DISQUS

The colors on this blog are horrible. Dark gray text on black background? If this blog was an ad, no one would click it. Another thing is that it annoys me that when I put in my username and password at the top of the page, and then press enter, it doesn't submit the form, so then I have to click the Login button.

People always say that they never act based on advertisements (whether on TV, email, websites, etc.etc.). But they just don't realise how much they do, or like to kid themselves that they're not susceptible. The only way to tell whether people take notice of marketing e-mails is to send lots of them and then see what response you get back.

Just to give an example, I have two main applications. One is a personality questionnaire, which has a surprisingly high number of monthly active users, because it is mostly used by new people each time. I also have a fantasy formula one application, which is mostly used by the same people every day, so it has a surprisingly low number of monthly active users.

Why is Adonomics useless? I am just as interested to see monthly active users graphed as I am daily. Bear in mind that it's not as if it will only be updated once per month, it is just the total number of unique users that have used an application in the last 30 days.

One thing that I think this will show, is that some games are only played by the same people over and over again, so the monthly active users will seem low in comparison to daily active users.

hahaha, how did he put his trousers (Americans read: pants) on while riding the unicycle? :)

Here's my opinion. Hasbro sued Scrabulous in January, then they realised that it would lead to bad PR and they wouldn't get anything out of it. So they temporarily postponed the lawsuit and asked EA to make a Scrabble application for themselves. Now that EA finished and the application has been released, Hasbro has gone back to suing Scrabulous.

They always planned to get rid of Scrabulous. The article talks about how they "briefly" met with the Scrabulous owners, but in my opinion there was no serious intent to collaborate. I think that they just did it to try to look like the good guys and to bide some time before their application was finished and released.

Hasbro knows that a law suit against Scrabulous will probably take a few months at best. That's why they have asked Facebook directly to remove Scrabulous, hoping that it will be the weak link. I hope that Facebook doesn't fold so easily.

It's a typical big company policy. They don't understand the internet and they certainly don't understand the social internet. So their first response is to start suing.

From Paul's post: "new policies apply to existing features as well: for example, not incentivizing requests"

Also, from the policy document: "Applications cannot incentivize users (for example, offer points, virtual or real payments, or a ranking) to grant an additional permission or add or use an Application Integration Point." and "Defined Terms
Application Integration Point means Profile Box, Application Info Section, Application tab, notification email, Feed, requests (including invites), or any other feature of a user profile or Facebook communication channel in which or through which an application can provide, display, or deliver content directed at, on behalf of, or by permission of a user."

I assumed that they planned to build their version of Scrabble, and then step up the suing of Scrabulous until it is shut down. Otherwise it'd just remove Scrabulous and they wouldn't get anything out of it except ill-will from users.

I think it's an interesting idea. They're basically setting up a Yellow Pages (local business search) type of service within the social network.

Local business advertising is an area that Google hasn't managed to crack, despite various attempts. I guess that Facebook could be a good arena to do it, since it has geographical networks and also social networks which are also usually local. If you want a plumber, you'd want two things: firstly he has to be local, and secondly you'd prefer it if a friend recommended him first. Facebook can provide both. Traditional local business search providers can only provide the first.

Also, by giving businesses a free $100 introduction to Facebook advertising, they're getting small business owners to go through the process of advertising online - and hopefully showing them lots of options so that they can target to their local area.

I feel the opposite to Ian above. I just don't see the point of the redesign at all:

- I don't think that info will be as prominent because it won't be at the top of the main page any more, but will be hidden away in another tab.
- I don't think that users will ever want to view each other's application "boxes". I know that as a developer that I get 95% of my new users from the profile box, which I like because I tend to think that it's the least "spammy" way of showcasing my application to new users. I think that once the redesign is finished I shall have to start spamming the news feed, since that will be on the default page, but I doubt that that will make up for it. If Facebook wants medium sized companies to invest time in making applications, then hiding them away so that they're never seen isn't the answer.
- I think that the wall should be on the default tab in its own space, rather than being hidden away in another tab.

By putting the Honesty Box up, they asked for anonymous comments. That's what they got. There is no problem here. There is only so far that you can go to protect someone from themselves. I'm actually surprised to learn that Honesty Box has as many safeguards as it has.

It also annoys me that we can't comment on the Telegraph article. All web articles should allow comments, because there's always another side of the story that journalists miss (or deliberately ignore so as to sensationalise a story). Instead hundreds or thousands of parents will read that article, and not knowing any better they will think that Facebook is condoning online bullying.

Facebook should have a link at the bottom of each application's canvas page to "review this application" - that would increase the number of legitimate reviews and decrease the effect of spam.

If Facebook made it easier for developers to make it easy for users to post a review (i.e. providing a fb tag that will lead to a "review this application" popup box, rather than having to link people to the application homepage) - then there would be more legitimate reviews, so the spam and fake reviews would have less impact.

But if you click on 'stats', then on the 'useage' insights page it tells you your total users exactly.

Facebook has to make the user experience as positive as possible. It isn't about "favouring users over developers" at all, it annoys me when developers say this. In any kind of longer term, Facebook has to get its users to come back again and again, and that means making their experience as positive as possible, otherwise they'll go elsewhere. So in the end a good user experience is beneficial to both users and developers.

Developers of decent applications realise this already.

Your previous article about whether social networks are getting boring would surely back this up. Sometimes I think twice about coming to Facebook because I know that using it is as about fun as sorting my spam folder.

Reasons I am against this:

#1 it won't work - as you say, they can set up a new e-mail address. Also there are plenty of other places to meet people online.
#2 it will waste money to administer
#3 what about sex offenders that haven't been found yet? what about violent offenders? etc.etc. there are lots of undesirable people who aren't registered sex offenders that you wouldn't want talking to your kids. The solution is to practise restraint in who you talk to, what information you give out, and who you agree to meet, and to teach your kids to do the same.

If the court has decided that someone is 'safe' enough to not be in prison, they should be 'safe' enough to join a social networking site. If they're not - then they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

I don't think that it could be used to predict criminal behaviour, because as soon as anyone knows that the government is using Facebook to do this, people's behaviour will change.

Adverts on the other hand, people don't care about and won't change their behaviour, so Facebook can target away.

Maybe they still plan to buy it. Sending a letter just shows that they're "serious" and will shut it down otherwise. So they can offer far less than the application is really worth.

Start with a 'rate this application' option.

The buyers of Where I've Been denied that it was purchased for $3m. It was just an unfounded blog rumour.