Social Media

Spamming Netscape for Votes

Muhammad Saleem had an interesting [article](http://themulife.com/?p=592) on how Netscape is starting to become abused and spammed by users. A while back Netscape added a messaging feature that allowed users to send messages to each other, but now it is being used as a method for soliciting votes.
netscapemessagespam Spamming Netscape for Votes
It seems Netscape is going to have to do something soon or else it is going to start getting out of hand. I myself rarely check my messages on Netscape, but every week I get tons of them and as Muhammad pointed out it is starting to get irritating. The main reason I think this is happening is because Netscape is a very friendly community and users feel they can send spam messages without making others angry.
Just like Digg, features are going to be used to spam and potentially benefit submitters. This is natural because of all the potential benefits of being on the homepage of Netscape. At the moment the community is pretty lenient based on my observations from a friendly message that I sent out promoting a link; other members accepted it with open arms. Although this is great, hopefully things will change in the near future or else Netscape will quickly get cluttered with junk stories.

 Spamming Netscape for Votes
Neil Patel is the co-founder of KISSmetrics, an analytics provider that helps companies make better business decisions. Neil also blogs about marketing and entrepreneurship at Quick Sprout.

You Might Also Like

Comments are closed.

3 thoughts on “Spamming Netscape for Votes

  1. I used to detest spammers until I talked in-depth with a few at a WebmasterWorld PubCon. One made the point that spammers discover exploits and push them until the system improves. I thought it was an interesting point. Search is better now because Google had to work harder to combat keyword stuffing.
    I think the same is true for Digg and Netscape. I really feel that connecting people to identity is the biggest key to solving spam on user validation systems. It’s much harder to spam a system if there are layers of id verification connected to a user. Perhaps verification could be established via a bank account ala PayPal or by pasting a verification script in a blog. Perhaps systems could be smart enough to separate verified member votes from unverified accounts. Bottom line is we need trust systems for voting to be relevant.

  2. There is one flaw in all of this. ‘Someone’ is assuming that netscape users are easily manipulated by ‘spamming.’ Now I haven’t required a baby sitter for some years now, and rather take offense that ‘someone’ thinks I need protecting. I know how to use the block feature, and I know how to delete a message. I also ‘vote’ for my choices, not someone else’s. ‘Someone’ is being a might arrogant to assume what I do or do not want in my message area.

  3. I agree with Trish. This “Nannyscape” approach is ridiculous. If you don’t want to receive unsolicited message than simply configure your account to not accept messages from people who aren’t in your “mutual friends” list. If a mutual friend sends you messages you don’t like then remove them from your mutual friends list. As a last resort you can even block people. As for not having too many “junk” stories, don’t forget that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.