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

http://ilikestuffblog.com/2013/04/26/do-you-want-to-spam-your-linkedin-contacts-and-be-humiliated-try-founderdating/

by tlrobinson • 13 years ago

289 126 13 years ago

mtrimpe• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

DanBC3• 13 years 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.

eropple2• 13 years 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.

apalmer• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

notahacker• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

The email equivalent is CAN-SPAM and carries hefty fines for violators.

jfarmer4• 13 years 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

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.

wooster3• 13 years 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.

ebbv2• 13 years ago

Here's the mistake you're making. You don't find it misleading. Because you don't find it misleading you're assuming nobody else should. That's not how reality works.

Other people are saying they found the page they saw misleading. You have to take them at their word.

If FounderDating folks have a brain in their heads, they will take that feedback seriously.

doktrin6• 13 years ago

So, being honest (intellectually or not), here's what I can say :

The tone and wording used in the auto-generated email shocked me. I would be pissed if that had been sent to anyone I know.

Saying that the content of the email "should be more explicit" is an understatement of significant magnitude, and it glosses over the crux of the issue. The site clearly betrayed the OP's trust, and had I been in his shoes I would have felt the same way.

edit :

My comment was made prior to your edit which added mention of the "tone" and the "from: field".

I have also up-voted your comment, although I strongly disagree with the conclusion.

orangethirty• 13 years ago

They do it because it works. And will continue to do so until it stops working.

hoopism• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

nym6• 13 years ago

I would use this chrome/ff extension!

natrius• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

jmalter3• 13 years 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.

bostonpete2• 13 years ago

> Actually, I'm the CEO of FOunerDating

Um, you misspelled your company name.

w1ntermute• 13 years ago

Maybe there were some typos in the code too that caused this snafu.

ncallaway• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

jmalter3• 13 years 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.

chmullig• 13 years ago

How about not having awful, abusive "features?"

mrev• 13 years ago

creative use of parentheses

cobrausn• 13 years ago

I don't think the problem is with the message, the problem is with the way it is worded as a personal email from A to B when they probably thought they were getting a generic 'A has invited you to join FounderDating!'.

jmalter3• 13 years ago

Yes, we have a "see/edit message link"

milkshakes• 13 years ago

For the record, "opt in" has a specific meaning. For your spamming to be considered "opt in", a user would have to actively take an action that indicates that they want you to spam their friends. What you have described appears to be an "opt out" scenario.

parfe• 13 years ago

>I didn’t have to do it but I thought oh well, I guess I’ll do it and see what happens.

The guy whining in the blog post exactly opted in.

jfarmer4• 13 years ago

No, you're deliberately misunderstanding her. Here's a screenshot of the page in question: http://cl.ly/image/2V302C3j290B

I can see how it'd be easy to miss the fact that this will send an email, although it's stated unambiguously, at the top of the page, and underlined. And it's definitely opt-in. I have to select folks.

6cxs2hd6• 13 years ago

> it's also completely opt-in - no tricks where you can't find the "x".

Opt-in means the X is not checked by default.

Opt-out would be where the X is checked, and people have to find/un-check it.

Opt-out is disallowed (ethically and/or legally) in many situations.

I don't know if you're truly doing opt-in or -out, but I wanted to point out the difference.

Opt-in is how you avoid unpleasant surprises. When it comes to email marketing, some even advocate double confirmation: You opt-in, and get an email where you have to click a link to confirm you really do want it.

jfarmer4• 13 years ago

I'm sure she understands. Here's a screenshot of the page in question, since nobody here can be arsed to actually check facts: http://cl.ly/image/2V302C3j290B

AgentConundrum• 13 years ago

> People can choose to a) not send or choose who they send a message to

If people have to "choose to not send", then you shouldn't claim your process is "completely opt-in", as what you're doing is the very definition of opt-out.

cupcake-unicorn• 13 years ago

Wow, this overly defensive response doesn't help your situation. You don't need to insult the intelligence of a user making a valid complaint. You make it sound as if he had a different motive for writing the article ..

ebbv2• 13 years ago

"Hey this idiot didn't look hard enough at what we were going to do for him." isn't the best defense, and really doesn't make your company look better.

Here's what you should have said:

"It was not our intention to mislead users with the recommend feature. We felt the current wording was clear. However, apparently it is not. We will be issuing an update as soon as possible to make this feature more clear and ask the user to review and modify the message that will be sent out before we send it.

Thank you for this valuable feedback."

You'll thank me later.

jaynos• 13 years ago

Well played with that closing line.

ryanglasgow• 13 years ago

Wow, blaming the user? That's low. Just like in customer service where the customer is always right, in web development the user is always right. It's not the users fault they didn't see some text, it's YOUR fault.

whaevr• 13 years ago

Boom. That right there pretty much ended any defense the CEO had. HN has countless submissions focusing on site layout/design/user interaction/click rate/etc

If you wanted the user to be able to see the message or cared that they did, you would have made it more obvious what was going on here.

jimktrains23• 13 years ago

The term Layer 8 and PEBKAC exist for a reason.

That said, she now knows that people aren't reading the instructions and should find someone to get them to.

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

> If someone doesn't read the line "this will send a message" there isn't much we can do about that.

Oh that is totally untrue. There is something fairly obvious you could do: Don't attack people with viral tools in the first place.

Anything that intentionally adds overhead to the other person, without adding value to them, is an attack. How many people can you possibly think would want to advertise your service for you - and need your words to do it? You think if people really want to share your product they're going to develop a sudden writing difficulty?

You know as well as I that people don't read everything - we have finite attention, we do things in a hurry. And you exploit that as an attack vector for your nasty advertising stuff.

You're acting against the other party's interests from the off and you want to what?... Make it seem okay somehow? I suppose strictly speaking it's better if it's the way you say it is than some other way - but it's like saying: "Well, strictly speaking, I only murdered three children. Not the ten everyone said I did."

mmorett6• 13 years ago

"You think if people really want to share your product they're going to develop a sudden writing difficulty?"

Checkmate. She can't worm her way out of that.

larrys• 13 years ago

What you are saying "and let you see the message" appears to contradict what the OP is saying. "I don’t remember being asked to approve the wording–because if I had been asked, I most certainly would not have approved the wording."

Perhaps you could post some screen shots of exactly what someone would see and apparently what someone missed?

While it seems possible that someone missed a checked box it doesn't seem possible that someone missed particular wording which is what you imply happens by "let you see the message." Can you clarify this with screen shots? (I'm just noting how people are taking you to task over this and I'd like to see exactly what someone has seen.)

driverdan• 13 years ago

Can you or someone else post a screenshot so we can see what it actually looks like?

wooster3• 13 years ago

Actually, I just had this happen to me today.

From my perspective, you fooled me into using my professional network to advertise your service. You sent an email which purported to be me, put words in my mouth, and made me look like an ass to my colleagues.

I had to go look in my LinkedIn inbox and send out apology emails to everyone you messaged on my behalf.

> (in white writing) on black backgroud)

In tiny text. That I didn't notice until it was too late.

> and let you see the message

I didn't see the message beforehand. It isn't visible by default. I didn't realize what you were really going to do until I Googled for "FounderDating spam", which turned up the above article. That article, by the way, was submitted by one of the people you spammed, and who I wrote an email to to apologize.

> it's also completely opt-in - no tricks where you can't find the "x".

It's actually opt-out, not opt-in. And by opt-out, I presume that means I should've marked all of your default selections as not "entrepreneurial".

> not send or choose who they send a message to

It's not clear from the UI that picking a person sends a message to them.

> There is nothing sneaky about it.

In my opinion, it's downright deceptive.

> there isn't much we can do about that.

You could try not abusing my trust.

stfu• 13 years ago

I'm in a dilemma. On the one hand it is a highly relevant response to the problem stated by the OP on the other I am absolutely not satisfied with that response. So with that in mind - up or down voting?

DavidChouinard• 13 years ago

I emailed you on April 30th with the following:

  I recently applied to FD and it appears that you randomly 
  spammed 10 of my LinkedIn contacts. What the hell? Not cool.

That "line" definitely wasn't obvious to me. I originally dismissed the oversight as carelessness on my end, but the widespread outcry here leads me to believe the UI is likely deceiving.

I was highly embarrassed when I received a reply to one of the LinkedIn messages. And your failure to respond to my email only makes it worse.

nym6• 13 years ago

This is exactly the problem- they choose to ignore / attempt to discredit the people giving them an early warning that this is "Not cool" / deceptive.

laurenia• 13 years ago

Since your service is invite-only, why don't you post a screenshot of the page in question? If a significant portion of posters think the page is deceptive, maybe that's an indication that your UI is the problem, not the user.

doktrin6• 13 years ago

> There is nothing sneaky about it.

There really is. The fact that you either don't realize this, or care to admit it, is cause for concern. The email being sent out to your users' contacts is highly personal, and one very few people would be comfortable with.

> If someone doesn't read the line "this will send a message" there isn't much we can do about that.

How far would you extend this logic? That is to say, how much can be justified by saying someone "missed the fine print"? In my opinion you clearly crossed a line here, just not a legal one.

mikeash• 13 years ago

I can't decide what amazes me more: that you think the described behavior is acceptable, or that you think writing this comment will somehow help your case.

ilamont• 13 years ago

The OP and several other people on this thread have identified real problems with your service's integration with LinkedIn. They clearly feel a line has been crossed.

Instead of blaming users, how about stepping up to the plate, and addressing the problem?

wiwillia• 13 years ago

I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but looking at the screenshot it's very clear that this was a conscious decision and honestly your response here is inappropriate.

Here's the facts of this flow (http://imgur.com/KSsinEq):

1. EVERYTHING that indicates a message will be sent is squished into one corner in 11pt font-size - smaller than anything else in the flow. Neither the header nor the explanation indicate a message will be sent.

2. The two links that you squished into a corner do not follow standard link conventions, they are neither underlined nor in classic blue. Which is interesting because across the rest of your site I see you use the underline convention of grey links (in the "save for later' and the footer for instance).

3. It's not white on black, it's #c8c8c8 on #3a3a3a, those are both muted tones that make the contrast significantly less stark. It makes a difference (check this out: http://i.imgur.com/Pypkv3n.jpg). The header is pure white on the background, so clearly you knew the color would make less of an impact when muted.

Why not just own up to the fact you wanted to get the word out and this was a classic attempt of a company being too smart for it's own good? I'm sure this version converted way better than when you made it clear it sent a message. Instead you come in and just fan the flames.

doktrin6• 13 years ago

This is one of the most informative posts in this thread. Thank you for sharing both the screen shot as well as your analysis, which I agree with.

In all sincerity, I did not even see the link text the first time I looked at the screen shot (and I was consciously aware it should be there). I'm not in the least bit surprised others "missed" it.

jackmaney• 13 years ago

What makes FounderDating spammy is that the messages are opt-out, not opt-in.

ceocoder• 13 years ago

In case if you are wondering what honest "opt-in" option looks like, I recommend looking at Louis CK's site - http://i.imgur.com/jJDuTeQ.gif - it actually made me want to check yes

edit: Louis not Louie

mmorett6• 13 years ago

"We not only state (in white writing) on black backgroud)..."

Yes. In a SMALL font. INTENTIONALLY far away from the Agree button. You know damn well what you're trying to do. If you really wanted to give them the option to see the email sent out, you would have designed that to be transparent.

But you didn't. Intentionally.

bostonpete2• 13 years ago

Wow. Making this comment and then allowing hours of responses to it to build up without a followup could be a case study in mismanaged PR.

sefk• 13 years ago

I got bit by your site recently too. The way that flow is designed feels like it was designed to be deceptive. I was embarassed when I found out that you'd spammed a bunch of my contacts.

It's too bad because your business seems really valuable and would have been something I would have considered using if it wasn't for this terrible experience.

I hope you take my feedback as constructive and you use it as fodder to justify for changing this UX. Good luck.

- Sef (http://sef.kloninger.com)

tzm• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Congrats, you have been GrowthHacked™!

awolf2• 13 years 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..

BMorearty4• 13 years 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.

awolf2• 13 years 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.)

ibejoeb2• 13 years ago

Either way, the email reads like "I'm vouching for FounderDating."

jkrems• 13 years ago

I'm sorry - but a "View/Edit message"-link? That seems like the proverbial fig leaf and nothing more. If they wanted people to view/edit the message, they would show a preview of the message without "finding" the link first. They hide the message by default and they do that for a reason (if they aren't stupid).

jayp• 13 years 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

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/. 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• 13 years ago

Maybe Abby is Abby Beck, Designer Extraordinaire who makes user friendly products - 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• 13 years 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!

jamesaguilar• 13 years ago

Who do all those ManagingDirectors [sic] direct? Title inflation ahoy.

ibejoeb2• 13 years ago

I'll say they're spammy. This is the same form letter that gets posted to many tech-leaning meetups. It's started some pretty long, snarky threads on the mailing lists to the point where I had to unsub from one.

Oh, if you're worried that you missed the April 8th deadline, don't worry: the last email I got from them was on the 11th.

This ought to be a case study on how to make a not-terrible concept into a really unsavory mess.

aklemm• 13 years ago

Yep, I've seen this exact text come through other Meetup groups many times here in the DC area. This wording has been in use for months. My email archive has this email sent to 6 different meetup groups going back to 2/14/2013.

austenallred• 13 years ago

I was asked to be a "Managing Director" of my local chapter of FounderDating when it unlocked. Basically this is a volunteer representative who wants to help out the community. While I was not in need of a co-founder, I knew a few people who did, and thought the network might be beneficial to them.

It's not surprising that you got this email; they basically sent us a few dozen stock emails and directed us to send them out to other groups in the area. I was happy to have them, as they cut down my work, but I changed some of the wording because I would never really talk that way. My guess would be this was part of the outreach effort of some newly recruited "managing director" who was trying to figure out how to contact user groups.

So while whether or not this is "spammy" is debatable, I wouldn't be so fast as to assume it is one person assuming different personas.

alain94040• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

mmorett6• 13 years ago

"but only one of them is being a total ass in this thread"

lol. And the winner is: jmalter.

mariusz331• 13 years 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

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

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• 13 years 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.

mmorett6• 13 years ago

The button should say "Agreed. And send the message to my Contacts."

No one would press that. Hence the fraud.

jarjoura• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

devgutt• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

kalleboo• 13 years 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.

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

Related Stories