Disappointed in Groundspeak

June 16, 2011

If one of my friends starts sending a constant stream of "Found" logs, those are bulk messages. They are not solicited. They are sent indiscriminately. They are, in short, spam.

You mean if one of the person you've chosen to become friends with on a social network to receive their updates and see their status sends you their updates and status without regard for whether or not you want to see one, that's spam?

If you don't want the feature that Indy is suggesting, fine, but that's how Facebook works. By your logic any status update is spam, seeing as it's indiscriminate in nature and done in bulk to all of a person's followers. If you want to make a content-based argument, then you have a stronger case, but even then, you could still make the case that "Drank a cup of coffee" today is spam as well.

20.7k · June 16, 2011

Spam is commercial in nature, such as "best v1agr4 on the net!!!1!" and "like us for free offers!" Messages from people you've set up as your friends on FB are not spam. Simple, really.

You don't get to decide what is spam and what is not. Not all spam is commercial in nature.

Here's wikipedia's definition:

"Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."

If one of my friends starts sending a constant stream of "Found" logs, those are bulk messages. They are not solicited. They are sent indiscriminately. They are, in short, spam.

By your own definition, facebook messages do not qualify as spam.

Facebook messages are not unsolicited. You, in fact, stated that you wanted those messages when you 'friended' the sender. You can at any time rescind this permission by blocking the person's messages, opt out of messages from the specific app, or defriending the messenger.
These messages are not sent out indiscriminately. They are sent to a specific group of people who chose to be 'friends'.

2.1k · June 16, 2011

If one of my friends starts sending a constant stream of "Found" logs, those are bulk messages. They are not solicited. They are sent indiscriminately. They are, in short, spam.

You mean if one of the person you've chosen to become friends with on a social network to receive their updates and see their status sends you their updates and status without regard for whether or not you want to see one, that's spam?

If you don't want the feature that Indy is suggesting, fine, but that's how Facebook works. By your logic any status update is spam, seeing as it's indiscriminate in nature and done in bulk to all of a person's followers. If you want to make a content-based argument, then you have a stronger case, but even then, you could still make the case that "Drank a cup of coffee" today is spam as well.

My friend Kevin drinks at least 10 cups of coffee a day. If he starts updating his facebook status every time he drinks a cup of coffee, it's going to be spam.

Spam is not determined by content. A long time ago, when the Internet was young, people were very concerned that no one should be able to censor the Internet. So they very carefully defined spam in a way that made no mention of content. If you send a "Please buy some viagra from me" message to one person, one time, that is not spam. If you post hundreds of identical messages about the flying saucer that landed in your backyard, that is spam. The "lots of nearly identical messages" part is what makes it spam, not the content.

2.1k · June 16, 2011

If you don't want the feature that Indy is suggesting, fine, but that's how Facebook works. By your logic any status update is spam, seeing as it's indiscriminate in nature and done in bulk to all of a person's followers. If you want to make a content-based argument, then you have a stronger case, but even then, you could still make the case that "Drank a cup of coffee" today is spam as well.

That would be mindless drivel to me, spam would be "took a drink of my coffee" 30 seconds later, "took another drink of my coffee" 30 seconds later "Still drinking my coffee" and on and on until the coffee was done.

And now I need to go pour myself another cup of coffee :lol:

June 16, 2011

As I said before, I think that fear is way overblown. Why are people who don't even use facebook so totally convinced that they know how most people on facebook are going to react?
Ah, but I do use Facebook, I just don't want to use it in that way because I find games, etc that people spam me with quickly get ignored. Assuming that anyone arguing against this doesn't use Facebook is a flaw in your argument.
I would hope (if the option existed) that cachers would have some common sense about what they post to facebook. And if they didn't, well, then their friends would hide the app--two clicks, easy peasy--and think no more of it. I highly doubt there will suddenly be a mass of facebookers seething with rage over the cluttering of their newsfeed by this horrid geocaching app. Look, boring/annoying status updates and apps are part of facebook; anybody who uses facebook knows that and accepts that annoyance; it's part of taking the bad with the good.
One of the original "pros" for the idea was "Free Advertizing for GC.com!" Working under the idea that friends would hide the app because of the boring/annoying status updates (underlined words yours, not mine) seems contrary to that original "pro." So, what were the rest of the "pros"?
Actually, the more that I think about it, if it's the opinion of non-caching facebookers that you are concerned about, you should be clamoring for a geocaching.com app to post with and AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!! (Stay with me here, I do have a point! ) From what I've read here in the forums, it's possible to auto-post your logs to twitter. It's also possible to auto-post your twitter feed to facebook. So logically, all the cachers that are intent on "spamming" their friends on facebook will go that route. Well, that's going to annoy their facebook friends wayyyyy more than a geocaching app would, because then you would have to hide *all* twitter feeds, and not just a little ol' geocaching app.

So to avoid giving geocaching a black eye among facebook users, it is IMPERATIVE that we have a geocaching app to post status updates with, or Geocaching As We Know It will cease to exist!

That flies in the face of logic, and I think you know it.

1. Well great then! Then you know how easy it is to simply hide an app that you don't want to see. 2 clicks. Easy peasy. Just because YOU don't want to use it doesn't mean that others shouldn't have that option.

2. I personally don't care about giving gc.com publicity--positive or negative. I'm honestly not that invested in this feature, I doubt that I would even use it. But I find it ridiculous the way some people here react to the mere mention of facebook. *IF* enough people want the feature, then I think it's a reasonable feature to implement. They already have a way with twitter, why not facebook?

3. Actually, it's perfectly logical, though I'll admit it's a little over-wrought and over-blown. Kinda like the argument that if the feature is implemented, suddenly THOUSANDS of facebookers are going to get THOUSANDS of spam messages EVERY DAY, and that will give gc.com a bad name. As I said before, I think most geocachers have enough sense not to post EVERY log, just the meaningful ones. And those that don't have enough sense will be hidden by their friends. 2 clicks. Easy peasy. The sky will not fall.

Look, I'm not personally invested in this issue, but I think it's one worth discussing. Adding features and options can be good for those that want them. Ideally, you can do it in a way that doesn't negatively impact the people that DON'T want them. So a reasonable discussion about options and possible outcomes is useful. Over-wrought hand-wringing doesn't help. Obviously the last attempt to integrate facebook did not go well. But facebook is so ubiquitous, I have to think that some integration is almost inevitable.

June 16, 2011

My friend Kevin drinks at least 10 cups of coffee a day. If he starts updating his facebook status every time he drinks a cup of coffee, it's going to be spam.

Your friend Kevin, whom you've chosen to receive updates and such from is not spamming you, by your definition.

1. You've chosen to receive his updates.

2. His updates are not sent out indiscriminately (they're only sent to people who opted in).

3. They're not sent out in bulk. (again, sent only to people who've chosen to receive his updates).

Your definition doesn't apply.

Also your "lots of identical content" definition also doesn't apply, because there isn't "lots of identical content." There's one post (ie: a status update) that you've chosen to see.

You can't accuse someone of spamming you if you opt in. If you don't want to receive the message, opt out (block the offending person or the generator of the offensive content).

The main component of spam is that it's unsolicited in nature. Nothing you receive on FB is "unsolicited." It's assumed that when you connect to someone it's because you want the information in the first place.

Edited June 16, 2011 by vincenzosi

June 16, 2011

2. I personally don't care about giving gc.com publicity--positive or negative. I'm honestly not that invested in this feature, I doubt that I would even use it. But I find it ridiculous the way some people here react to the mere mention of facebook. *IF* enough people want the feature, then I think it's a reasonable feature to implement. They already have a way with twitter, why not facebook?

Twitter is actually worse because the only way to block certain types of updates is to stop following the person altogether!

18.9k · June 16, 2011

Also, I don't think such messages can be considered spam since you've approved that person to communicate with you. I may not want an email from my friend about helping him move, but it's not spam. It's kind of like giving your email address to Subway to enter a contest. You can expect to receive more emails from them, but they're not spam, because you approved it. You have to unsubscribe from their system after the fact.

Just like blocking an app or user on Facebook.

Years ago I was given a breakdown of SPAM from a programming group I deal with.

They broke it down into:

UCE = Unwanted commercial emails
SCE = Solicted Commercial emails - no longer wanted
MBE = Maliicious Bulk Email - email that could be harmful to your PC
UPE = Unwanted Personal Emails/Messages
UFE = unwanted forwarded emails/messages
Blind - Bulk messages sent to unknown/Guessed addresses/website forms/IM systems

The highlighted one consists of emails from people you communicate with frequently but they send you jokes, photos, stories, etc that you do not wish to see.

June 16, 2011

The highlighted one consists of emails from people you communicate with frequently but they send you jokes, photos, stories, etc that you do not wish to see.

This isn't e-mail.

You opt-in to receive the "full firehose" on Facebook on day one. If you find someone annoying or an app to be not to your liking, you mute it.

June 16, 2011

And now I need to go pour myself another cup of coffee

You and me both. Might even slip something more interesting into it to get through this day.

June 16, 2011

I'm not even a coffee drinker and I had to go get a cup due to the spammer upthread!

2.1k · June 16, 2011

The highlighted one consists of emails from people you communicate with frequently but they send you jokes, photos, stories, etc that you do not wish to see.

This isn't e-mail.

You opt-in to receive the "full firehose" on Facebook on day one. If you find someone annoying or an app to be not to your liking, you mute it.

At least as far the organizations that I work with we count FB as a univeral inbox (and irritation) that may or may not be the way you (or your organization- a number of those in the forums are also in IT or DEV).

2.5k · June 16, 2011

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

June 16, 2011

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

By some. Just like absolutely everything on FB. So should everything be blocked by default?

June 16, 2011

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

The assumption of Facebook is that you connect with someone you want the information from. If I don't want to hear what you have to say, I won't friend you.

Now why can you block things? Well, on FB, there are apps. I may want to hear from you, but not every time you grow a potato in Farmville, so I can block Farmville.

I can also mute you if I don't want to hurt your feelings by unfriending you if we were already friends.

This really isn't complicated stuff.

9.3k · June 16, 2011

There has been no such demonstration.

Just because you refuse to see a thing, doesn't mean it's not there.

June 16, 2011

it greatly annoys me that Facebook seems to have convinced a substantial population that integrating their junk is actually a good thing. I have a few friends who have created businesses, and rather than just building their business a website, they make a Facebook account for the business and then solicit their friends to "like" said business so they will eventually get some kind of unique address or something. No. I'm not going to "like" some friend's business just because the person is a friend. That's spam.

I'm not going to put Facebook's "like" button on my website. I have honestly found better ways out there to enable people to find and share my content.

I have to ask...because I haven't seen it asked yet in all of the threads about Facebook integration on this site...WHY? Why do you want a Facebook "like" button? What other "integration" do you want? Is it really that important to you to log onto gc.com with your Facebook account? What is the advantage of that? What's the whole point of it? Because I don't see any point other than bugging your friends with updates about a game they'll never play.

2.1k · June 16, 2011

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

By some. Just like absolutely everything on FB. So should everything be blocked by default?

I firmly believe that all apps should have an option for the folks who play them to not display in other's wall feeds AND it should be an opt in option. Example: When Billy Bob signs up to play SpamFarm he's asked if he wants to share the game updates with his 'friend's. If he chooses yes then those in his friend list will get one message from SpamFarm if they want it to appear in their wall feed (this would only occur if Billy Bob is the first of their friends to start playing SpamFarm) and they'll be able to opt in (default would be to not display).

But that is a wish and a dream.

June 16, 2011

Because I don't see any point other than bugging your friends with updates about a game they'll never play.

And because of that, you never have to use it.

See, I don't even care why people use it. I probably wouldn't, but that's me. If I don't want to use it, I won't. If I get annoyed by posts, I'll block the GC.com stuff.

Of course, I'm okay with taking control of my FB experience. I see none of the clutter people complain about because I have no problem blocking apps, muting people, and using the myriad of tools they offer to get rid of the annoyances that some people like.

Why someone else wants a feature is not relevant to this argument. I have no use, for example, for Bing Maps so I just choose not to use them.

Simple.

June 16, 2011

There has been no such demonstration.

Just because you refuse to see a thing, doesn't mean it's not there.

I can say the same thing about what I've "demonstrated," as well. These are all opinions, so to assert your stance as fact is wrong.

June 16, 2011

But that is a wish and a dream.

I like it also, but you and I both know it's not compatible with the business model.

June 16, 2011

it greatly annoys me that Facebook seems to have convinced a substantial population that integrating their junk is actually a good thing. I have a few friends who have created businesses, and rather than just building their business a website, they make a Facebook account for the business and then solicit their friends to "like" said business so they will eventually get some kind of unique address or something. No. I'm not going to "like" some friend's business just because the person is a friend. That's spam.

I'm not going to put Facebook's "like" button on my website. I have honestly found better ways out there to enable people to find and share my content.

I have to ask...because I haven't seen it asked yet in all of the threads about Facebook integration on this site...WHY? Why do you want a Facebook "like" button? What other "integration" do you want? Is it really that important to you to log onto gc.com with your Facebook account? What is the advantage of that? What's the whole point of it? Because I don't see any point other than bugging your friends with updates about a game they'll never play.

Have you actually read any of this thread? It's not about the "like" button, it's not about how you log into the website. It's about having a way to auto-post your find log to your facebook status.

June 16, 2011

I have to ask...because I haven't seen it asked yet in all of the threads about Facebook integration on this site...WHY? Why do you want a Facebook "like" button? What other "integration" do you want? Is it really that important to you to log onto gc.com with your Facebook account? What is the advantage of that? What's the whole point of it? Because I don't see any point other than bugging your friends with updates about a game they'll never play.

Sounds like you need to start a new thread, because that has nothing to do with what we're discussing in here.

June 16, 2011

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

By some. Just like absolutely everything on FB. So should everything be blocked by default?

I firmly believe that all apps should have an option for the folks who play them to not display in other's wall feeds AND it should be an opt in option. Example: When Billy Bob signs up to play SpamFarm he's asked if he wants to share the game updates with his 'friend's. If he chooses yes then those in his friend list will get one message from SpamFarm if they want it to appear in their wall feed (this would only occur if Billy Bob is the first of their friends to start playing SpamFarm) and they'll be able to opt in (default would be to not display).

But that is a wish and a dream.

I agree with you. I dislike all those FB games, as well. I play none of them. I like the check in apps like Foursquare or Gowalla which asks each and every time you make a post if you'd like to share it on Facebook.

9.4k · June 16, 2011

Also, I don't think such messages can be considered spam since you've approved that person to communicate with you. I may not want an email from my friend about helping him move, but it's not spam. It's kind of like giving your email address to Subway to enter a contest. You can expect to receive more emails from them, but they're not spam, because you approved it. You have to unsubscribe from their system after the fact.

Just like blocking an app or user on Facebook.

Yes, that's still spam. I may have allowed a company to send me emails because I signed up for something or made a purchase the same as I may have allowed a "friend" to be able to send me messages on a site, but that doesn't mean that anything they send me is solicited. If it was, I wouldn't have the option to unsubscribe or block it because that would be violating my agreement with them.

8k · June 16, 2011

Spam is when a topic on the Groundspeak forum is sidetrackes into a meaningless debate about what some irrelevant term means.

The issue isn't whether or not it is called spam. It is true that some Facebook users indiscriminantly share things - resulting in too many posts about topics their friends don't care about. However, Facebook provides tools to limit this, including ultimately to stop using Facebook.

2.1k · June 16, 2011

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

By some. Just like absolutely everything on FB. So should everything be blocked by default?

I firmly believe that all apps should have an option for the folks who play them to not display in other's wall feeds AND it should be an opt in option. Example: When Billy Bob signs up to play SpamFarm he's asked if he wants to share the game updates with his 'friend's. If he chooses yes then those in his friend list will get one message from SpamFarm if they want it to appear in their wall feed (this would only occur if Billy Bob is the first of their friends to start playing SpamFarm) and they'll be able to opt in (default would be to not display).

But that is a wish and a dream.

I agree with you. I dislike all those FB games, as well. I play none of them. I like the check in apps like Foursquare or Gowalla which asks each and every time you make a post if you'd like to share it on Facebook.

Now if only we had the same option for those silly polls/questions!

June 16, 2011

Yes, that's still spam. I may have allowed a company to send me emails because I signed up for something or made a purchase the same as I may have allowed a "friend" to be able to send me messages on a site, but that doesn't mean that anything they send me is solicited.

Actually, yes it was, the moment you agreed to receive updates from a person. If you don't like the kinds of updates you're getting, that's for you to deal with by...

If it was, I wouldn't have the option to unsubscribe or block it because that would be violating my agreement with them.

There's no agreement. You either want to receive stuff from the people you agree to see stuff from, or you don't. If you don't, there are mechanisms from muting, to blocking apps, to unfriending to take care of it.

June 16, 2011

Spam is when a topic on the Groundspeak forum is sidetrackes into a meaningless debate about what some irrelevant term means.

Actually, it's quite relevant because one of the problems with Indy's idea (according to the dissenters) is that it would generate "spam."

9.4k · June 16, 2011

Yes, that's still spam. I may have allowed a company to send me emails because I signed up for something or made a purchase the same as I may have allowed a "friend" to be able to send me messages on a site, but that doesn't mean that anything they send me is solicited.

Actually, yes it was, the moment you agreed to receive updates from a person. If you don't like the kinds of updates you're getting, that's for you to deal with by...

If it was, I wouldn't have the option to unsubscribe or block it because that would be violating my agreement with them.

There's no agreement. You either want to receive stuff from the people you agree to see stuff from, or you don't. If you don't, there are mechanisms from muting, to blocking apps, to unfriending to take care of it.

Ever hear of the "Do not call" list? It's very similar. When you sign up, telemarketers are not allowed to call you. If you do business with a company, you are entering into an agreement that they are allowed to call you regardless of your "Do not call" status.

2.1k · June 16, 2011

My friend Kevin drinks at least 10 cups of coffee a day. If he starts updating his facebook status every time he drinks a cup of coffee, it's going to be spam.

Your friend Kevin, whom you've chosen to receive updates and such from is not spamming you, by your definition.

1. You've chosen to receive his updates.

2. His updates are not sent out indiscriminately (they're only sent to people who opted in).

3. They're not sent out in bulk. (again, sent only to people who've chosen to receive his updates).

Your definition doesn't apply.

Also your "lots of identical content" definition also doesn't apply, because there isn't "lots of identical content." There's one post (ie: a status update) that you've chosen to see.

You can't accuse someone of spamming you if you opt in. If you don't want to receive the message, opt out (block the offending person or the generator of the offensive content).

The main component of spam is that it's unsolicited in nature. Nothing you receive on FB is "unsolicited." It's assumed that when you connect to someone it's because you want the information in the first place.

You're right. I'm an idiot. How could I ever disagreed with you?

June 16, 2011

Ever hear of the "Do not call" list? It's very similar. When you sign up, telemarketers are not allowed to call you.

If you are doing so in an unsolicited manner.

If you do business with a company, you are entering into an agreement that they are allowed to call you regardless of your "Do not call" status.

Actually, you make no such agreement, bu the Do Not Call List does not apply to them because there could be a legitimate business purpose for calling you. The reason you can't just block every caller at all times is because you could, theoretically, block bill collectors after you run up a debt.

But it's not relevant anyway because opting to receive someone's status updates on FB is not analogous to getting phone calls from a shoe store who thinks you might like a new pair. It's implicit that I want the shoe store call (or that I should be getting it). It's explicit that I want the FB status because I opted in.

Edited June 16, 2011 by vincenzosi

June 16, 2011

You're right. I'm an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

How could I ever disagreed with you?

Are you this charming in person, too?

Edited June 16, 2011 by vincenzosi

9.4k · June 16, 2011

Ever hear of the "Do not call" list? It's very similar. When you sign up, telemarketers are not allowed to call you.

If you are doing so in an unsolicited manner.

If you do business with a company, you are entering into an agreement that they are allowed to call you regardless of your "Do not call" status.

Actually, you make no such agreement, bu the Do Not Call List does not apply to them because there could be a legitimate business purpose for calling you. The reason you can't just block every caller at all times is because you could, theoretically, block bill collectors after you run up a debt.

But it's not relevant anyway because opting to receive someone's status updates on FB is not analogous to getting phone calls from a shoe store who thinks you might like a new pair. It's implicit that I want the shoe store call (or that I should be getting it). It's explicit that I want the FB status because I opted in.

I may shop at [some store] but I don't want [that store] to call me and ask if I need more [product or service]. Ever donate clothes to Amvets or similar organization? Just do it once and they'll spam you with phone calls and flyers on your door every time they're doing a pickup in your area, even if your donation was a one-time thing.

19k · June 16, 2011

If you want to get technical (instead of using a user-editable document), doesn't the CAN-SPAM act say that to be considered spam the messages "must be sent to a unique electronic mail address?" I don't think posting to a Facebook account falls under that.

Your definition of spam is obviously not the same as how many others define it, but that does not make them wrong. Spam did indeed start out as commercial emails, but many other things are considered spam by most today. People are telling you that it bothers them, and you are, essentially, telling them, "no, it doesn't".

2.1k · June 16, 2011

You're right. I'm an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

How could I ever disagreed with you?

Are you this charming in person, too?

Why yes, I am. Thanks for noticing.

19k · June 16, 2011

(instead of using a user-editable document)

Wikipedia is pretty darned reliable, IMO, but if you don't trust it, check the edit history.

June 16, 2011

People are telling you that it bothers them, and you are, essentially, telling them, "no, it doesn't".

Actually, that's kinda not what he's doing. He's taking the tack that if you friend someone on FB, you get their crap and whatever they send out. If you don't want it, use the mechanisms to block it.

I don't think I've ever seen him say "this doesn't bother you," but if you could quote a spot where he said so I'll gladly retract my point.

19k · June 16, 2011

If you don't want the feature that Indy is suggesting, fine, but that's how Facebook works. By your logic any status update is spam, seeing as it's indiscriminate in nature and done in bulk to all of a person's followers. If you want to make a content-based argument, then you have a stronger case, but even then, you could still make the case that "Drank a cup of coffee" today is spam as well.

That would be mindless drivel to me, spam would be "took a drink of my coffee" 30 seconds later, "took another drink of my coffee" 30 seconds later "Still drinking my coffee" and on and on until the coffee was done.

No, that would be Twitter.

June 16, 2011

People are telling you that it bothers them, and you are, essentially, telling them, "no, it doesn't".

Actually, that's kinda not what he's doing. He's taking the tack that if you friend someone on FB, you get their crap and whatever they send out. If you don't want it, use the mechanisms to block it.

Between this and people "considering" messages spam is the disconnect. I could consider cups of coffee spam if I wanted to. Doesn't make it accurate.

June 16, 2011

No, that would be Twitter.

Which is, ironically enough, connected to GC.com.

June 16, 2011

Between this and people "considering" messages spam is the disconnect. I could consider cups of coffee spam if I wanted to. Doesn't make it accurate.

Clearly. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

19k · June 16, 2011

And now I need to go pour myself another cup of coffee

You and me both. Might even slip something more interesting into it to get through this day.

I had to read that three times before I realized that you did not really say " Might even slip INTO something more interesting"

Considering your avatar... well, you can imagine the visual.

2.1k · June 16, 2011

If you don't want the feature that Indy is suggesting, fine, but that's how Facebook works. By your logic any status update is spam, seeing as it's indiscriminate in nature and done in bulk to all of a person's followers. If you want to make a content-based argument, then you have a stronger case, but even then, you could still make the case that "Drank a cup of coffee" today is spam as well.

That would be mindless drivel to me, spam would be "took a drink of my coffee" 30 seconds later, "took another drink of my coffee" 30 seconds later "Still drinking my coffee" and on and on until the coffee was done.

No, that would be Twitter.

Something like 70% of what goes out on Twitter is considered Mindless Drivel (I used to have a graph showing the percents of the Twitter traffic fell into what catagory).

19k · June 16, 2011

So should everything be blocked by default?

Sounds great to me!

June 16, 2011

Considering your avatar... well, you can imagine the visual.

Well-played, my friend.

1.7k · June 16, 2011

I'm not going to put Facebook's "like" button on my website. I have honestly found better ways out there to enable people to find and share my content.

Dude, you have a facebook, twitter, myspace, and many more underneath every single one of your blog posts.

June 16, 2011

So should everything be blocked by default?

Sounds great to me!

That's already an option, it's labeled "don't sign up for Facebook."

2.1k · June 16, 2011

So should everything be blocked by default?

Sounds great to me!

I could see a system in which when you friended someone you checked the boxes of what you'd like to see from that person: Eg Wall Posts from Friends of Billy Bob, Status updats from Billy Bob, Apps Billy Bob is running, Pictures Billy Bob uploads etc.

June 16, 2011

Dude, you have a facebook, twitter, myspace, and many more underneath every single one of your blog posts.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Disappointed in Groundspeak

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment