Hacker News Reader

Comment by daeken | Hacker News Reader

There's proof, but we're not going to link it because ... reasons. Why would they not include any proof that might exist?

View on HN

Because they're in an arms race with review spammers, and telling the spammers how they were detected causes them to evolve new, undetected behaviors.

It might not be fair, but it's logical.

While Apple understandably may be very reluctant to disclose review validation / fraud detection methods, they could certainly show some trusted media figure -- Marco, some other popular ios developer, maybe even Gruber -- some detailed bit of proof and put this controversy to rest. If, indeed, they have any proof.

That would be pointless because these people would be accused of being shills who would always sing praises of Apple. There's no easy way to handle giving away the proof and having an expectation that it would indeed help Apple. Depending on the material, there could be nuances that could be interpreted out of context…the context being the entire chain of events and internal and external communications that took place.

I suspect it's because that would reveal what signals their abuse detection system is looking at, making it easier for malicious actors to bypass those checks. It's very common with these types of systems to keep the details secret.

Unfortunately, it does create a frustrating situation when you're on the other end of a complaint.

Because they don't want to set a precedent of going before the developer public as a jury they need to satisfy. Seriously, if I were Apple reading threads like this, I'd solve the PR problem by fixing the issue with Kapelli--which it sounds like they're doing by unlinking the accounts.

I would strenuously avoid making the HN community feel more entitled than it already does to all the technical details so it can be endlessly armchair litigated.

The actual proof might be subtle statistical analysis on customer data, or something else difficult to present.

I think a major reason is still probably customer confidentiality. They've got to play it on the defensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com