my friends wanted a recommendation from me on FoundersDating. I got to the form you're talking about and here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/KSsinEq http://imgur.com/KSsinEq On the bottom left corner, you'll see they tell you that they'll send a message to your chosen contacts. You can also edit the message. http://imgur.com/yA8tHNP http://imgur.com/yA8tHNP The text is really small. I may not have noticed it had I not been looking for it. Also, I don't know when this was added.

TannerLD 14y ago
Seeing the screenshot (not having looked at the site or anything), the "see/edit this message" is pretty small. Everyone else isn't exaggerating when they say it is small. I also think it's important to notice that the big, friendly button says "Agreed". "Agreed" doesn't lead me to think that it will send a message, just that I will vouch for them.
- mmorett 14y ago
  The button should say "Agreed. And send the message to my Contacts." No one would press that. Hence the fraud.

jarjoura 14y ago

LinkedIn is full of embarrassments. I have no idea why it continually begs me to scrape my gmail inbox for contacts? There is no way my inbox represents business associations that I want shared with anyone let alone LinkedIn.

evolve2k 14y ago

[CEO responded, see buried comment from 'jmaleter' currently about half way down the comments].

devgutt 14y ago

I'm in SF for a month and stumbled upon this web site that seems interesting to find co-founders and like minded entrepreneurs to exchange ideas and maybe some early feedback about my upcoming launch startup. I tried to sign up but dropped in the middle and received the follow email: Hey, I saw that you started to apply for FounderDating yesterday but haven’t finished it yet. Just wanted to reach out and see if there is anything I can help with - I’m on the community team? Happy to answer questions or if you’re set highly recommend taking 3 minutes to finish it up Finish it up and submit here >> Here to help, Kristen I responded: Hi Kristen, I don't have a LinkedIn account. This is the reason that I haven't finished. The answer surprised me. No workaround. Hi: We do require a LinkedIn account, it's the easiest way for applicants to save time and pull in past experience and education. Would love to see your application, Kristen Why on earth a company rely so tightly in another company like that. Well, the post gave me a clue.

davidmspi 14y ago

This happened to me! I had to apologize to so many people.

davidmspi 14y ago

This happened to me! I had to apologize to so many people.

kalleboo 14y ago

This is a deceptive, but it's not anything who hasn't used a Facebook app in the past 5 years hasn't been trained to avoid. It makes the OP sound very naive.