This is a prime example of how to not write a correction piece.
The gist of the story is that they used a screenshot to verify somebody's identity, and it turns out the person faked it. However, instead of saying "we made a mistake and didn't verify our sources properly," they go on to spin stories like "But is Steve a prankster, or is he a spammer having second thoughts" and "Regardless of its validity, Steve’s story helped expose a very real issue for Pinterest." Both could possibly be true, but they are just speculating to save face.
The part that annoyed me to make me comment was this paragraph:
"So who is this spammer? Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell right now. Even if another person claiming to be final-fantas07 came forward, the only way that individual could prove his or her identity—a screenshot—could be faked (again)."
Really? A little bit of critical thinking and you could have him make a post using one of his bots' account, or delete a post, or use any other more reliable, actually verifiable source.
Blackhat internet marketing is all about automation, taking what works with one account and then doing it with hundreds or thousands...If you can make a dollar doing something, then automate it and do it 1000 times...
I'm from the IM community and $1000 a day is not unheard of, but most of the other people using pinterest are not making this much, especially since they stopped sending all pins to the front page (now only 1 per hour or so). The traffic coming from Pinterest is also not converting that well, it seems that the women like to browse and aren't that into buying. Regardless, pinterest traffic can be used in a clean way to send traffic to a legitimate store, and those people are seeing positive results...
Seems like a pretty lame "hoax." My money's on the guy fell for the appeal of fame, quickly realized how it was going to impact his finance and backpedaled.
14 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 49.9 ms ] threadThe gist of the story is that they used a screenshot to verify somebody's identity, and it turns out the person faked it. However, instead of saying "we made a mistake and didn't verify our sources properly," they go on to spin stories like "But is Steve a prankster, or is he a spammer having second thoughts" and "Regardless of its validity, Steve’s story helped expose a very real issue for Pinterest." Both could possibly be true, but they are just speculating to save face.
The part that annoyed me to make me comment was this paragraph:
"So who is this spammer? Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell right now. Even if another person claiming to be final-fantas07 came forward, the only way that individual could prove his or her identity—a screenshot—could be faked (again)."
Really? A little bit of critical thinking and you could have him make a post using one of his bots' account, or delete a post, or use any other more reliable, actually verifiable source.
So they can learn something about journalism.