How To Become A Spammer Regardless Of People Following You On Twitter(skorks.com)
skorks.com
How To Become A Spammer Regardless Of People Following You On Twitter
http://www.skorks.com/2010/02/how-to-become-a-spammer-as-a-programmer-regardless-of-people-following-you-on-twitter/
10 comments
> Few days back there was someone here who told us that he was getting as much as 1 thousand dollars EVERYDAY by developing many small apps for the iPhone and selling those.
I believe that was Max (the original article author). Was it not?
I believe that was Max (the original article author). Was it not?
Yes, that is correct.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1060019
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1060019
"I know he is not just advocating building made-for-adsense sites, it’s not the method, it’s the attitude that goes with it, that is the real issue. Lets not care about providing any kind of value, lets not worry about any sort of professionalism, all we want to do is scam some suckers out of $1 a day and believe you me there are plenty of suckers on the web."
I don't get this common reaction to the post? What's wrong with providing something for a dollar, if it's worth a dollar?
What's necessarily unprofessional about providing something worth a dollar?
What is it about online entities that make it necessary for them to be somehow more "worthy" than most peoples' daily slog in a cubicle or behind a register? Yes, the internet makes it more possible to make "worthy" entities, but why must they be worthy?
Just because some people associate their better instincts and identity with the internet doesn't mean that everyone should do the same. Otherwise we'd all be driving Priuses.
I don't get this common reaction to the post? What's wrong with providing something for a dollar, if it's worth a dollar?
What's necessarily unprofessional about providing something worth a dollar?
What is it about online entities that make it necessary for them to be somehow more "worthy" than most peoples' daily slog in a cubicle or behind a register? Yes, the internet makes it more possible to make "worthy" entities, but why must they be worthy?
Just because some people associate their better instincts and identity with the internet doesn't mean that everyone should do the same. Otherwise we'd all be driving Priuses.
I think the matter of the method of the monetization is part of the problem here, Max never explicitly wrote how he intended to monetize the traffic. Selling something for a dollar is one thing, entering the SEO page space war in order to attract enough traffic to get $1 per day per web property is another.
I think I should state this a bit clearer - I don't know SEO, I've not done SEO marketing or generate pages or all that stuff. I have no idea how it works.
I make money with iphone + developer tools + web tool + code repackaging. I can follow the $1 principle using those and it works.
Of course, I started with $1 goal, but they are all making far more than that.
SEO stuff is just too competitive, I am not smart enough to go battle against people with years of experience. My next moves are going to be facebook, smaller social network apps. Then I'll face video and add-on tools for iphone.
Assuming niche sites is about SEO is thinking small. I specifically mentioned examples and said to build software around it, not to go make a landing page style stuff.
The journey towards 400 projects will give you the insight you need to make a lot of money. It's the journey that makes the difference, not the goal.
I make money with iphone + developer tools + web tool + code repackaging. I can follow the $1 principle using those and it works.
Of course, I started with $1 goal, but they are all making far more than that.
SEO stuff is just too competitive, I am not smart enough to go battle against people with years of experience. My next moves are going to be facebook, smaller social network apps. Then I'll face video and add-on tools for iphone.
Assuming niche sites is about SEO is thinking small. I specifically mentioned examples and said to build software around it, not to go make a landing page style stuff.
The journey towards 400 projects will give you the insight you need to make a lot of money. It's the journey that makes the difference, not the goal.
I think you completely set people on the wrong track with your 'owl' site example.
I got that from Patrick! He gave that example, so I used it also.
Oh, I thought you had posted first and it was the weirdest coincidence ever.
Your owl idea and my owl idea are quite different, Max. If you notice people criticizing your owl idea, they keep coming back to the fact that your idea exploits content already created by someone else and served by YouTube, and that the act of putting it on an owl video minisite monetized by AdSense does not create value.
In comparison, I paid to have my owl bingo cards created, I am unambiguously the moral owner of the content (both because I paid for it and because I made the software that made it possible), my cards enrich the Internet because they fill the "owls of Asia bingo"-shaped hole in the life of some actual user somewhere, the cards accurately demonstrate the operation of a software product which is actively supported, maintained, etc.
Your owl idea and my owl idea are quite different, Max. If you notice people criticizing your owl idea, they keep coming back to the fact that your idea exploits content already created by someone else and served by YouTube, and that the act of putting it on an owl video minisite monetized by AdSense does not create value.
In comparison, I paid to have my owl bingo cards created, I am unambiguously the moral owner of the content (both because I paid for it and because I made the software that made it possible), my cards enrich the Internet because they fill the "owls of Asia bingo"-shaped hole in the life of some actual user somewhere, the cards accurately demonstrate the operation of a software product which is actively supported, maintained, etc.
I'm not advocating the method. I am not here to judge what anyone wants to do with their time. What I am saying is that if you put owls on a site and call it owlvideo, you will make $1 a day.
The context was about how difficult or easy it was to make $1 a day, and my samples there were made to demonstrate the required amount of work involved in making $1 a day.
I don't do such things (I tried with the ninja video site, did not work out). I'm pointing out that it can be done that way.
The context was about how difficult or easy it was to make $1 a day, and my samples there were made to demonstrate the required amount of work involved in making $1 a day.
I don't do such things (I tried with the ninja video site, did not work out). I'm pointing out that it can be done that way.
Anyone remember the $400K Parrot eBook?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=516215
(what is it about birds and AdSense?)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=516215
(what is it about birds and AdSense?)
What I got out of your post is that the journey matters, not each individual app. If someone strives to make 400 apps that will make $400/month he will learn a ton along the way and be forced not to fall in love with one idea. When people fall in love with an idea they stop trying other things.
Using this approach you can reflect on all the different little projects you worked on and then pick out different ones where getting the $1/day was easier than for others.
Using this approach you can reflect on all the different little projects you worked on and then pick out different ones where getting the $1/day was easier than for others.
Dude, you get it.
I think we need to view maxklein's blog posts through the prism of what he's setting out to achieve. He has mentioned a few times that he's in a "notoriety building" phase (my words, not his) with a view to exploiting that at a later date.
Right now he's generating buzz around his personal brand so that when he does have something he really wants to shout about he'll have people ready to listen.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this approach as such - but keeping it in mind does temper my expectations when I read one of his articles. It's less "I wonder if I'll learn anything new/interesting" than "I wonder how he's going to draw a reaction with this"
Right now he's generating buzz around his personal brand so that when he does have something he really wants to shout about he'll have people ready to listen.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this approach as such - but keeping it in mind does temper my expectations when I read one of his articles. It's less "I wonder if I'll learn anything new/interesting" than "I wonder how he's going to draw a reaction with this"
Just to clarify this - I am working on a big project that I want to release end of the year. For the project to work, I need to get the word out to a lot of people. So I am making an effort to write stuff that is useful and interesting to people so that they will pay attention when I make my announcement.
In the past I announced stuff and it died in the grave of silence - this time I want to make sure that I can get the word out.
Sure, I could do all that without actually saying that I am doing this, but I want people to opt-in, pay attention even though they know what I am doing, and not because I am pretending to be a sage business man just to later spam them. I'm clear and upfront about it - I'll give you good information on the few things I know, in return when I announce my project, go try it out, be a beta tester or something.
My current small projects are just stepping stones, and this is the path I have chosen to break into the big time. I tried it the other way - building soemthing and then announcing it - didn't work. Now I'm trying it by first building an audience, and then releasing software.
In the past I announced stuff and it died in the grave of silence - this time I want to make sure that I can get the word out.
Sure, I could do all that without actually saying that I am doing this, but I want people to opt-in, pay attention even though they know what I am doing, and not because I am pretending to be a sage business man just to later spam them. I'm clear and upfront about it - I'll give you good information on the few things I know, in return when I announce my project, go try it out, be a beta tester or something.
My current small projects are just stepping stones, and this is the path I have chosen to break into the big time. I tried it the other way - building soemthing and then announcing it - didn't work. Now I'm trying it by first building an audience, and then releasing software.
And there's nothing wrong with your approach as far as I'm concerned. It's appreciated that you are as up-front about your strategy when many aren't but it does affect how I come to your articles.
The moral argument defended in the article is mute in the business world, because there are some people that can have fun doing anything (even selling crappy $1 products). If you are not happy with competing with them, then find something else to do, but don't tell them that they shouldn't be doing it. You are just trying to apply your moral standards to somebody else.
If there are people willing to create $1 "crappy" products, and people that want to buy them, I think this pretty good.
If there are people willing to create $1 "crappy" products, and people that want to buy them, I think this pretty good.
I'm having trouble following your argument. If something is fun to make, then it is moral? How on earth are those two connected?
His argument was that regardless of how much fun it is or how easy it is to do, it is crap, and filling the world with crap is bad from a basic moral standpoint.
His argument was that regardless of how much fun it is or how easy it is to do, it is crap, and filling the world with crap is bad from a basic moral standpoint.
The problem is exactly that it is a moral judgment. You can't apply your moral standards to others. Should be people paying for crappy apps? Should they be paying for porn? Who are we to decide?
"You can't apply your moral standards to others." Of course you can. Are you suggesting that we should limit our opinions of other actions and only discuss legality? He never argued it should be illegal, but he argued we can do better. I fail to see the problem. There was a time when email spam wasn't illegal. Your attitude would have kept us from judging it (Hey, they need to make a buck too! Grandpa needs his viagra, and Nigerian's gotta eat) and ever making it illegal.
Note: I realize that "applying your moral standards to others" gets us people hating gays, etc. But the alternative of not applying your moral judgment to anyone but yourself is also ridiculous. That would mean you can't call out lying politicians, greedy corporations, "scamville," or anything else that most people don't support.
Note: I realize that "applying your moral standards to others" gets us people hating gays, etc. But the alternative of not applying your moral judgment to anyone but yourself is also ridiculous. That would mean you can't call out lying politicians, greedy corporations, "scamville," or anything else that most people don't support.
This is simple moral relativism. Of course we can judge what we, as a community, believe is good and bad behavior.
Why should we do this, if there is a market that can do an even better job? If there are only crappy products, just create a good one and the market will embrace it -- Just like people buy more Mac laptops than laptops from other brands. No need for moral coercion.
Your idea also creates a virtual barrier for people who want to create new stuff -- who cares if the version 1.0 is bad?
Your idea also creates a virtual barrier for people who want to create new stuff -- who cares if the version 1.0 is bad?
Because the market doesn't do an even better job. How did the market do in the case of the fake bomb detector? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/head-of-bomb-dete...
Or how about preventing the Madoff scandal? The market isn't perfect, and simply "creating a good one" does not guarantee the market will embrace it. Markets work when consumers have (and want) the necessary information to make a good choice. Information overload makes this difficult to acquire.
Let's look at in an example in your world: I want to buy a digital camera. There are many, so I'd like to know which one to pick. I go online to read reviews. Unfortunately, in this world, every single review is a paid review (because why not get something for it), or is a review that is essentially paid, because they get a cut from your purchase price. How am I supposed to make an intelligent choice?
That example isn't far from reality, by the way. Especially in the "Make money online" industry. Try finding a legitimate review of any of those programs. Every review is overly positive to try and sell you on it so they get paid. Even if you search for "So and so product scam" you'll find an article that is titled "Is so and so product a scam? Find out here", and then they immediately answer, "No. Buy it with my link!"
Or how about preventing the Madoff scandal? The market isn't perfect, and simply "creating a good one" does not guarantee the market will embrace it. Markets work when consumers have (and want) the necessary information to make a good choice. Information overload makes this difficult to acquire.
Let's look at in an example in your world: I want to buy a digital camera. There are many, so I'd like to know which one to pick. I go online to read reviews. Unfortunately, in this world, every single review is a paid review (because why not get something for it), or is a review that is essentially paid, because they get a cut from your purchase price. How am I supposed to make an intelligent choice?
That example isn't far from reality, by the way. Especially in the "Make money online" industry. Try finding a legitimate review of any of those programs. Every review is overly positive to try and sell you on it so they get paid. Even if you search for "So and so product scam" you'll find an article that is titled "Is so and so product a scam? Find out here", and then they immediately answer, "No. Buy it with my link!"
You're saying we can't judge people's work. I'm saying we can, should, and do all the time. If someone is spamming viagra ads, or polluting the web with scraped YouTube videos, we can safely call that bad behavior.
You can, but I don't see a reason unless you feel you are a superior being. I am glad there is a free place called Internet where people can load whatever videos they want, publish their half backed projects, or even try to make a buck or two writing posts about Viagra. -- Great things also happen there from time to time.
You won't even say it's bad behavior to send spam email with viagra ads?
> but don't tell them that they shouldn't be doing it
Why not, if you don't approve of it? Societal pressure is the best way to keep people from doing stuff that is lawful but (subjectively) distasteful.
There's nothing wrong with pressuring people to follow your morals. In fact, it's my moral obligation to do so.
Also, I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between the business world and the real (?) world. They're the same world, and the same morals apply in both.
Why not, if you don't approve of it? Societal pressure is the best way to keep people from doing stuff that is lawful but (subjectively) distasteful.
There's nothing wrong with pressuring people to follow your morals. In fact, it's my moral obligation to do so.
Also, I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between the business world and the real (?) world. They're the same world, and the same morals apply in both.
Chicken Soup for the Spammer's Soul.
I believe this guy misses the point of Klein's post. He definitely misses the point I thought Klein was making, which is: if you're having a hard time finding a market where there is money to be made, just try to enter some markets and probably fail lots of times. After a few dozen attempts, you are bound to find one in which you can make a buck. The methods you use to achieve that are not the main point of Klein's post and, frankly, irrelevant. This article cracks down on the methods Klein supposedly promotes, which feels like one huge straw man.
I think there is a whole spectrum of making money online, from scamming/phishing and the like all the way to squeaky clean, not one bit optimized (SEO, conversions) shopping cart.
The debate is where you draw the line to define something as spam, and it also depends on your definition of spam. I mean, you can twist Google's business model and say it's scraping other people's content and plastering ads all over its pages. That sounds horribly close to a definition of spam and yet people love the search results from Google.
The debate is where you draw the line to define something as spam, and it also depends on your definition of spam. I mean, you can twist Google's business model and say it's scraping other people's content and plastering ads all over its pages. That sounds horribly close to a definition of spam and yet people love the search results from Google.
For me the key property that defines spam is that it is unsolicited. I'm the one going to Google to receive a dose of that "scraped content with ads", they don't come and bug me with it.
For the same reason, all the content this guy is ranting against is not spam either. I'm free to ignore all those eHow pages (actually some of them are not that bad) and referral sites and quirky apps that people write.
It only turns into spam when so much dark SEO has been applied to it that it turns up in search-engine results for which it should have been irrelevant.
For the same reason, all the content this guy is ranting against is not spam either. I'm free to ignore all those eHow pages (actually some of them are not that bad) and referral sites and quirky apps that people write.
It only turns into spam when so much dark SEO has been applied to it that it turns up in search-engine results for which it should have been irrelevant.
But applying all that dark SEO is basically the point. Why else would a crappy $5 article written by an English-challenged Indian show up on the front page of any search result? It's all about gaming Google, Yahoo, and/or Bing. As has been described by others, since it's all about making ad-revenue, the article is SUPPOSED to be bad enough that they'll click on the ads to find what they are actually looking for.
I gotta say, there are a lot of adsense sites and affiliate marketing that isn't spammy...for example, a large portion of ehow articles, amazon affiliate links, etc. Just because some people do micro niche blogging and profit unrespectably doesn't mean every one does, I do some made for adsense sites but they are written to be high quality, useful, and ad-click generating.
I don't agree with Max' position 100%, but what he's advocating is not spam per se, and the attitude of having 100 dripping taps instead of a single firehose is one that is hard to assail from a 'robustness' principle.
If you only have one horse in the race, if it dies you're toast, so having 10's or even 100's of little sites is good business in the sense that it will never die overnight.
Let me give you some examples of sites I built in that vein, now both defunct because the $1 / day target was not even in sight.
I built a platform that allows you to sell stuff online, and because I figured the good advertising and affiliate money is in financial products I focused on houses and cars.
The two sites were close enough that they could share a single database, free to use for the user and attracted a small group of users from various countries.
But that's where I missed the boat, this sort of thing doesn't work on an international basis, you have to tailor it to each and every market specifically. So what started out as a vision of low maintenance useful sites with solid income slowly morphed in to high maintenance sites with low income. In other words failures.
Spam didn't enter in to it, and if the concept would have been successful I can see a lot of ways in which to create further 'clones'.
Then there was Max' example of the site with the owls. There is quite a bit wrong with that whole view, for one it doesn't really add value, after all, if you go to youtube and type in 'owls' you get the exact same list. Only with a couple of twists, for one that list is up to date, no broken links. Whereas any 'collection' of youtube video links that you maintain will have to be checked periodically for broken links (this can be automated though).
Finding a successful 'template' that you can clone is an essential component to the scaling of many businesses, each of the clones can then be targeted at verticals, just like what I tried to do with the cars & houses, you could do with owls and penguins.
But the line for me gets drawn at having nothing but links to other peoples content, aggregation with razor thin added value is too cheap and spammy to me, I'd like projects to have a bit more meat. But that also means that you'll be investing more time and that may eventually not be worth it, especially not if a project fails.
There's something to be learned from Max' treatise, I agree with the initial impression that it advocates spammy thin sites, but if you look at that as a way of testing the waters to see what has 'legs' then it may not be all that bad.
And I'm really curious about how his experiment with the site he's going to be building will pan out.
If you only have one horse in the race, if it dies you're toast, so having 10's or even 100's of little sites is good business in the sense that it will never die overnight.
Let me give you some examples of sites I built in that vein, now both defunct because the $1 / day target was not even in sight.
I built a platform that allows you to sell stuff online, and because I figured the good advertising and affiliate money is in financial products I focused on houses and cars.
The two sites were close enough that they could share a single database, free to use for the user and attracted a small group of users from various countries.
But that's where I missed the boat, this sort of thing doesn't work on an international basis, you have to tailor it to each and every market specifically. So what started out as a vision of low maintenance useful sites with solid income slowly morphed in to high maintenance sites with low income. In other words failures.
Spam didn't enter in to it, and if the concept would have been successful I can see a lot of ways in which to create further 'clones'.
Then there was Max' example of the site with the owls. There is quite a bit wrong with that whole view, for one it doesn't really add value, after all, if you go to youtube and type in 'owls' you get the exact same list. Only with a couple of twists, for one that list is up to date, no broken links. Whereas any 'collection' of youtube video links that you maintain will have to be checked periodically for broken links (this can be automated though).
Finding a successful 'template' that you can clone is an essential component to the scaling of many businesses, each of the clones can then be targeted at verticals, just like what I tried to do with the cars & houses, you could do with owls and penguins.
But the line for me gets drawn at having nothing but links to other peoples content, aggregation with razor thin added value is too cheap and spammy to me, I'd like projects to have a bit more meat. But that also means that you'll be investing more time and that may eventually not be worth it, especially not if a project fails.
There's something to be learned from Max' treatise, I agree with the initial impression that it advocates spammy thin sites, but if you look at that as a way of testing the waters to see what has 'legs' then it may not be all that bad.
And I'm really curious about how his experiment with the site he's going to be building will pan out.
As high brow as we'd all like to be, the honest truth is the only measure in business relates to profits. How much you can make and how quickly.
Your investors don't care how you make money, so long as it doesn't impede the making of future money.
Your investors don't care how you make money, so long as it doesn't impede the making of future money.
While your utilitarian philosophy (the only measure that counts is success) might make sense on the surface, many people (including me) believe that utilitarianism has a number of problems.
First, your relative success today doesn't mean that you will be more successful or successful at all today. This is similar to the fallacies of greedy algorithms in computer science, if you're familiar with them. Secondly, utilitarianism will not give you happiness, which is pretty much the most important thing in life, more important than financial success.
First, your relative success today doesn't mean that you will be more successful or successful at all today. This is similar to the fallacies of greedy algorithms in computer science, if you're familiar with them. Secondly, utilitarianism will not give you happiness, which is pretty much the most important thing in life, more important than financial success.
Or simply enough to support your lifestyle. If you don't have investors and you stay close to the ground then it's surprising how little you really need.
That may be how it is, but it's not how it has to be.
Viewed 52096 times
Favorited 3 times
Posterous has a terrible conversion rate.
Posterous has a terrible conversion rate.
Few days back there was someone here who told us that he was getting as much as 1 thousand dollars EVERYDAY by developing many small apps for the iPhone and selling those. This is opposite of putting all your time on a single iPhone app and betting on it.
The original article was really helpful for me. I disagree with those that are getting a different message from it.