
What us worry? Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week - pmcpinto
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/08/what-us-worry-ashley-madison-says-it-added-over-100k-users-last-week
======
Alterlife
If I had to guess, an overwhelming bulk of the signups must be by people who
heard about this thorough the negative publicity. They're going to sign up and
log in because it's mandatory to view the content. Once they're in, they will
search for their friends, colleges and significant other... and then they will
never use it again.

I'd like to know how many of those are paid vs un-paid accounts.

~~~
apetresc
I could be wrong but I'm 99% sure you can't just search an individual by
logging in.

~~~
throwaway7767
But there's only one way to be completely sure, right? And that's probably the
source of a lot of these signups.

------
einrealist
It is not a public company. So basically, they can say what they like. There
is no need for them to prove their numbers (as long it is not advertisement).
They probably also lied about their numbers on female members.

~~~
jessaustin
If they ever said that fewer than 95% of female "members" were really
prostitutes who wanted to advertise online, then yes, they lied about numbers
on female members. It's easier for a website to stay open when claiming to
cater to "cheating" than when truthfully admitting to cater to prostitution.

~~~
zamalek
> They probably also lied about their numbers on female members.

A friend of a friend said (read: no resource to back this claim up) that
someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women.
Leads me to ask:

> Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week

Do they mean that they added 100K users, or did 100K users sign up?

~~~
sbierwagen

      that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small 
      amount of real women.
    

That was a Gawker article: [http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-
the-ashley-ma...](http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-
madison-database-1725558944)

Most relevant graph: [https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-
media/image/upload/1410188302...](https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-
media/image/upload/1410188302217017410.png)

11,030,920 to 2,409

------
auggierose
They added "87,596 women". Now, if you look at that number, does anything feel
unnatural and made up about it? 56789.

~~~
dspillett
I could easily believe a large number of women signing up if the vast majority
of them are either:

* people signing up with fake details to look for people they know (their friends/colleagues, local politicians, their own spouse, etc)

or

* sex workers who heard on the news about a great site to advertise their availability on that they were previously unaware of

------
mml
I'd hazard a guess that, if true in any way (ludicrously unlikely), 99% of
these allegedly female accounts might be wives looking for their husbands.

~~~
kelvin0
Are you saying men cheat more than women?

~~~
nextw33k
Studies report the answer is yes:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233843](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233843)

------
Jedd
"... although Ars has no way of confirming any of the numbers provided."

Just wait a couple of weeks, and we'll all be able to confirm the numbers.

------
Bill_Dimm
Should we take 100k new users to mean 100 new Ashley Madison employees
generating 1,000 fake accounts each?

[http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/ashley-madison-should-take-
be...](http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/ashley-madison-should-take-better-care-
of-the-females-it-hires-to-trick-you/)

------
ausjke
Since there are 90+% female accounts are fake, and their "delete-all-your-
info" premium service is also phony, should I really trust the statement "100k
new users" over last week?

After all the site is sort of about cheating in relationship, so fake/phony
might be the norm, to some extent.

------
neekb
I find it hilarious that anyone is signing up, man or woman, after finding out
that there were so many "bots" there talking to people. If this company has
ambitions of being public (or being a company at all) then the bots shouldn't
be a thing. That's just straight up defrauding users.

The problem with the site in general is that (relatively speaking) there
aren't a lot of people looking SPECIFICALLY for affairs. No doubt SOME, but
not a LOT. I think that the reason is that affairs work that way. I don't
think people wake up, sigh deeply, and say "I think I'll have an affair
today". It comes from a relationship that is broken (actually, 2 relationships
that are broken), and an opportunity (finding that second person).

------
1971genocide
It tells me two things :

1) there a lot of people out there who use the internet and NOT read or tune
into TV or any internet news.

2) RIP my future career in computer security. It seems users do not care about
security as much as I though.

~~~
uptown
Or a company that has dishonesty baked into its product and its culture,
continues to lie about its user metrics.

~~~
breitling
That's what I was thinking as well. This whole thing could be just a PR move
full of lies.

In case this news is genuine...I guess it's true that any publicity is good
publicity.

------
commentzorro
Make that 100K + 1. Now that I know they can't be trusted with their data and
that there's the potential to completely destroy my marriage and my family how
could I pass that up?

------
efriese
"We have people in the back room creating new profiles as we speak."

------
dotcoma
99,500 of them men. Or fake.

~~~
dspillett
Or prostitutes.

