Those Facebook notifications were being abused to send your friends notifications that looked like normal Facebook notifications "You've been tagged in a photo", then in the event they were clicked it would do the same to their friends. I'm thrilled Facebook disabled them for applications.

Shows you how vulnerable their platform is to spamming. Facebook managed to keep the spam down while MySpace was becoming spam-city only before they opened accounts to non-college students. Small is beautiful?

We make Facebook apps for YouTube channels, and the removal of app notifications definitely hasn't hurt us. In fact, it may have even helped, as we are no longer getting lost in a pile of app spam. Our users actually want to be notified when new videos are available! Over 50% of them sign up for e-mail notifications, and slightly less than that get the notifications directly in their Feed. We don't trick them into doing this, and it is easy to opt out.

As long as you provide a service people actually want, I think you'll be safe regardless of what changes Facebook makes to its policies.

Developers were abusing notifications, and facebook decided to do right by their users and disable them. It should be lauded for putting its users' needs before those of its developers.

There's a spelling mistake in the last phrase. It should be:

This is why you don’t build companies that are completely dependent on spam.

The flip side is that you wouldn't have a company to begin with without Facebook and you probably made some money in the initial gold rush.

Facebook is also partnering with Zynga for some dating thing. So the lesson here is that you don't want to build on a platform that isn't making money and can only make money by competing directly with platform adopters.

FYI, that Zynga/FB dating thing was a joke ;-). I'm sure many of you frown on April Fools day, but I enjoy getting the chance to show off my sense of humor (or lack thereof) once in a while: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/01/facebook-to-launch-relation...

I think that the claim is misleading. If adopters on a platform can make money, you can always make money from that platform, whether from charging the end user, charging the application developer or driving by advertisement.

I think the only _great_ dating app is okcupid, which is only really just starting to touch upon using facebook.

Making it harder for apps to spam users, will actually benefit the fb platform as a whole. I actually think they're mostly doing a good job, given most project sponsor's initial thoughts around gaining users are to try and spam all existing users as much as possible, and then try and import all their contacts. There was quite a bit of this in the early fb days, but not so much now. This is a good thing.

Now, how to write an effective dating app? How to get women using a dating app. These are the real challenges. P.o.F. is an ok site that I've used in the past, but always felt it could be better. Though I guess if you've got a steady income stream, you're more worried about breaking it, and loosing an income, than innovating. Have you thought of doing a sister site or two?

Facebook + Location aware + Chatroulette-style ultra-fast and easy webcam chats = great dating site.

Structure it to favour women, i.e. woman can see the man by default, but the woman has to allow the man to see her. Then for men, you just have to let them know when they're 'live' (that is on camera) and give them something to do while they wait for a woman to say "ok, this guy can see me".

Had that exact idea a few days ago...someone's going to try it, will be fun to see =). I think Chatroulette made everyone remember, oh, everyone has a webcam now.

> I think the only _great_ dating app is okcupid

While I agree, what makes you say that? I think the biggest draw is that it's free - there's no incentive to not try it if you're trying to find love online. Is it actually better than Match, Chemistry, and whatever else I ignore during commercial breaks?

Depends on what demographic you are looking for. I think the matches are pretty decent.

It definitely has a Web 2.0 feel that, IMHO, attracts the more intelligent demographic; people with the the ability to be introspective.

I haven't used any other sites, though. But I imagine OKCupid is not a representative sample of the population, and That Is A Good Thing.

protip from someone that slogged through the trenches of the social app boom: Don't spam your users. If the effectively-zero click-through-rate doesn't hurt you, then the channel controller (facebook) will shut down the spam vector.

Or: Don't be a dick to your users. Make something of value and send messages when you have real content.

It's ok, they've found another spam vector: email notifications, which seem to still be up.

An app I have't used in ages emailed me yesterday trying to sell me calling cards (this is not in any way related to the app at all).

Reported to facebook, hopefully that hole will be closed soon also.

This was particularly annoying as there is a replacement on the horizon, but not yet available. There is theoretically going to be application -> inbox which will be more useful in many cases, but its got this amorphous release date that they won't pin down.

From Markus' post

"This is why you don’t build companies that are completely dependent on the whim of another company."

Of course, an advertising supported dating site who's revenue comes primarily from Adsense doesn't come under this sweeping generalisation does it...

it could maybe be clearer, "another single company"

plentyoffish can change advertising networks, these people cant change social networks if they want to be where people are.

You are off the mark. Plenty of Fish's ad inventory is in high demand due to its self service platform and ability to target users very precisely.

the graph is a bit misleading, If you look at the daily count there is a massive drop and then it stays fairly consistent afterwards.