This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
|
Location: The Couchsurfing Project >> Brainstorm - the original one.... >> Brainstorm ~ Redefined
The verification campaign is paying off
Posted July 15th, 2009 - 3:19 am by  from Paris, France (Permalink)The verification campaign is starting to pay off for CS: For the first time since I have been following the numbers the percentage of verified members has increased, from 5.7 to 5.8% (71,794 verified members). More may be in the pipeline (members who have charged their credit card but have not received the postcard with the code yet or who are still surfing). On the other hand, the percentage of reported positive experiences has decreased from 99.9 to 99.8% Time will tell if sending out more verification codes was worth throwing out the ethics code. I'll keep an eye on these numbers and update this post regularly, probably once a month.
Posted July 15th, 2009 - 6:09 pm by  from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)as one expected, it is becoming more and more clear that they are just working this for a cash cow and don't really care about safety
Posted July 26th, 2009 - 2:56 pm by  from London, England (Permalink)Well well..... http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=2125&post=3455762 At least that's something. Power to the people! :)
Posted July 26th, 2009 - 7:08 pm by  from Columbia, United States (Permalink)Hey, thanks for the good news! The first in a while from here... Now my girlfriend's profile won't have a big ? up at the top anymore...yay!!! Gadget's comment at the end made me giggle just a bit though "Thank you for the feedback and taking all those crazy surveys, etc. Its the only true way that we know what you think and feel." So that's what it is. They didn't truly know what we thought or felt. We weren't giving enough feedback or taking enough surveys! If only we had known!
Posted July 26th, 2009 - 9:08 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Thanks for the link Niall. "? Mark in the verification icons going away Yes, true! We have listened to your comments on the ? Mark that was in the new verification iconography. We agree that it is not the best way to represent a persons image or character, so we are removing it Monday. We 'reload' the site with all the weeks updates every Monday, so you will notice the change then. Thank you for the feedback and taking all those crazy surveys, etc. Its the only true way that we know what you think and feel. Big Love gadget" It's a start, a move in the right direction, better than nothing, a giant leap for the CS L-team, a small step for mankind. I am grateful for it. We'll have to see if the "Name and Location Unverified" will also be displayed a bit less prominently and perhaps without the orange highlighting, or if the only change is the removal of the question mark. In order to really solve the issue, though, these additional steps will have to be taken: 1. Change the "ok" tick in the verification symbol to something communicating more clearly that it refers to credit card verification, e.g. a "$" or a "V", and that it is not an official safety stamp from CouchSurfing. 2. Limit the display of the verification symbol to the areas where it makes sense, i.e. on the profile and in CouchSearch results, but not in groups or meeting attendee lists for example. 3. Untangle the unfortunate link between verification and donations. 4. Stop making the unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated claims that verification makes finding a couch a lot easier and CouchSurfing so much safer. 5. Correct in inaccurate statements made on the website about verification verifying the "address" or even "location" of a member while all it does is verify if a member can receive a postcard at the postal address given to CS. 6. Stop harassing unverified members every time they leave a reference or make a change to their profile with messages asking them to get verified with unsubstantiated claims. At the minimum, give members an option to opt out of these reminders. I have posted my thanks and these comments to the General Manager's group. You can support these 6 requests or whatever part you agree with there: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7219&post=3196285#post3459619 I am also surprised by the talk about the decision to correct the problem coming out of "crazy surveys". I am not aware of any such survey and the announcement is pretty vague about it. It looks more like the strong pressure from members and ambassadors has led to this insight, and that the announcement correction is used as a means to strengthen the future acceptance of surveys which seem to be the new way of justifying unpopular measures, without ever publishing the detailed results. But we'll hear more about these soon I suppose.
Posted July 26th, 2009 - 11:20 pm by from London, England (Permalink)"It looks more like the strong pressure from members and ambassadors has led to this insight, and that the announcement correction is used as a means to strengthen the future acceptance of surveys which seem to be the new way of justifying unpopular measures, without ever publishing the detailed results." I fully agree. Unpublished 'surveys' can be taken to mean whatever you want. I think we should consider this together with the last change in direction by the LT - the decision to put Asia-Pacific onto the logo. We know now that submitting complaints via CUQ, contacting LT members privately, bitching/brainstorming on a group like this, submitting detailed proposals etc don't lead to any results. What changes things is widespread public anger which spills into city groups and risks leading to bad publicity. A valuable lesson.
Posted July 26th, 2009 - 11:45 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)"We know now that submitting complaints via CUQ, contacting LT members privately, bitching/brainstorming on a group like this, submitting detailed proposals etc don't lead to any results. What changes things is widespread public anger which spills into city groups and risks leading to bad publicity." I'd rather say these first small corrections are the result of all of the above, and that this group and complaints via CUQ are very likely on the low end of the effectiveness scale, and feedback from ambassadors via their coordinator probably on the higher end.
Posted July 27th, 2009 - 7:18 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)i'd like to start a pation to get these changes made, we need to start living up to our potentional !
Posted July 27th, 2009 - 11:39 am by  from Trieste, Italy (Permalink)Well, the only crazy survey I saw was the one asking an opinion on what the "mission" of CSing should be, little nuances on how to "advertise" the site... there weren't practical questions to answer from what I can remember, even if I must honestly admit I couldn't complete it because at a certain point I began to feel stupid... Reading the report of Julien from the Wien meeting, it seems that knowing someone in the LT and asking directly for modifications can be an effective way to obtain something. I'm beginning to perceive this group as a total waste of time :-(
Posted July 27th, 2009 - 12:06 pm by  from Mumbai, India (Permalink)Polyglot, Rgd Point#6: What messages and reminders are you talking about? I dont get any reminders or messages to get verified :O (And no, I'm NOT verified. The green tick is just a gift from Jamie ;))
Posted July 27th, 2009 - 2:45 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)The other one goes: "We're so glad you had a positive experience with another member! Get Verified Here! Tip: Verified members have been found to have more positive encounters with other members. Why? Verified members are CouchSurfers who’ve demonstrated their support for the community by making a donation to keep CouchSurfing running. They’ve also gone through a check that confirms their identity and location, so other CouchSurfers feel more comfortable that they are who they say they are. Want to know more? Check it out!"
Posted July 27th, 2009 - 3:46 pm by from Mumbai, India (Permalink)Oooh. That! I guess thats OK. Thats so non-intrusive i dont even notice that anymore. :)
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted July 28th, 2009 - 7:45 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"I still continue to have the big fat ? on my profile" Mine is gone now. The Ambassador Management Coordinator gives some additional explanation on the reasons for the removal at the link below (oddly on behalf of the Communications team, the team that has "communications" in its name but communicates so rarely, and even more rarely anything worthwhile). "It was never intended to create a situation where some members seemed to be less trustworthy than others; the goal of the images is to be clear about our ability to verify a member's statements. After seeing that this image can negatively effect the experience of members who choose not to get verified, we've decided to remove the question mark." Logic would have it that the "ok" tick, which produces the same undesirable effect, would also be removed, or at least made clearer with a "$" or "V" for example. Also, they still don't quite get one important issue with the verification system. The wording "members who choose not to get verified" is very unfortunate considering that many members just cannot get verified even if they want to, simply because they do not have the right credit card. The full announcement at http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=2125&post=3467851: "Last month, CouchSurfing updated its verification system. As you know, part of this update included a change in the imagery used on the site. The 'lock' has been removed, and replaced with a bar that shows specifically what information has been verified about a member: identity, location or none. Our initial launch included two opposing images: a check mark for full verification, and a question mark for no verification. After it was released, both members and the CS volunteers who'd worked on the project felt that the question mark was a much stronger image than had been intended. Profiles with a question mark seemed to imply that a person was unreliable or untrustworthy. The image was developed because CouchSurfing wants to communicate clearly to members which profiles we, as an organization, have fact-checked. The check mark signifies that both name and location have been checked, and the question mark that no information has been checked. It was never intended to create a situation where some members seemed to be less trustworthy than others; the goal of the images is to be clear about our ability to verify a member's statements. After seeing that this image can negatively effect the experience of members who choose not to get verified, we've decided to remove the question mark. Thank you to members, volunteers and Ambassadors who weighed in on this issue! Every new feature is the result of a creative process, and every creative process involves trial and error. We consider every decision we make very carefully, but we cannot always predict how an idea will work out in the real CS community. Your feedback helps us understand how new features affect our community, and we're grateful that people care enough about CouchSurfing to help keep us moving in the right directions. gadget for the AMT and the COMMS Team"
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted July 28th, 2009 - 1:55 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Guess the removal needs to trickle down through the 30 or so servers until all profiles are purged (although when the "?" was added, it was quicker). You are not alone, some of my friends are also still questionable and suspicious in the eyes of CS ;-).
Posted July 29th, 2009 - 5:42 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)thats cos we don't want smart, kind and well spoken people like you around these parts ! you ruin cs and should have a warning to the rest of the verified troglodytes !
Posted July 29th, 2009 - 8:21 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)Based on a quick check two days after the anounced removal date about 2/3 of my unverified CS friends still have the question mark on their profiles and only from 1/3 it has been removed. Pretty slow server replication or whatever needs to happen to get rid of the mistake. Unless the process got interrupted and nobody noticed?
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted July 30th, 2009 - 8:25 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)what night ??? this is a revolving planet with eternal night and eternal day please give us a time zone and time
Posted July 30th, 2009 - 12:09 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)"please give us a time zone and time" Without wanting to pre-empt Brian, the title of the announcement said "Verification Change goes live tonight (Monday) at 2300 PST". That would be BaseCamp Time, two hours behind Costa Rica Collective Time ;-). But as you know, project timing at CS is usually best measured in months or years rather than hours.
Posted July 30th, 2009 - 12:39 pm by from Mumbai, India (Permalink)Daft that i am, may i ask what is the big deal if that ? mark remains on your profile for another day, week or so? They said they are removing it!! Why hound them and make needless posts for no reason? You've already made it amply clear that you dont care to be verified. So then whats the problem if the ? mark remains on your profile? Learn to pick your fights.
Posted July 30th, 2009 - 1:37 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Oh boy! What makes you believe you should tell people what is worthwhile posting and what not? Who do you think you are? A moderator or something? A censor? ... Learn to pick the threads you read... and to ignore those you are not interested in.
Posted July 30th, 2009 - 4:18 pm by from Mumbai, India (Permalink)Oh girl! What makes you believe you should tell the LT what changes are worthwhile to implement and what are not? I was very much interested in your first post on this thread. The minute-by-minute watch and updation of a question mark symbol on your profile...urm, not so much. Who do you think you are responding with such an authoritative tone? A moderator or something? A censor? ... Learn to pick the posts you read... and to ignore those you are not interested in. :p
Posted July 30th, 2009 - 4:37 pm by from Mumbai, India (Permalink)oh BTW, it wasnt meant JUST for polyglot (who i always confuse with Henk...are you guys twins? :))...but for everyone whos been making posts here lately.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 - 11:44 pm by from Columbia, United States (Permalink)My girlfriend still has a big question mark at the top of her profile. I had noticed a day or two ago that it was gone (though the "Name and Location Unverified" part remained), but now it's back. Maybe someone should report this "bug" on Mantis?...
Posted August 4th, 2009 - 12:35 am by  from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)you can try that Abraham...I know they've had trouble with this change. Hope it resolves soon:) Margaret
Posted August 4th, 2009 - 2:25 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)One full week after the date announced for the removal of the question mark which had been recognized as a mistake we now have four classes of members: 1. verified members (5.8%) 2. unverified members (an estimated 60%) 3. suspicious unverified members with a question mark (an estimated 33%) 4. occasionally suspicious unverified members with a question mark that comes and goes (the remainder) If any further proof was needed that the tech team in charge of this website is not very capable, this would be it. How difficult can it be or how messed up must the system be for such a minor technical modification not to go through over the course of a week? Margareth: "I know they've had trouble with this change." That it is not working as planned is obvious, but do you have any concrete information to share as to the trouble they've had? Monolita, did you get any reply to your Contact Us question of July 30th? BTW, the verification rate remains stable at 5.8% with about 4000 newly verified members (80.000$ revenue) since the introduction of the green tick and the orange question mark. So unless a lot more verification postcards are still in the mail the member segregation strategy may not even be paying off financially.
Posted August 4th, 2009 - 4:21 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)hi Uli wow, thanks for this thorough post...it will be interesting to see how the green tick changes the verification rate, if at all. I think they are having a backlog of postcard needing to be sent because they've had some changes in volunteers who work on the verification team...I'm not sure how that is going currently. The only info I've had on getting the question mark removed from profiles is this post in amb public: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=2125&post=3467851 It sounds like some people still do not have it removed. If you don't, you should send someone a notice. thanks for being so vigilant! Marg
Posted August 4th, 2009 - 8:32 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Margaret: "The only info I've had on getting the question mark removed from profiles is this post in amb public" Yes, I was aware of that post of five days ago which said that server synchronisation was expected to take up to 24 hours. This time I myself am actually part of the estimated 1/3 of "lucky ones" who got their question mark removed on Day 1 before the process apparently broke down. My interest in this issue is not just about the incredibly long time it is taking to get the question mark removed but about the underlying problems of which it is an expression, and the usual pattern that we see so often: announcement, problems with carrying out what was announced, no communication about it neither for those affected, nor apparently even for the CUQ team which is more and more becoming the only more or less official channel of information of CS with ever less information being made available.
Posted August 5th, 2009 - 1:17 am by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)it's true...I'm neither saying that this is the most technologically up-to-date website, nor that it the best managed...but it is what it is. We're dealing with what we have, rather than what we wish we had...and this question-mark eradication is a good example. We can all think of others:) Best practice: please offer your complaints to someone who can actually address them, like Mattthew or Jim, and not me, a small potato with no influence. If you have a question-mark on your profile, and it bothers you, please use the CUQ at the bottom of this page and report it. They should be able to help you! Marg
Posted August 5th, 2009 - 9:46 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)Margaret:"please use the CUQ at the bottom of this page and report it. They should be able to help you!" Monolita: Did they?
Post removed.
Posted August 5th, 2009 - 8:35 pm by  from Christchurch, New Zealand (Permalink)This post has been removed by the user.
Posted August 5th, 2009 - 9:34 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Thanks for that info Luna. As I understand it "those who modified this code" overlooked that their change would only work for about 1/3 of the profiles targeted, and they performed no check to verify that the expected result was achieved. Neither the paid staff nor the compensated, allegedly highly skilled Collective members figured out the cause of the problem, but some unpaid volunteer at Contact Us had to do it for them and bring it to their attention. CS is truly unique in many ways. And this is more proof that throwing more money at people or problems is not necessarily the best way of improving things.
Posted August 5th, 2009 - 10:44 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)that is really interesting Luna...thanks. There must be some way to acknowledge those level 1 verified people since they, indeed, have participated in the system by the posted rules. The question mark seems needlessly blunt. any word Monolita?
Posted August 11th, 2009 - 4:19 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Looks like after two weeks the remaining question marks have now been removed. Or is any of you still questioned?
Post removed.
Posted August 12th, 2009 - 10:35 pm by from Christchurch, New Zealand (Permalink)This post has been removed by the user.
Posted August 13th, 2009 - 7:05 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"Stills lots of people with question marks." Strange. 2/3 of my friends had it until a few days ago, and now all of them seem to have been removed. Regarding the other issue, I have opened a new thread with a link to an answer from CS here to keep this one on "verification": http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=3588866 So everyone: please post any thoughts on the privacy issue and how to deal with it there. Thanks.
Post removed.
Posted August 13th, 2009 - 7:59 am by from Christchurch, New Zealand (Permalink)This post has been removed by the user.
Posted August 13th, 2009 - 9:19 am by from Trieste, Italy (Permalink)Mine has been removed, and though it's not my first concern and I wasn't checking everyday, I'm pretty sure that a couple of days ago it was still there.
Posted August 15th, 2009 - 3:52 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Hi all. I just noticed for the first time that many officially unverified members (without a green "tick" and with the text "name and location unverified" also have the text "VERIFIED MEMBER Name and Address Locked more info" at the top of their General Information. I just locked mine by simply confirming my address in step 1 of the verification process to see what would happen and am now a verified member with an unverified name and location... Bug or odd CS logic?
Posted September 15th, 2009 - 9:09 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - continued: 17.06.09: addition of green check-mark to profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) The percent of reported positive experiences has dropped from 99.9% to 99.5% over that same 3-month period. Based on these figures, all that the aggressive verification campaign with the green check-mark and endless reminders to get verified seems to have achieved is to upset and alienate members, dividing them into "ok" members and not so "ok" members, but has not substantially increased the verification rate or the revenue vs. the one we would have had without this disturbing "verification/donation" drive, and therefore not increased safety.
Posted September 15th, 2009 - 9:19 pm by  from Porto, Portugal (Permalink)The fluctuation is way to small for you to establish a relation between the constant in percentage of verification and the drop of positive experiences. Perhaps with time there could be something there. But yeah, if it didn't increase the number of verifications, they might as well drop the "class a" and "class b" citizenship system...
Posted September 15th, 2009 - 11:34 pm by from Columbia, United States (Permalink)Yeah, hard to know what the small change in the positive percentage means - it could just mean that a few people were more honest lately ;-) As for the fact that there hasn't been a big increase in folks paying to get verified, I don't really find that very surprising. Most people simply aren't gonna choose to pay for something they can use for free. CS basically has three ways (at least that I can think of) that it can choose to fund itself: 1. Optional donations (as it currently uses; AKA verification fees); 2. Advertising; 3. Mandatory fees. I guess it could also try and raise money through marketing, or some combination of those options... But assuming it decides to stick with option 1., it will probably be hard for CS to get many people to make repeat donations unless they can convince people that CS really needs that money, that the money will be well-spent for the benefit of the site, and that the management is responsive to the community. Failing that, it can try and keep drumming up a lot of publicity, try and keep a steady stream of new members joining, and hope they can convince a high enough percentage of them to pay for the little green check-marks :-)
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 5:38 am by  from Aachen, Germany (Permalink)I think it is much better if the donations represent the majority of members, rather than just a few. Idealists might have a lot of good intentions, but these don't necessarily match with the needs of a normal member. Right now, if CS wants to get more money, they can try to make the average member happier, and/or increase the total number of members, and/or do a lot of marketing to sell the verification feature. At least the first point is something I see as positive for the community. Another theoretic consequence would be to make non-paying members feel second class, but we have seen how that fires back.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member profile has been deactivated
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member profile has been deactivated
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 12:27 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)thanks Uli, for tracking the numbers and percentages on verification....much appreciated:) this type of data-vigilance is really helpful....but requires someone willing to do the work. Thank you for taking your time:) It is rather telling that the raw numbers of verification have gone up, while the %verified remains steady across the years. Perhaps this is an indirect measure of how people read this website: seriously, impulsively, casually, etc. I actually don't know what I'm saying here...just musing:) I tend to agree with Danny, however, that the heavy-handed pleas to new members to become verified may have worked, in just keeping the verification% in pace with new sign-ups....but he's right: there's no way to actually know for sure. I like Abe, Mono, and Chris' ideas on opposing donation philosophies: rely upon one-time verification and the constant recruitment of new members vs. cultivation of a deep-pockets donor base. Both have their good and bad points. I remember Pickwick's warning from at least a year or two ago that the sole reliance on verification fees for income would create an unhealthy growth rate on CS. This may perhaps be the cause of Monolita's experience of declining quality of surfing experiences....no way to know from one person's anecdotal report, but I'm sure it feels real to you Mono. Pickwick felt that CS should be searching for other ways to get income, rather than on ballooning enrollment from which only ~6% (thanks Uli:) can be counted on for reliable verification. Chris' idea that big donors will indeed expect better services (or their definition of that...) and a more vocal role is also spot on. Most people do give money to charities with the hope of affecting improvements...of course, their vision of improvements:) Perhaps the cultivation of a more narrow donor base would also change a bit of the bohemian character of CS...selecting for more rooted folk. Ahhhh...what can we do? money changes everything....and the only constant is change itself. Maybe best to straddle the fence on donations and effect a balance between reliance upon verification and donations...go after both, but with tact and style:)
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 6:36 pm by from Columbia, United States (Permalink)"I like Abe, Mono, and Chris' ideas on opposing donation philosophies: rely upon one-time verification and the constant recruitment of new members vs. cultivation of a deep-pockets donor base." To clarify, I wasn't really talking about a donor base with "deep pockets," but rather with a deep level of commitment to CS. At this point in my life, I certainly wouldn't call my pockets deep - at least not by the standards of any Western country. I'm a perma-traveler now, and get by on around five or six thousand a year (USD). But with as little money as I have, I would donate $50, even $100 a year if I knew CS needed that cash and it would be well-spent. I'm certainly not suggesting that CS should start looking for big donors to shell out thousands of bucks each or anything like that!
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 8:57 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)whoops...sorry Abe for mis-stating your idea:) Thanks for the recheck ...wow, and good for you for living so well on so little:) We should all be as lucky
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 1:30 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)ok thanks Monolita...sorry I misunderstood! Kasper makes a super great point everyone: a 501c3 designation would have allowed CS to apply for government grant money, placing less reliance on one-time verification (...and the constant new-member recruitment with pressure to verify). The CS leadership says that the 501c3 application has been delayed by lack of precedent, which may be part of the reason, but I tend to think that the original application wasn't filed thoughtfully. Servas has had a 501c3, or counterpart, in several countries including the US for years...because of their decentralized structure....so there is precedent. CS, which is of course very centralized, applied during a time when Casey was listed as both the CS CEO *and* Chairman of the Board of Directors (http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php please see page 5 of 2006 filing), which is illegal and represents a conflict of interest. There are other amateurish mistakes I won't go into...but that, for me if I were an IRS reviewer, would have been a big red flag that these guys are not serious. citation for illegality: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XXVII/292/292-6-a.htm A 501c3 would also, as Mono points up, have encouraged multiple small donations from a broad base of donors because all money contributed to 501c3 orgs is deductible from your income tax. CS now, as a public charity registered in New Hampshire, may legally and enthusiastically solicit donations from anyone...it's fine. Yet these donations may not be written off on the donor's income tax, which is, of course, a nice motivator to give:) Marg
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 2:39 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)hey all...I'm sorry that the form 990 link didn't come through as I'd hoped. To see the forms, please enter "Couchsurfing International" in the Organization Name space, then enter "NH" in the State Code...and click 'find'.
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 3:45 pm by from London, England (Permalink)Does anyone know why CS is registered in New Hampshire when the organisation is based in California? Something to do with more lax regulations?
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 4:27 pm by from London, England (Permalink)That may be Christopher, but my question was what is specifically so attractive about New Hampshire? Any ideas?
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 6:16 pm by  from Brussels, Belgium (Permalink)I think Casey was living in New Hampshire at the time he decided to set up an official organization. Margaret, that is an interesting statute. So interesting that I feel inclined to copy a part of it here: "In the interest of encouraging diversity of discussion, connection with the public, and public confidence, the board of directors of a charitable nonprofit corporation shall have at least 5 voting members, who are not of the same immediate family or related by blood or marriage. No employee of a charitable nonprofit corporation shall hold the position of chairperson or presiding officer of the board. .."
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 10:55 pm by from Brussels, Belgium (Permalink)Abraham, you're missing a very important option for funding: grants. In 2004 CouchSurfing Inc. advertised itself as a 501(c)(3). If it would have actually acquired this status some time between then and now there would have been tons of grant opportunities. If on top of that CouchSurfing Inc. would have had official sister organizations in other countries even more funding opportunities would have been available. I dare say the grant possibilities could be more than the money currently coming in. It requires a slightly different management and communication style though.
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 6:26 am by from London, England (Permalink)Since, according to Ambs Q&A, the new tick and ? displays took 'months' to prepare, i'd guess they must feel a bit disappointed with the outcome. I'm surprised too - I thought it'd increase at least a bit. Doubt there's much correlation with the percentage of reported experiences. As mentioned above, CS's revenue depends on a constantly increasing number of verified members, since it's a one-off payment. The failure to substantially increase the number of verified members will probably make the LT think again about their ambitious expansion plans. Maybe we won't need that full-time statistician after all.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 6:41 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"There was an increase." There was the same increase in verified members as before without the changes. The 5.8% verification rate has not increased substantially. That cannot have been the objective as you will see if you read the announcements and posts back in June.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 7:32 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"Care to elaborate?" No, thanks.
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 6:39 pm by from Columbia, United States (Permalink)Yes, grants definitely would be an option - I just wasn't thinking about that. Thanks for pointing it out. While I'm 100% behind the idea of CS getting 501C3 status, I'd be a bit more ambivalent about the grant idea. Foundations and government agencies can often wield a fair bit of influence when they give such large sums and the organization comes to depend on that money. Also, I just don't think that it would take such a huge sum of money to make this website run better (fix the buggy code and maybe even add some new features). If the money's well spent and competent people are hired then it shouldn't take that much. (And that's not even with the open source and all that.) And with such a large member base - if people feel that the management is responsive to their concerns and will spend the money well - then if even a rather modest percentage of the community makes a small donation every year then this should bring in more than enough cash to keep things running.... Some "off the top of my head" math: If there's a little over a million members, maybe a little more than 100,000 of them are more active members. So if say 1/5th of them would donate each year then that's about 20,000 people. If they gave an average annual donation of $30 then that would be $600,000, which should be enough to hire whatever tech people are needed and still have plenty left over for servers and bandwidth. And of course if a little more were needed then probably a higher percentage could be encouraged to donate and some folks could be encouraged to donate a bit more. So even bringing in a million a year wouldn't be that hard. That would be my preference to see the website funded by a lot of small donations from members who are invested enough in CS that they'll donate again and again.
Posted September 17th, 2009 - 8:49 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)thanks Abraham...the grants could also come from private sources and foundations. It's a good point about the government control issue; there are a lot of restrictions on how public money may be spent. I too think that this site could be managed on a small budget, if resources were put back into infrastructure and salaries, rather than travel and collectives...but I understand that the collectives are good for capturing the imagination, motivating volunteer participation...and well...this is a travel site, so it's a nice thing to offer: a chance to travel. I too think it's an interesting statute K...thanks for the highlight. I like the institutionalized commitment to responsiveness, integrity and diversity. Now, I'd love to see the functioning independent BoD become a reality here:)
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 6:29 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"So there is a steady increase in CS income and the verification system works. Good to know all is well. Thanks for the figures, Uli. :)" There is indeed a steady increase in CS revenue. Roughly 5.000 verifcations x $20 or so x 12 = $ 1.2 million annual revenue should be more than sufficient to provide an excellent service. The point is of course that the verification rate has been 5.7 - 5.8% for as long as I can remember and that the controversial changes introduced in June 2009 were unnecesary and have not achieved the announced objectives in terms of increasing the rate and thereby the revenue and member safety over the previous approach.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted September 16th, 2009 - 8:37 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"Or indeed that those so-called "controversial" changes are helping to sustain the regular rate... :)" Are you suggesting that without the more aggressive approach to fundraising the new members would be less willing to get verified than members before them (before June 2009), and the verification rate would drop?
Posted September 19th, 2009 - 8:22 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)I just noticed that an astonishing statement has been appended to the vouching page: "Similar to Vouching: Verification A security alternative to getting vouched for is called Verification. Sometimes getting verified helps you get vouched for because more members will be willing to host or surf with you." http://www.couchsurfing.org/vouch.html While the last sentence is soft and vague enough to be "technically correct", it can confuse people about the nature of vouching and of verification: Vouching is a very personal expression of trust, based on the experience and judgement of a CS member who himself has received the vouches of at 3 other members. Verification tells you that a person has a certain credit card issued to the same or a similar name as the one given to CS, usually around $20 to part with and a postal address where he can receive a verification code. Unlike vouching, it says nothing about the character of the person or the probability to have a positive CS experience with it, and only theoretically allows to track down the person in case it commits a serious crime. Now, how are these two safety features in any way similar??? The statement itself says verification may sometimes lead to faster vouches, and that may be true, but that's all. An inferior alternative, yes, similar, no. Sneaking a sales pitch for verification into the vouching page and presenting verification as similar to vouching looks like yet another clumsy attempt to push verification on ill informed members in the hope to finally get a decent verification rate rather than being stuck at just 5.8% of members being verified.
Posted September 20th, 2009 - 2:56 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)just more undermining of the community in the endless march towards profit, very sadistic !
This member profile has been deactivated
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 1:32 am by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)hey all Most of us are on the cynicism spectrum somewhere in our opinions of CS and its leadership: from sunshine-rainbow-unicorn-puppies-and-kittens-universal-love...to flat-out pessimistic hang-em-high vigilantes....all welcome! Let's just try to stick to facts and opinions about the *organization* and not each other...with thanks! Not-for-profit organizations may still generate profits...and need to, actually, for their operating budgets to stay solvent. The difference between them and profit ventures: They cannot sell the organization to make money for its founders. Here is a very boring, but very accurate, article from the IRS website describing how assets must be distributed if charity non-profits like CS dissolve: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123368,00.html
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 2:24 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)but its not a non profit its not registered in any country, nor is is a charity and i'd say they make a nice profit selling other peoples couches
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 7:03 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)"they make a nice profit selling other peoples couches" which in itself is not a problem, but then telling some of these same people that they are not "contributing" because they are not contributing hard cash but "only" their time, couch and hospitality (for CS to sell in the form of premium membership fees), is problematic. Certain companies which donate their time get a nice "Thank You" page: https://www.couchsurfing.org/mission_and_vision.html?link=thanks.html&title=Thanks Members who donate their time, and only their time, used to get a big quesion mark until CS recognised that went too far, and now they get a "name and location unverified" message and regular reminders to please donate also money and to get "verified". Some members host, and host a lot, without ever surfing themselves. Others contribute countless hours to CouchSurfing in various other ways. Where is their "Thank You" page?
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 10:38 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)that is a good point, where is my bage for being active on this site and always hosting !!
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 12:08 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)a thank you page, or periodic message of thanks, is a great idea Uli. This site could not run in its intended spirit without its active hosts, considerate guests, thoughtful event planners, ambassadors, administrators, etc...we need everyone, verified or not, to make it work. What you said here Jamie is simply inaccurate: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=3371426#post3882156 Cs is indeed a registered charity non-profit org. It is legally defined as a public charity registered in New Hampshire, USA. Here is a link to a copy of their initial registration form, and their renewal in 2005: https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?473515 As such, they are entitled to legally solicit donations and generate a profit, but not pass these profits onto their founders. CS may indeed solicit corporate sponsorships also (pop up ads), thereby trading on the CS name, but have chosen to not do this, for now. They do not then make a profit by selling other people's couches, but I understand what you're suggesting: that surfers feel indebted to their hosts, so they make a donation to CS as a form of indirect thanks. If anyone would like more information on the legal details of CS as an organization, here is a good publication. I can send any interested person more information if you ask: http://doj.nh.gov/publications/pdf/nhfc_guidebook.pdf
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 12:15 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)whoops....the last link I posted evidently isn't there anymore; sorry folks! Here is another good one with the same info: http://www.nhbca.com/Non-Profit_Guide.pdf
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 4:51 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)"They do not then make a profit by selling other people's couches, but I understand what you're suggesting: that surfers feel indebted to their hosts, so they make a donation to CS as a form of indirect thanks." Jamie can confirm which way he meant it, but the way I understand it is that the Organisation or its management at "BaseCamp" or at the "Collectives" are not providing a whole lot of couches, if any, of their own and if CS is able to generate revenue it is in the first place because others are offering theirs for free, which indirectly CS is "selling" to those willing to part with donation/verification money against promises of a lot easier to find couches. "they are entitled to legally solicit donations and generate a profit, but not pass these profits onto their founders" I believe the second part of that statement is inaccurate. They can pass on profits to anyone they want, including founders, board members and employees, in the form of compensation and expense reimbursement for example. As I understand it they cannot sell the organisation and pocket the proceeds of the sale. But that's another discussion.
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 6:33 pm by  from Dongshi, Taiwan (Permalink)> Cs is indeed a registered charity non-profit org. I want to see $ lynx -dump -width=111 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home |grep 501 The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in the United States, on http://www.couchsurfing.org/about.html .
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 6:39 pm by from Dongshi, Taiwan (Permalink)And why not mention > incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in the United States on http://www.couchsurfing.org/help.html#nonprofit too?
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 8:03 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)hey Jidanni CS cannot say they are incorporated as a 501c3 organization because they ain't got their 501c3 designation from the IRS yet. They submitted an application, I think, in 2007 and it came back from the IRS with a bunch of follow-up questions, apparently: not an acceptance, but not a rejection either. we talked about it earlier in this thread here, so I won't restate those discussion points: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=3371426#post3857731 (y'all are always forgiven for not reading through these damn things...the threads sometimes get very long and off topic...I'll try to cite the points when I can find them) FYI guys: if CS had established an actively engaged, yet independent Board of Directors long ago, and surrendered to their subsequent oversight, then these efforts at scrutiny (and the accompanying discussions) would not have been conducted in public...but behind closed doors, saving CS public face. It's always in the best interest of any organization to have documented checks and oversight via a real BoD. Same for the 501c3 application: if CS had had a knowledgeable BoD during the time it was applying for the 501c3, then they could have received a ton of educated advice from Board members on how to apply...both strategy and practical advice on dealing with the IRS. Instead, they missed an opportunity to learn from the successes and failures of other experienced applicants...and are in tax-exempt limbo today...pity. Getting back to verification for a moment: the site leaders are now testing some new ways to get verified and should have some good news on this soon...sit tight. They need to see if the new methods are workable and will get the announcement out I'm sure when it's tested and vetted.
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 8:13 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)whoops Uli: I wanted to get back to your post, too: 1. ok it's a good point: that the Base Campers and collective participants are making a defacto living on other people's hosting experiences, which overwhelm their own...true (actually, they do host at Base Camp...you just need to ask) Jamie can clarify which way his comment was meant to be understood. then again, we hosts and surfers are able to travel using this website because of their hard work in maintaining it, so i guess it evens out:) 2. True! as it stands, CS can compensate their employees anyway they want because their decisions are accountable to no one...another reason why they really need a Board of Directors: to vet the decision-making. We dont' have enough info from the posted financial documents to oversee the decisions as a group of interested members...and really need to check them against audited financial reports and the IRS tax filing. I just asked New Hampshire for the 2008 and 2009 CS tax returns and got this little reply from the regulator: "The organization is currently on extension with our office and we expect to receive the 2008 financial report sometime in November. Please feel free to check back with me to see if the report has arrived." ...so I'll keep you guys posted:)
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 9:08 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)"I just asked New Hampshire for the 2008 and 2009 CS tax returns and got this little reply from the regulator: "The organization is currently on extension with our office and we expect to receive the 2008 financial report sometime in November. Please feel free to check back with me to see if the report has arrived." Thanks for the update, Marg. I am looking forward to seeing the report and the "new ways to get verified", too. Without taking the thunder out of Gadget's favourite motivation tool (advance scoops for ambassadors), can you say a little more about these new ways, e.g. if they are just new payment methods such as Paypal or actually new approaches to name and address verification addressing some of the concerns that have been raised with the current system?
Posted September 21st, 2009 - 10:04 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)*Margaret*: "actually, they do host at Base Camp...you just need to ask" Let's see: Mattthew Brauer is permanently "traveling at the moment". Jonathan Lewis is "Coffee or a drink". Jim Stone is "traveling at the moment" and doesn't seem to have hosted in SF yet. Weston Hankins is "traveling at the moment" with a seriously out-of-date-profile and from the hospitality he showed Marcus in Costa Rica he would be at the bottom of my list anyway. The Rachel's couch status is "no", not even "coffee or a drink". Casey Fenton is indeed "maybe" and has recent hosting references. So why not, should I return to SF one day. Apparently one can ask the house manager for a couch at BaseCamp, but it's not just about the furniture, is it? Who did I miss who could be worthwhile surfing with and who is offering a "couch" (+ cultural exchange...) at BaseCamp (with profile link)?
Posted September 22nd, 2009 - 12:30 am by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)that is a sore point with me as well we all offer a couch but it seems that every one that gets paid doesn't host ! still say they are selling my couch
Posted September 22nd, 2009 - 3:12 am by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)you got a right to your impressions, Jamie...no doubt:) Uli, you can request a stay at base camp from any of these folk: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=20199&post=3695539 not just LT members, who indeed seem sadly out of pocket, but these ancillary volunteers who live there...including Gadget.
Posted September 22nd, 2009 - 8:40 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)Thanks for the link Margaret. Like Laura says there: "their CS links would be helpful--safe to say most of us have no clue who "Travis" and "Hector" and "Grant" are :)", assuming they all have a profile of course, including the garderner and the handyman.
Posted September 22nd, 2009 - 1:05 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)dude don't dis the gardener!! I'm honestly going to apply for that one someday when my kids are gone...*sigh:) I think that job would be so much fun!
Posted September 22nd, 2009 - 5:09 am by from Dongshi, Taiwan (Permalink)OK, then on http://www.couchsurfing.org/help.html#nonprofit > Is CouchSurfing International a non-profit organization? > Yes! We strongly believe the mission of CouchSurfing International is best served by being a non-profit organization... They should add another FAQ question: > Q: OK, if CS is really non-profit, then why don't I see any "IRS 501(c)3" stuff? > A: Err, we submitted an application, I think, in 2007 and it came back from the IRS with a bunch of follow-up questions..." > Q: OK, then why don't you answer the questions and resubmit your application to the IRS? Can we have an answer please before we give you our credit card information? Can you be bold and put it right there onto http://www.couchsurfing.org/help.html#nonprofit , to show you will be responsible with any money we give you? > A: ...
Posted October 15th, 2009 - 7:46 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for October: 17.06.09: addition of green check-mark to profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%)
Posted October 15th, 2009 - 9:53 pm by  from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)I'd like to add some anecdotal observations to the older discussion here about the impact of the verification campaign. I think there's some merit Danny's idea that the campaign's benefit is in keeping the verification rate from dropping below 5.8%, which with accelerating membership means ever more income. As an NMW greeter, I've received several emails from new members that indicate they believe that verification is an essential prerequisite to participation in the site. The general tone of these is, "I'm eagerly awaiting my verification postcard so I can start hosting and surfing" sometimes accompanied by asking if I can speed up their receipt of the card. It's clear to me that verification is successfully being put across as crucial to a meaningful fraction of new US members. I would love to see the unrelated goals of verification and support donations unhooked, but "donation" in the US really requires 501(c)(3) status, both for tax deductibility and, more generally, as the US government seal of legitimacy. Personally, I have no wish to have my address verified but I will make an annual contribution to CS as soon as it attains nonprofit status, as I do with US Servas. Incidentally, while it does seem that the status has been a long time in process, CS really does not match an established nonprofit "template" which is normally the key to quick IRS approval. Someone suggested that CS is like US Servas, which has been a 501(c)(3) for decades, but it's not. US Servas' mission is very strongly to promote "a more just and peaceful world", with host/traveler visits being its primary but far from only implementation of that goal. CS has purposely avoided anything that focused, preferring the more generic "meaningful connections" which I can well imagine (my conjecture!) makes the IRS examiners think the purpose is less "educational" and more "social". Obviously, the long approval delay means either extensive tweaking is being demanded or CS is not pursuing the application vigorously.
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 3:39 am by from Aachen, Germany (Permalink)What is the advantage of 501(c)(3), except for financial benefits? What if CS had to distort itself to gain 501 status, wouldn't it be more honest to live without it? I think it would be healthy for the discussion to ask how the things that are necessary for 501(c)(3) and grants and tax deduction are helpful for the project itself. This is how I see it: A website like CS is great for sharing places and connecting people. People participate because it adds value to their lives, and allows them to do some things they would otherwise not do. And it has a side effect of "cultural understanding", maybe for a "more just and peaceful world". But does this count as a charitable intent? Imo, CS can only be as charitable or as hedonistic as its members. Trying to control that means it would have to control its members. And even worse, control their intentions. Which Servas does with its interviews and such (please correct me, John!) CS wants to be attractive to more than a group of idealists, and this is good. To clarify: I'm not against CS trying to be 501 etc, and probably it would have some nice side effects such as transparency improvements or other things. However, I think the discussion should start with something other than the money argument.
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 7:16 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)Lemon-Head: "Imo, CS can only be as charitable or as hedonistic as its members. " I would say it will be difficult for the organisation itself to be as charitable as its members who host or volunteer their time in another way, unless it started doing something actually charitable. You have a good point about the money aspect. I never thought CS was a charitable organisation and should get the status for that reason. The main advantage to me would be that it would make CS more trustworthy because of the minimum oversight that it would require, and the secondary advantage would be that it would help raise funds mainly with donators taxable in the U.S. (for the increased trust and the tax deduction) but also elsewhere (for the increased trust).
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted December 6th, 2009 - 6:02 am by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)By way of illustrating the effectiveness of the verification pitch on new members, a response to my NMW message included, "At this time I have filled out all of the profile questions. I must now be verified?" This is from a competent 60-year old who has no expressed interest in traveling but only wants to host people. I explained to him that CS' primary income is verification fees and that he should see it as voluntary tangible support rather than a mandatory identity check.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted December 6th, 2009 - 10:47 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)This was suggestion number 31 requested by 61% of respondents and submitted to CS by the Brainstorm group: Mattthew Brauer's reply to this suggestion: "I think this merits further research." http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=4402350#post4440661
Posted December 6th, 2009 - 10:53 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)continued: The above mentioned suggestion number 31 was: "31. Give members the option not to display when and where they logged in and which groups they visited last, and not to appear as ‘Nearby Travelers’. (This information is nobody’s business and not required to achieve the CS mission or for other members to have positive CS experiences. The IP tracking, apart from being notoriously unreliable and known to have caused disputes between members unnecessarily, serves no compelling purpose and is an unacceptable invasion of member privacy with potentially serious consequences for members using their full name and in cases of stalking.)"
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted December 7th, 2009 - 1:42 am by  from Montreal, Canada (Permalink)Dear Valeri, If the police are involved and it is as clear as this case is, that a verified CSer was involved in a robbery (of another CSer!) - aren't there any conditions that MDST would more actively communicate and aid the police? If you meant pro-actively - like calling the cops, no. If you meant reactively - like contacting an existing, documented, well known police station with an officer/inspector matriculate number that contacted CS to obtain more information (on what info CS could provide exactly, and under which conditions), sure! If nothing else, the TOU could be amended to make explicit when a serious 'warning' type of deletion would be applied ("you agree that if warrants are issued for your arrest or the police are otherwise seeking you (in the following categories blah blah blah) that this is grounds for deleting your profile yet maintaining it on the site in a section stamped 'deleted for safety reasons...'). cf. TOU #4.
Posted December 7th, 2009 - 1:47 am by from Montreal, Canada (Permalink)Deep excuses Valeri, I misread the last part that I quote. Thing is, I doubt what you suggest is possible under the US laws, but it's just a feeling. There is a limit to the rights one can give up by contract - and an abusive or illegal clause in a contract makes the clause void. I wonder... but yet I don't know. I tend to believe that MDST members have worked on a project to have similar data displayed permanently (like the warning sent to people) but it seems to me it just wasn't a direction wished for by the management. Again Mea culpa... :/
Posted December 7th, 2009 - 1:59 am by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)I like the "deleted" designation...it's already available for CS members who have died, so obviously is technically possible. I came from within a hair-length of deleting my own profile last week...and would have appreciated a formal communique from CS asking if I would like my info to be retained under a "Deleted" categorization. I imagine many scenarios where this gallery of deleted profiles would be appreciated, both for the safety and honorable aspects, and would support the LT in making public their, already archived, gallery of deleted profiles...pending member authorization, or administratively sanctioned deletion, of course:)
Posted December 7th, 2009 - 9:58 am by  from Stoke-on-Trent, England (Permalink)I tend to believe that MDST members have worked on a project to have similar data displayed permanently (like the warning sent to people) but it seems to me it just wasn't a direction wished for by the management. Implying we might have a 'normal' percentage of criminals in our midst would undermine the rosy picture of CS Nirvana that the LT tries to paint - like the ridiculously high percentage of positive references and the misleading verification process. All these believably positive statements just make me deeply suspicious.
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 2:36 pm by from Aachen, Germany (Permalink)What is the advantage of 501(c)(3), except for financial benefits? What if CS had to distort itself to gain 501 status, wouldn't it be more honest to live without it? I think it would be healthy for the discussion to ask how the things that are necessary for 501(c)(3) and grants and tax deduction are helpful for the project itself. This is how I see it: A website like CS is great for sharing places and connecting people. People participate because it adds value to their lives, and allows them to do some things they would otherwise not do. And it has a side effect of "cultural understanding", maybe for a "more just and peaceful world". But does this count as a charitable intent? Imo, CS can only be as charitable or as hedonistic as its members. Trying to control that means it would have to control its members. And even worse, control their intentions. Which Servas does with its interviews and such (please correct me, John!) CS wants to be attractive to more than a group of idealists, and this is good. To clarify: I'm not against CS trying to be 501 etc, and probably it would have some nice side effects such as transparency improvements or other things. However, I think the discussion should start with something other than the money argument.
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 3:40 pm by from London, England (Permalink)But how would gaining 501c3 status 'distort' CS? There would be nothing to prevent hedonism, as far as I can see. It would just prevent the leaders using community money for their own private hedonism. The transparency benefit is the main one IMO. Also note that by going down the non-profit route in the first place, CS commits itself to various forms of external checks and restrictions on how it uses its money - even without 501c3.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 4:22 pm by from Aachen, Germany (Permalink)CS' most important responsibility is that it has towards its members. Any demand for a change of the system should be reasoned with how it would serve the CS members, not how it would serve some 501c3 guidelines. If 501c3 is beneficial for member, then great - but this needs to be explained. For instance, when asking for financial transparency, the main argument should a member's right to ask "what exactly do I support with my donation / verification fee?". The answer would probably be: - In practice, we spend the money for server rent, salaries, plane tickets, swimming pools and beer. And for the "salary" part, it's our private business. - We pay all those people because we want them to work on the CS mission, which is [bla]. - Thus, your money does indirectly support the lifestyle of thousands of couchsurfing members. The 501c3 status could come in here: - To give you some kind of guarantee on how we use your money, we are controlled by the authorities that watch our 501c3 status. As said, I'm not against 501c3 status, but it needs to be clearly explained how this decision will serve the CS member and mission (whatever that is).
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 4:40 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)CS' primary obligation is to its members...agreed. The leadership may interpret this directive as they like, since they are the site leaders...but their decisions must be legal, at minimum. I think insisting on legal compliance benefits members because it includes the upkeep of CS' status as a reputable org, ensures a reliable stream of donated income for the future, and avoids the excessive use of donation money for penalty payout to the IRS, US Dept of Immigration, and the NH Dept of Justice...and I suspect that jail time for charities' fraud would cut into a lifestyle of abandon and festivity:) Best to avoid this avenue of obtaining funds for a "decent standard of living", as you say Chris...:)
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 4:53 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)whoops...forgot to address the 501(c)(3): this tax-exemption would primarily benefit members by ensuring that more donation money goes into actually running the site and the lifestyle of its volunteers (less to Uncle Sam) and would provide an enhanced reputation to CS as a bona fide charity. You both seem to suggest that the oversight required of the IRS in maintaining the 501c3 would cut into CS' identity via their spending habits...and require that they change how money is spent, altering their lifestyle. You may be correct; I simply don't know enough about how the money is currently spent to comment, and I can't discern this info from the financial documents posted....they may be living like monks from what I can tell. If you want to participate in a discussion devoted solely to the 501c3 status, go here: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=3966676
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 5:36 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)hahah! it's a good point Danny!
Posted October 16th, 2009 - 4:55 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)"it needs to be clearly explained how this decision will serve the CS member and mission (whatever that is)." Casey@couchsurfing.org He's apparently the one who filed the papers and stated CS is striving for that status.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted October 17th, 2009 - 5:58 pm by from London, England (Permalink)Welcome back Pickwick! It'd be interesting if the percentage of new signups who get verified on joining remains stable - although I guess there'll be a time lag of a few months at minimum.
Posted October 17th, 2009 - 6:10 pm by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)>the US branch of Servas got it all right. Why not ask them how they did it, and follow their lead? See my post above, but as to asking us (US Servas), it happened so long ago, circa 1963, there's no one around that was involved.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted October 17th, 2009 - 9:20 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)I've had several emails asking me if the CS leadership could reorganize under a non-charity, for-profit, corporate venture to make money in selling the site...and I didn't know...but you've answered this question...thanks.
Posted October 17th, 2009 - 10:09 pm by from Aachen, Germany (Permalink)Just to clarify my previous point: If the purpose of 501(c)(3) is to avoid sellout and give some guarantees to people who donate, then it has my support (if that matters). If it means that suddenly CS needs to pretend that it wants to make the world a better (more peaceful) place, I would have rather mixed feelings about it. Not because changing the world is a bad thing, but because it doesn't fit in the project. There are many CS members who want to save the planet in various ways, maybe more than outside CS (if you count in %) - which is great! And, the connections being created through couchsurfing activities do make the world nicer. But, I don't think this would work any better if CS would put this as an explicit primary mission. US Servas' mission is very strongly to promote "a more just and peaceful world", with host/traveler visits being its primary but far from only implementation of that goal. CS has purposely avoided anything that focused, preferring the more generic "meaningful connections" which I can well imagine (my conjecture!) makes the IRS examiners think the purpose is less "educational" and more "social". Obviously, the long approval delay means either extensive tweaking is being demanded or CS is not pursuing the application vigorously. Exactly the point.
Posted October 18th, 2009 - 2:07 am by  from Leipzig, Germany (Permalink)@Margaret/Pickwick: At the ambassador-meet-the-leaders meeting in Vienna, TTT said that CS cannot legally be turned into a for-profit. He said that in the course of a presentation, not replying to a question. http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=3432372
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This post has been removed by the user.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted October 18th, 2009 - 1:07 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)I think that we also need to separate the personal from the professional roles. I'm sure that Casey, Mattthew, and all of the LT are all very nice, fun, thoughtful and caring people. Yet, if their inexperience within their own job is compromising their ability to perform it, they should find more competent hires. There really is no excuse for not knowing the nature of your own organization, as GM, and its legal parameters.
Posted October 18th, 2009 - 7:36 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)Lemon-head: "If it means that suddenly CS needs to pretend that it wants to make the world a better (more peaceful) place, I would have rather mixed feelings about it." What do you mean, "suddenly"? Wasn't that the mission when you signed up, and until it was changed a few weeks ago?
Posted October 18th, 2009 - 2:11 pm by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)>I just think it might be interesting to know what Servas said in their original application. Our (i.e. US Servas') lawyer and corporate secretary advises me that he has never seen the original application and says the wording on that document is probably not useful now because the IRS qualification standards were much looser 46 years ago. This doesn't mean the application isn't available from the IRS, but we don't have a copy anymore. John
Posted November 15th, 2009 - 10:46 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for November: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%)
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted November 19th, 2009 - 7:11 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Amstardom wrote: "I just googled for CS and I saw the verification tick, checkmark has been added to the search titles of CS..." I get this summary in Google (no reference to verification): CouchSurfing - Participate in Creating a Better World, One Couch ... A volunteer-based worldwide network connecting travelers with members of local communities, who offer free accommodation and/or advice.
Posted December 1st, 2009 - 10:31 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)The Verification Team Leader, Brian, resigned a few weeks ago and just posted his reasons in the Ambassadors' Public group. Here are the parts which relate to verification: "When I resigned from the verification team, it was a quickly written message to you. I had logged on, noticed yet another bug within the verification system, and realized that it was time for me to move on. I immediately remembered the bug of July 30 and 31 where everyone who tried to donate did so over and over, so their money was taken several times, many more than ten, but their profile was not updated. That bug immediately cost twelve man hours and we refunded almost $35,000 to members. I did not want to repeat that thankless amount of time working for free, with a 'thank you' given as a token gesture." "Another issue that was concerning me were bugs with simple fixes. Europeans consistently use commas to separate dollars and cents. However, many transactions were processed incorrectly, due to the comma. A member would attempt to donate 21,50, and 2,150 would be charged. Then it's up to the member to notice the error, since we did not mail out receipts. I attempted and notified the LT that we should fix this ASAP, but it didn't take top priority. Then there's the issue where members were using other person's credit cards and the cards were approved. Even though the names did not match. Changing the wording from "Name has been checked" to "Identity Checked" doesn't quite cut it, in my opinion. The push to hit up members within their first few hours of joining is an attempt to raise funds, not to make the system safer. Period. It's for money. Sadly, I believe that the same amount of money could be raised by asking for a donation, simply and plainly... but you seem to not want to ask for funds to keep the service ad-free and running... but calling it 'verification' seems to rid you of the guilt in asking for funds." So much for verification and the safety it adds when someone else's credit card and name can be used. Lets keep this thread on-topic on verification. Any comments on parts of his complete post not related to verification should best be made in another thread here: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=3926698#post4429975
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted December 10th, 2009 - 9:06 am by  from Larissa, Greece (Permalink)three days ago an enthusiastic new member told me he sent the verification money 6 months ago and still hasnt got any answer how long it takes usually? btw i d like to tell you that tons of members who arent very fluent in english or have time to read only their local groups are totally unaware of this kind of topics from discussions i have with the above new members,i see that they feel the urge to become verified because they re convinced that this way they have better chances in hosting/being hosted and they re surprised to find out that i am not verified and still was trusted by all those surfers or that most surfers dont actually pay any attention to the green mark on profiles Danny, we have the choice to contribute in several ways apart from being verified or donating money, like volunteering in translation teams or moderating groups or bringing new members, organising meetings. The fact is that only the verification kind of contribution is so highly promoted every time we leave a reference ;)
Posted December 10th, 2009 - 11:39 am by from Trieste, Italy (Permalink)"we have the choice to contribute in several ways apart from being verified or donating money, like volunteering in translation teams or moderating groups or bringing new members, organising meetings." True. And you forgot the most basic one: HOSTING. The system wouldn't be sustainable if it weren't for the really active hosts (which are not so many). I make regular donations to the projects I like (Wikipedia, for instance), but I ask for transparency and honesty. If I should make the balance of my CSing experience basing me on how much we spent until now for my guests and how much we saved being hosted, I'm sure I actually lost money on it. Of course, there are other things we earned from hosting that are priceless, but what I want to point out here is that hosts are valuable to CSing and the experience of hosting should be promoted more than it is now.
Posted December 10th, 2009 - 12:35 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)"hosts are valuable to CSing and the experience of hosting should be promoted more than it is now" Absolutely, and I would even say: without the active hosts CS would only be a little website like many others. I don't want a medal or a title for hosting a lot. If I didn't enjoy hosting I wouldn't be doing it. But not being stigmatised as "unverified" and not having "contributed" would be nice. The name "CouchSurfing" may already be somewhat of a handicap for getting the message about hosting across, but contributing to that imbalance by putting surfing forward so much when communicating just makes things worse. Idea 16b in the poll on improved safety suggested to add a hosting example to the page http://www.couchsurfing.org/about.html/faq#example which currently only describes how to surf, and as a rule communicate about hosting as much as about surfing. The General Manager replied "We're actively pursuing improved advice for surfers and hosts." I'll keep an eye on what he means by that and how that materialises eventually. And btw, with the 34 safety ideas submitted to CS alone this group has contributed more than if each and every member of the group had gotten verified. And again, we don't want a medal for that, just see as many of them as possible actually implemented.
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted December 10th, 2009 - 2:17 pm by  from Antwerp, Belgium (Permalink)"At this time, the only method of donation for verification is with any credit card (VISA, MC, AMEX or Discover) or a debit card (with a VISA/MC logo) issued in the member’s name. We cannot accept driver’s licenses, passports or any other form of identity verification. No one is able to personally verify any member." If Brian's information is correct (about names not necessarily matching), isn't this simply a fraudulent process? If members aren't getting their verification code, doubly so. (Also, reading the ambassadors code of "ethics" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.)
Posted December 11th, 2009 - 12:19 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)Ambassador Certification Training Module Twelve - Verification "The member has received a postcard with a 16 digit code that they have entered into our website, confirming that their mailing address is the one they've disclosed to CS." That is a much more accurate statement than those made to members on the actual CouchSurfing.org website: "by letting CouchSurfing check your name and address, you help other CouchSurfers feel confident that you are who you say you are." "STEP 3: Receive postcard at your home address and verify your location." And the most outrageous claim: "Second, they’ve confirmed both their name and physical location, so that the community can see that they are who they say they are." So ambassadors get the truthfull version, will members targeted by the verification scheme/scam are lead to believe an actual address or physical location was somehow verified. Great to know that a verified member can receive mail. Makes me feel so much safer.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted December 10th, 2009 - 7:56 pm by from Larissa, Greece (Permalink)well, never had or plan to have a credit card i make donations using other methods thnx for the link Pickwick, probably my friend's postcard is lost somewhere, i ll tell him where to address himself to.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted December 10th, 2009 - 9:05 pm by from Trieste, Italy (Permalink)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MQGxZa1TzE&feature=related Idioooot wind blowin' every time you move your mouth.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 6:06 pm by from Trieste, Italy (Permalink)It's a pity, Uncle Bob sang it for you and you didn't even catch it.
Posted December 5th, 2009 - 11:11 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)A verified member is currently wanted for stealing money from his host in Korea. It will be interesting to see the MDST response and what benefit verification has in this case. One thing for sure, it didn't prevent the crime. Let's seem if it helps to solve it, especially if the member was verified under his own name with his own credit card, and not with that of someone else as has been done according to the former Verification Team Leader: "Hello! So we have a sticky situation here in Seoul where someone hosted a CSer, who about a week later returned to the apartment, broke into it, and stole money from the host. They have a CCTV video of the CSer breaking in. The accused robber is a verified CS member. The victim followed the appropriate steps and has filed a police report and has someone working on tracking him down. He also promptly contacted CS admin (over a week ago)and posted a negative comment on the profile. The accused now has their profile blocked. CS has not contacted this member at all. It was my understanding (possibly wrong) that being a verified member makes you more accountable because in the case of a problem, the victim (or at least the authorities) would have access to the users "real information." WILL Cs eventually contact the police and/or user to help out in the search for him? The victim posted the situation in the groups to warn others, and now people mention seeing him in different parts of Korea. If the police had his real personal information, they could locate his Visa Card, but time is of the essence as the accused appears to be moving quickly. I know this question has been answered before, but because there is no good search feature I can't seem to find the answer. My overall question: What is CS admin's role in police investigations of this kind? Thanks, Amy" http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=2125&post=4464018
Posted December 5th, 2009 - 2:47 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)thanks so much Uli...let's keep an eye on this, since it will form a test case for how the leadership deals with unsafe, yet verified, members.
Posted December 6th, 2009 - 1:08 am by from Montreal, Canada (Permalink)As usual - CS doesn't provide info unless having a subpoena (officialy) Upon receiving a police report/document, the profile shall be removed. Nothing new here, my dears... The policy is not different for verified or unverified members
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 7:52 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for December: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) Another $100,000 or so in the bank, which will have put 2009 revenue from verification and donations clearly over the $1,000,000 minimum at which an independent audit is legally required.
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 2:24 pm by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)Thanks for posting these updates. I think the stated percentage is not the most indicative statistic, though, since the denominator is total membership which includes hundreds of thousands of deleted and totally inactive profiles going back to the start of operations. A second illustrative statistic would be a differential one, delta verifications/delta members. This would show the percentage of new verifications to new members since the last report. For example, looking at the interval in your last 2 reports, the number of verifications was about 8.4% of new members in that period.
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 2:33 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)I too think that would be a really interesting statistic...to indirectly indicate how successful the recent push to verify, specifically targeting new sign-ups, has been. does anyone know the % of inactive or deleted profiles? is that tracked? I'm assuming, John, that your figure of 'hundreds of thousands' is a best-guess?
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 6:29 pm by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)Yes, Margaret, that's a complete back of the envelope estimate enormously extrapolated from my observation of members dropping off the periodic searches I do of my local rural area.
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 3:42 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Thanks John for pointing out that the official CS statistics include all profiles ever created, even after they have been deleted, as has recently been confirmed here: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=20198&post=4311495#post4419382 Unfortunately they are the only published statistics. So unless CS decides to publish more meaningful statistics about actual active profiles, I am afraid this is the best we have. As far as I remember CS considers profiles to be active if they have logged in at least once in the past 6 months, and that figure used to be around 2/3 of total profiles, i.e. about 1 million of the current 1.5 million profiles in the statistics. That one million would indeed be the base on which the detailed stats would make most sense. Meanwhile, these are the detailed published statistics with growth rates for total profiles and verified profiles. Date ------- profiles ------ % incr. -- verified --- % incr. --- % verified 15.09.09 --- 1 428 960 --- -,--% ---- 81 256 ---- -.--% --- 5.69% 15.10.09 --- 1 458 920 --- 2.10% ---- 84 902 --- 4.49% --- 5.82% 15.11.09 --- 1 513 445 --- 3.74% ---- 88 998 --- 4.82% --- 5.88% 15.12.09 --- 1 565 809 --- 3.46% ---- 94 275 --- 5.93% --- 6.02% It is probably safe to assume that the newly verified profiles are mostly new profiles and that the verification rate increases due the more aggressive "encouragement" at registration. Assuming (just threoretically, to get an idea of the upper limit) that all new verifications were from new registrations, the verification rate among new members would be (94,275 - 88,998)/(1,565,809 - 1,513,445) = 10.1%
Posted December 15th, 2009 - 7:05 pm by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)I'd call it better than an upper limit. For the 10.1% figure to be valid, one only has to assume that the number of new verifications is proportional to the number of new members, which is less stringent assuming that all new verifications are from new members.
Posted December 16th, 2009 - 8:48 am by from Trieste, Italy (Permalink)I know it's not so serious, but what about if "power hosts" (or "power user") on this group count the ratio "verified/total" in their reference list? I'm slightly under 25% (20 verified profiles on 83 references I wrote, most of them from hosting people coming from Europe or North America). -Marzio-
Posted December 16th, 2009 - 12:01 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Interesting approach Marzio, thanks. I have posted a follow-up in the thread about active profiles: http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=7621&post=4544016#post4547563
Posted December 16th, 2009 - 5:24 pm by from Livingston Manor, United States (Permalink)My ratio is 43% of 118 "for" and/or "from" refs. A large fraction of my refs are metro NYC residents because of the regular hikes we do.
Posted December 17th, 2009 - 6:41 pm by from London, England (Permalink)With 38 reference exchanges and 41 friend links, I don't know if I'm a 'power user' or not, but in any case about 32% and 30% are with verified members.
Posted December 17th, 2009 - 8:05 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)With my 40% that gives us an average of 35% verified profiles for the 4 of us, and refines the assessment of what can be considered active profiles (in the other thread) further to: 94,275 verified profiles / 0.35 = 270.000 "active" profiles = 17% of all profiles in the statistics. This is almost identical with the figure of 16% stated in that thread for the profiles that log in over a 2-week period.
Posted February 15th, 2010 - 5:19 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for February: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) 15.01.10: 100,262 verified members (6.2%) 15.02.10: 107,099 verified members (6.4%)
Posted March 15th, 2010 - 8:58 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for March: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) 15.01.10: 100,262 verified members (6.2%) 15.02.10: 107,099 verified members (6.4%) 15.03.10: 113,494 verified members (6.5%)
Posted March 15th, 2010 - 10:10 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)thanks so much Uli for your careful stats-keeping...valuable info! Looks like the verification campaign really is paying off incrementally:)
Posted March 15th, 2010 - 11:24 pm by  from Denver, United States (Permalink)wow, how very technical... and yet funny to see how few of us in this group are verified. LOL. myself included Personally I move around a lot, which I gather is fairly common among members, so I am not surprised by the low numbers of verified members.
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 8:14 am by  from Cologne, Germany (Permalink)Why don't we get any figures here about how many of those who got verified as a result of the "verification campaign" are male and how many female?
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 12:37 pm by  from Istanbul, Turkey (Permalink)... and whether there is a correlation with the number of new member acquisition? My membership is relatively recent. At the time, and without knowledge of its "historical" background, and shortcomings, I thought verification was a good idea! I might act otherwise today, but that's water under the bridge. Could "fry" be easier to catch than fully grown fish?
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 12:54 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)I actually think that verification is indeed a good idea, as an abstraction...I just disagree with it's current implementation. CS needs someone who loves rigor and detail to run the verification program and keep its motive pure...someone like Uli would be good:) And yah Serhat the fry are easier to catch when they're directed into the verification net from the get-go...thanks for the image:) The option to verify is not really presented, apparently, as an 'option' to new sign-ups...but as an avenue to acceptance on this website, since they say you'll appear more trustworthy to the general membership. We all understand that this, emphatically, is not the case...esp since people can get verified on any random credit card...but new members have no way of judging the efficacy or integrity of the verification campaign.
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 2:06 pm by  from Hyderabad, India (Permalink)“…..esp since people can get verified on any random credit card...but new members have no way of judging the efficacy or integrity of the verification campaign.” If we consider the purpose of the present CS-Verification system is mainly two things as follows: 1. Identity Checked -- Actual Name of the member has been Verified 2. Location Verified -- Actual Address of the member has been Verified Now, they are doing both by sending CS Post Card with verification code to the member’s address.In this case they are using the service of the respective Government department(in case of me it is Postal department of Government of India).If they wrote wrong NAME or Address then the member don’t supposed to receive the CS-verification-post-card at hand.Here CS depends on the respective countries for delivering post cards.Don’t we have TRUST on our own country’s postal Department ? The purpose of the system must not be verification of Credit Card Number of a member.Right???
This post has been removed by the user.
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 2:29 pm by from Hyderabad, India (Permalink)Really,I don't know.I also spent very less time in CS,might be only 1 hour per week. ------------------------------------------------------- They can cheat their Govt. department in many ways.CS can't be responsible of all.In our country,if name and adress is not proper,she/he can't receive the post card.I think CS is depends on the respective Govt. dept. only for NAME and Address verification. -------------------------------------------------------- But if a person know the credit card number and code of somebody else he can use that in anywhere she/he want to purchase some costly goods. I think CS don't care about Credit Card Number except donation money.
This post has been removed by the user.
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 2:56 pm by from Hyderabad, India (Permalink)CS sent the post card to the member’s address mention in the CS web-site at the time of registration. If the member don’t live at that address, then the postal department don’t supposed to deliver the card as per rules of the postal department. As per my knowledge, postal department usually control by central government of the country and all international delivery usually take high care of. Now if the postal dept. of a country do mistake then we could blame to that country. I don’t have more idea about this but I highly rely on CS verification system as of now.My personal opinion.
This post has been removed by the user.
Posted March 16th, 2010 - 3:36 pm by from Cologne, Germany (Permalink)Yes, yes, yes... As fascinating as this whole postcard matter no doubt is - what really matters here is that Uli is denying us the figures about the man woman ratio, even though this could have proven once and for all which sex is the dumber one. Pity! Though... Perhaps I should actually rather be glad about that!?! Well - we'll never know and so this thread will remain basically pointless, no matter how obtrusively Uli keeps pushing the thread back to the top every few weeks. Speaking of which - I quickly have to go and find some "exaggeration" for my own thread. Has become extremely difficult since the BS groupS got so inactive... Maat et joot! / Take care! Ulf
Posted April 17th, 2010 - 12:09 am by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for April: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) 15.01.10: 100,262 verified members (6.2%) 15.02.10: 107,099 verified members (6.4%) 15.03.10: 113,494 verified members (6.5%) 15.04.10: 120,256 verified members (6.7%)
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.
Posted April 23rd, 2010 - 4:55 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Fer asked: "has ever CS or any member having some kind of role in the organisation threaten anyone for advising/trying to stop people from verifying?" I am only aware of one case in which someone, an ambassador, was bullied by peers into resigning and hiding his profile after he had spoken out about verification, and stated in his couch information that he was giving preference to non-verified surfers because verfied members, according to CS, supposedly find a couch very easily. My own approach, which I recommend, is to give members the information they should have to make the informed decision which is best for them. There are many reasons for donating to CouchSurfing or to pay a fee for getting verified. Some seem more valid to me than others, but that should be up for everyone to decide for themselves. Because of the current registration system which seems to be designed to "encourage" new members to "donate" before they change their minds, unfortunately many new members are under the wrong impression that they must or are expected to get verified, and pay, in order to travel with CouchSurfing. Not my idea of an ethical approach to fundraising, but unfortunately for now it seems to work for CS.
Posted April 23rd, 2010 - 6:41 pm by from Twizel, New Zealand (Permalink)haha, all that fus for that tiny amount, well maybe if they where more honest about that they spent the money on people would donate more....
Posted May 15th, 2010 - 12:41 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for May: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) 15.01.10: 100,262 verified members (6.2%) 15.02.10: 107,099 verified members (6.4%) 15.03.10: 113,494 verified members (6.5%) 15.04.10: 120,256 verified members (6.7%) 15.05.10: 126,602 verified members (6.8%) That translates into an estimated 6.346 x $26 = $165.000 income from verification over the last month and $1.680.000 over the last 12 months.
This member profile has been deactivated
Posted May 17th, 2010 - 12:11 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)I'll look forward to seeing the independently conducted audit...the public posting of which is a legal requirement when donations exceed $1 million annually.
Posted June 15th, 2010 - 12:52 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)verification rate tracking - monthly update for June 2010: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) 15.01.10: 100,262 verified members (6.2%) 15.02.10: 107,099 verified members (6.4%) 15.03.10: 113,494 verified members (6.5%) 15.04.10: 120,256 verified members (6.7%) 15.05.10: 126,602 verified members (6.8%) 15.06.10: 134,346 verified members (6.9%) That translates into an estimated 7.744 x $26 = $200.000 income from verification over the last month and $1.760.000 over the last 12 months since introduction of the green verification check-marks and an overall more aggressive fundraising approach. The number of verified profiles has doubled since June 2009. Their proportion of all profiles has increased from 5.7% to 6.9%. This is still far from the announced objective of 10% at the end of this year. Unless some major event happens, such as an IRS investigation of CS finances, this end-of-year number can be projected to around 7.5%, i.e. about 40% of the objective. This concludes one year of monthly tracking of the verification statistics. This will be the last monthly tracking for now. Should the trend change I'll post again.
Posted June 15th, 2010 - 1:13 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)thanks so much Uli, It's great that you're keeping such a close eye on this. Since CS clearly has collected >$1 million USD this past year, we will look forward to reviewing the independently conducted financial audit, the public posting of which is legally required. http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_s_annual_nh.php
Posted December 15th, 2010 - 3:04 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Now updating these stats twice a year: verification rate tracking - monthly statistics for December 2010: 17.06.09: introduction of green check-marks on profile pictures 17.06.09: 66,600 verified members (5.7%) 15.07.09: 71,794 verified members (5.8%) 19.08.09: 76,084 verified members (5.8%) 15.09.09: 81,256 verified members (5.8%) 15.10.09: 84,902 verified members (5.8%) 15.11.09: 88,998 verified members (5.9%) 15.12.09: 94,275 verified members (6.0%) 15.01.10: 100,262 verified members (6.2%) 15.02.10: 107,099 verified members (6.4%) 15.03.10: 113,494 verified members (6.5%) 15.04.10: 120,256 verified members (6.7%) 15.05.10: 126,602 verified members (6.8%) 15.06.10: 134,346 verified members (6.9%) 15.07.10: 142,548 verified members (7.1%) 19.08.10: 150,350 verified members (7.2%) 15.09.10: 159,774 verified members (7.3%) 15.10.10: 166,379 verified members (7.4%) 15.11.10: 172,606 verified members (7.4%) 15.12.10: 179,319 verified members (7.5%) This translates into an estimated 6.713 x $26 = $175.000 income from verification over the last month and $2.200.000 over the last 12 months. The number of verified profiles will soon have tripled since the introduction of the more agressive fundraising approach in June 2009. Their proportion of all profiles has increased from 5.7% to 7.5% as I had projected in the last update six months ago. Thus CS will achieve roughly 40% of its announced objective to reach 10% verified profiles by the end of 2010. Next update in June 2011 unless something out of the ordinary happens.
Posted December 15th, 2010 - 3:14 pm by from Alexandria, United States (Permalink)Again, hearty and sincere thanks to you Uli! You've done so much work, keeping track of verification, and it's so appreciated:) ...and I'm assuming that the $2.2 million is from verification alone? do we know how much is collected in the form of outright donation? Bring on the independent audit, CS...I'm looking forward to seeing some publicly posted evidence of financial accountability and responsible spending.
Posted August 28th, 2012 - 4:04 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)Update: The new terms of use as of September 14th, 2012, include an important disclaimer regarding the nature and alleged benefits of "verification" which, if users are aware of it, can make it significantly more difficult to collect "verification" payments in the future: "4.2 Identity Verification. We cannot and do not confirm each member’s identity. Although we provide tools intended to assist with identity verification, such as our address verification tool (as described in Section 4.3), you are solely responsible for determining the identity and suitability of others with whom you may interact through our Services. CouchSurfing does not represent or warrant that our tools are sufficient to determine whether it is appropriate for you to interact with another member. Further, we do not endorse any persons who use or register for our Services. We do not investigate or verify any member’s reputation, conduct, morality, criminal background, or any information members may submit to the Services (other than the address-verification tool as described in Section 4.3). We encourage you to take precautions when interacting with other members, particularly when meeting a stranger in person for the first time. 4.3 Our Address-Verification Tool. Our address-verification tool is intended merely to confirm that the postal address a member submits to us is an address at which that member is able to access or receive mail. CouchSurfing's address-verification tool is not intended to confirm that a member actually resides at a particular address. While this is one of many ways to reduce the risk of misconduct by a member, it is not a guarantee of any member’s identity or good faith." The new disclaimer is similar to what I had been pushing CouchSurfing for since 2009, when previous management started to make false claims relating to the alleged benefits of "verification"*. I am pleased that the new shareholders are sufficiently afraid of the consequences of continuing to make such false claims and as of September 14th, 2012, plan to cover their rears with this disclaimer. This is also a belated admission that the previous claims were untrue, as had been pointed out over and over again, but fell on death ears with the previous "management". *For years CouchSurfing had made claimed that "verification" confirmed a member's identity and location, and that others could "feel" more comfortable that verified users are who they say they are:  |