Talk:Badoo

Started in 2003 or 2006?

The current info contradicts itself. Luis Dantas (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

South Korea

As Agoust 10, Badoo is still unavailable from South Korean IP's. It looks like is having a php problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.98.120.147 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This is now a site within the top 100 on Alexa and has featured in a report on Yahoo finance. I believe it now has sufficient notablity to be an article. Lumos3 13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A Rewrite?

The current entry totally looks like an advertisement, or typed up by someone at Badoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.90.16 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

The reference No. 4 is a dead link. The Yahoo article has expired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.172.189 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Badoo data mining!

I suspect the numbers on Badoo are pure hype! I apear to be a member even tho' I've never signed up or responded to any mail.... I'm sure it's pure cut and past info from numerous failed dating and networking sites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.96.26 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. The data is highly questionable. I only found out about Badoo because of their annoying spam. This article is an obvious advertisement for them, so I've put a cleanup tag at the top, in line with the various criticisms on this talk page. Palefire (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this warrants a change of the site's definition from "social networking site" to "scam." Unless we try to define something like "involuntary social networking" as a type of business activity. Most of the "members" are being harvested and signed up automatically and without their consent via links in spam emails, which create usernames and passwords for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I see there is modification wars going around whether or not the "invitation" messages are spam. My personal experience couldn't be more telling; I got one of these "messages" telling me I've got a friend message at Badoo. Trying to see it I was forced to register. After registering there was NONE massages!! This is total scam, don't give ANY of your personal info to this site..... --81.197.76.159 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had a similar thing - although I didn't bother registering, I could tell it was spam.

It's a bit of a difficult situation when it comes to articles like this. Badoo isn't a proper social networking site, it's just a small money-making scam - the claim that it has 22 million users is clearly rubbish. It's possible that a large number of people have been conned into registering, as you were, but I can't believe it's in the millions. So really the only piece of information the reader needs is "This is a scam site - avoid." But you're always going to get a few energetic users like Geeria (who is actually not a registered user, and whose only contribution to wikipedia has been to advertise Badoo) dragging us into a time-wasting edit war.

I suppose we need to ask an administrator to block the page. It's really an abuse of wikipedia to be PR-ing a scam site like this. And the unsigned and non-existent users who revert our edits are unsurprisingly refusing to discuss this on the talk page.

By the way, 81.197.76.159, it would help if you signed your edits too.

Palefire (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I thought that was the case with Geeria, and Badoo indeed.. Just dislike the publicity on my part ;) But if it must be done to kill scams..

Oh, just noticed I dont even have an account, created. I have an older account at WP FI --Tntuof (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had the spam experience as well, the spam part is true. Geeria, stop acting like an *-Hole arguing it's not proven and leave it there, it's true, they do exactly that. They trick new subscribees into giving away their login credentials to MSN and whetever else and spamming their entire cointact lists.

Kleena (talk)

Wow, I am so glad to see I am not alone. I am absolutely incensed by this article. It is blatant advertising and I can't understand why it is still there. I have added a paragraph about this which will no doubt be removed by the badoo representatives. How can we get rid of this? --Robotics1 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete

I have received such a phony email as well, and wondering what it was as I suspected something fishy, I went to wikipedia to see what it said about it. The article confirmed my doubts. Therefore it is a useful article. --Anon (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.170.249 (talk) This user is NOT User:Anon

I totally agree with this comment. This article is also referenced from other pages as 'proof' that Badoo is a spam site. Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.164.204 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying. You are saying in not so many words that truth should prevail. Badoo is a real entity therefore it is valid to have an article about it? But that article has to reflect the truth, that Badoo is pushing itself by less than ethical means. I guess once you have $30m invested there is a lot of pressure to succeed by fair means or foul. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

RfC: Is Badoo is spam site and should that claim belong on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a place to slam Badoo. It is an encyclopedia, not a place to warn people of the evils of the world. The biggest policy here is WP:NOTSOAPBOX but these policies also have effect: WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:NOT#OR--TParis00ap (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. This is a unique situation and I see it has been in discussion for 2 years. Fact: Badoo is notable enough to warrant an article. Fact: it is indisputably based on unsolicited emails. The article should reflect the truth in a factual way. That would not be soapbox. On the other hand the very existence of the article may be soapbox because it is written in such a way as to promote the company. If we can not say for sure (because it has not been rigorously tested and we can not quote enough properly documented evidence) that the site relies on unsolicited emails then we should be able to say that it is "alleged". That certainly is a fact. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

Can anyone provide a notable source that describes Badoo's spamming activities, until one is found they are all just individual POVs and are likely to be deleted.Lumos3 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You just quietly deleted some verifiable evidence, the exact quote of their spambot campaign "You have a new message on Badoo!..." Also, scroll to the bottom of your own McAfee reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems from all the edit wars so far that Lumos3 (talk) is the main biased party aiming to legitimize this entity. Why? May be he should gracefully recuse himself from further editing this one article. Just a suggestion. Not only on the spam issue. Look at the recent "Cyprus based" vs "London based." question. We had the wrong "London based" (which sounds more reassuring for the thousnds getting the scam emails who look at Wikipedia to see whether this is a legitimate enterprise or whether the privacy laws they expect apply to them), while the company is really based in Cyprus?!? Nobody bothered to look, but we leaving no stone unturned to prove or disprove if they spam or lie in the spam messages (for which I have about 10 proofs in my mailbox). The company location, for some reason, may be part of Badoo's deception strategy, because the Cyprus based company definitely wants to create an impression that they are based in the UK, for example by writing things like "...sensitive personal data, may be accessed from countries outside the UK. Please note that countries outside Europe may have lower standards of data protection than the UK." And why did Lumos3 (talk) add the London offices in the infobox after finding out that he can't revert the Cyprus edit ad this is not a London based company? Why don't we add them all: Chile, Russia, Mexico, Brasil and other locations where they have offices? I think the corporate HQ is enough for the infobox, no? Wikipedia should not be used to make Badoo more legitimate!!! After all "It is a privae club with 45 million carefully selected members..." (ha, ha... we have to give it to them for the humor!) why should it need more legitimacy. Thanks for litening, Yours, multiple-time carefully selected nominee and, without my permission, multiple time member of the Badoo private club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.179.20 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lumos3, any disclosures under WP:CONFLICT?

10 spam emails in your inbox is not a WP:RS as far as WP:Verifiability. The spamming issue needs independant coverage. Not a million "I got spammed" on the talk page.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but because it is a fact (they do spam, they do harvest email addresses and they do trick naive users into creating accounts and giving their email passwords...), it will be hard to hide behind the "lack of evidence" wall for very long. Some diligent Wikipedian will find or formulate the acceptable evidence for us. I am starting by adding their 'privacy scorecard' according to Cambridge U. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And that is fine if they do, I am not in Europe, have never used the site, and don't care if it spams or not. But without WP:RS it is an unsourced attack. Wikipedia is not the place to warn users. It is a place of fact supported by reliable sources. If a reliable source is found, it should be included. Until then, original research and opinion should not be in the article. Just because "everyone knows it's true" does not mean everyone knows it's true.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection with Badoo and am not a member. All my edits are based on verifiable sources. Someone saying they recieved an email saying x is not a reliable source for an edit to an article. Both the Daily Telegraph and Guardian articles say it is British/ London based. The company does have registered offices in Cyprus and is open about this - the citations for this are from its own pages. Lumos3 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please stop the British/London based madness already? Wikipedia can be more accurate than the Guardian and less easily fooled. They are an offshore company. An IBC. In Cyprus!!! OK? Not in London. Some of their other hosting registrations and netblocks belong to another offshore company in Bermuda. Also easy to look up. Please look at the Wikipedia entries for offshore company and International Business Company (IBC). And why people use these. If, whoever wants to get the benefits and anonymity of operating as an offshore company, they might just have to live with the slight disadvantages of not being able to claim the prestige of their own country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, by far the most common complaint on the Internet about Badoo are spam, deceitful way of recruiting users and disregard for privacy. From blogs in prestigious sites like LaStampa and blogs by unknown bloggers to the majority of comments on security forums:

http://www.lastampa.it/cmstp/rubriche/stampa.asp?ID_blog=141&ID_articolo=85 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/badoo.com http://raoulteeuwen.blogspot.com/2009/06/badoo-sucks-evil-spam.html http://badooit.blogspot.com/2008/11/spam-badoo.html http://www.bloggercorner.com/2009/07/07/794/ http://www.mondoinformatico.info/elenco-dei-socialnetwork-e-dei-loro-servizi_post-6617.html etc. etc.

How many more do you need? Why can't these be synthesized and refrenced? To let the "... but McAfee didn't think so" (BTW, see user comments to that same reference) be left as the misleading conclusion of the spam issue in this article will be a travesty and a triumph of demagogy over reality. 76.166.179.20 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. If this is an issue then it must have been covered in the media somewhere. My searches have found nothing. All we have at the moment is gossip. Lumos3 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lumos3, blogs are not reliable sources because they are not editted. Any person can create a blog and type whatever they wish. McAfee is an established company with expertise in security and privacy, it is a much better source with experts with college degrees in computer science versus regular users who just want to connect with high school alumni. Further, it seems Lumos3 has found creditable information disproving Badoo as a spam site. Please read the Koobface article.

Users can be easily fooled. A spoof site can trick users into believing they are on Badoo when they are actually on a fake. They enter their personal information and BAM they get spammed. Further, many virus' could spread spam like the Koobface one. Facebook and MySpace are hit with similar attacks all the time. Infact, myspace as instituted new technology that verifies links before it will let users access them so they can block these spoofs at will. Security experts know how to tell the difference between spoofs, viruses, and legitimate sites. Bloggers do not. 1 million blogs means only that 1 million users have no technical computer background at all but like to blog about their problems. That is an easily believed scenerio.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam reports and Koobface

I suggest that the recipients of the spam mentioned here are victims of the Koobface worm which affects most social networking sites including Facebook, and MySpace. Lumos3 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you are trying too hard. You wish. But you are wrong. Not everyone on this discussion page who investigated the spam problem is stupid. This spam is being willingly perpetrated by Badoo, has been going since long before Koobface, comes from Badoo's own mail server farms and network ranges, which are even verified with current spf records for badoo.com (v=spf1 ip4:87.245.192.0/21 ip4:66.175.123.0/24 ip4:194.228.191.0/24 ip4:66.119.86.0/24 -all). Don't blame it on Koobface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.38.20 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is still original research unless you have a reliable source. Take your information to a reliable newspaper and have it published. Wikipedia is not the place to post original work. I have nothing against posting the information about Badoo as long as it can be supported by independant coverage from a reliable source.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)