Print

1

48 (66.7%)

2

11 (15.3%)

3

6 (8.3%)

4

0 (0%)

5 or more

1 (1.4%)

0

6 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[112233]

This has the potential to be very interesting, although not very many people have voted.  I was a little confused by the wording myself; I wasn't sure what "identity can be unverified" meant.

It means a prosper account has not been registered as a borrower, lender, or GL. The person only provided an email address and did not have their identity verified. You notice the distinction in the endorsement area of a listing: "Identity not verif". Here is an example: http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=277959

I want to make sure people count every account regardless of its use.

[Mtnchick]

IIRC, there were one or two pets registered at P-----r. I think just to REGISTER, you don't need an SSN. I could be wrong and these pets do, indeed, have an SSN. After all, there's rumor of at least 1 GL who managed to not only get accounts but get money using her children's SSNs

[112233]

The poll will probably be biased by the disproportionate amount of lender-only users here at .org, but hopefully it will provide some value.

[BigGulp]

2

...Gulp

[SGriff]

IIRC, there were one or two pets registered at P-----r. I think just to REGISTER, you don't need an SSN. I could be wrong and these pets do, indeed, have an SSN. After all, there's rumor of at least 1 GL who managed to not only get accounts but get money using her children's SSNs

But that's strictly rumor.

[Tokyo Joe]

While the number of voters is still too small to draw conculsions from, already the numbers (if they are true) are revealing.

43 persons have at least one account.  However, those 43 people account for 63 accounts.  If that is site-wide, Prosper is overstating its membership by almost a whopping 50%...

[HollowOak]

While the number of voters is still too small to draw conculsions from, already the numbers (if they are true) are revealing.

43 persons have at least one account.  However, those 43 people account for 63 accounts.  If that is site-wide, Prosper is overstating its membership by almost a whopping 50%...

Your post was so unclear, I had to do the math myself. 

As of the time of writing this, 50 people have voted. They owned up to owning in total 64 accounts. 6 people had no account, 30 people had one account (30 accounts), 8 people had 2 accounts (16 accounts) and 6 people had 3 accounts (18 accounts).

Assuming the 6 people with no accounts are not counted as Prosper members, then Prosper would count 64 accounts for 44 real members. That would overstate membership by 145%.

But you really can't blame Prosper for this. They don't really have a means to figure out when people register their dogs or WonderWoman.  Clearly, also unaccounted for in the membership numbers are those accounts that registered as part of identity theft fraud. Those should not be counted either, but how do you go about identifying them?

[traveler505]

But you really can't blame Prosper for this. They don't really have a means to figure out when people register their dogs or WonderWoman.  Clearly, also unaccounted for in the membership numbers are those accounts that registered as part of identity theft fraud. Those should not be counted either, but how do you go about identifying them?

Prosper is a financial services site.  There is nothing that one can actually *do* on Prosper (other than endorsing a friend) without providing a SSN, which is a unique identifier (absent identity theft or other extreme exceptions).  So there is no reason not to make the SSN (and SSN-based identity verification) a prerequisite for membership, other than to inflate the membership numbers.  If all Prosper wanted was emails that they could use for marketing purposes, it could create a category of "information requesters" who are not yet members.

[Mtnchick]

But you really can't blame Prosper for this. They don't really have a means to figure out when people register their dogs or WonderWoman.  Clearly, also unaccounted for in the membership numbers are those accounts that registered as part of identity theft fraud. Those should not be counted either, but how do you go about identifying them?

Prosper is a financial services site.  There is nothing that one can actually *do* on Prosper (other than endorsing a friend) without providing a SSN, which is a unique identifier (absent identity theft or other extreme exceptions).  So there is no reason not to make the SSN (and SSN-based identity verification) a prerequisite for membership, other than to inflate the membership numbers.  If all Prosper wanted was emails that they could use for marketing purposes, it could create a category of "information requesters" who are not yet members.

Agreed. I'm a member of several "financial services" sites and I don't think I can get more than 1 account on any of them. Except P-----r......

[112233]

While the number of voters is still too small to draw conculsions from, already the numbers (if they are true) are revealing.

43 persons have at least one account.  However, those 43 people account for 63 accounts.  If that is site-wide, Prosper is overstating its membership by almost a whopping 50%...

Your post was so unclear, I had to do the math myself. 

As of the time of writing this, 50 people have voted. They owned up to owning in total 64 accounts. 6 people had no account, 30 people had one account (30 accounts), 8 people had 2 accounts (16 accounts) and 6 people had 3 accounts (18 accounts).

Assuming the 6 people with no accounts are not counted as Prosper members, then Prosper would count 64 accounts for 44 real members. That would overstate membership by 145%.

But you really can't blame Prosper for this. They don't really have a means to figure out when people register their dogs or WonderWoman.  Clearly, also unaccounted for in the membership numbers are those accounts that registered as part of identity theft fraud. Those should not be counted either, but how do you go about identifying them?

I agree with everything except that the membership is overstated by 45% instead of 145%

[lenderguy]

Prosper is a financial services site.  There is nothing that one can actually *do* on Prosper (other than endorsing a friend) without providing a SSN, which is a unique identifier (absent identity theft or other extreme exceptions).  So there is no reason not to make the SSN (and SSN-based identity verification) a prerequisite for membership, other than to inflate the membership numbers.  If all Prosper wanted was emails that they could use for marketing purposes, it could create a category of "information requesters" who are not yet members.

I suck at business because I am too literal and have a tinge of ethics.  "We told you we had 150,000 members.  We never said said we had 150,000 clients."

[ira01]

While the number of voters is still too small to draw conculsions from, already the numbers (if they are true) are revealing.

43 persons have at least one account.  However, those 43 people account for 63 accounts.  If that is site-wide, Prosper is overstating its membership by almost a whopping 50%...

Your post was so unclear, I had to do the math myself. 

As of the time of writing this, 50 people have voted. They owned up to owning in total 64 accounts. 6 people had no account, 30 people had one account (30 accounts), 8 people had 2 accounts (16 accounts) and 6 people had 3 accounts (18 accounts).

Assuming the 6 people with no accounts are not counted as Prosper members, then Prosper would count 64 accounts for 44 real members. That would overstate membership by 145%.

But you really can't blame Prosper for this. They don't really have a means to figure out when people register their dogs or WonderWoman.  Clearly, also unaccounted for in the membership numbers are those accounts that registered as part of identity theft fraud. Those should not be counted either, but how do you go about identifying them?

I agree with everything except that the membership is overstated by 45% instead of 145%

I agree with 112233's math, but with Traveler regarding HO's last paragraph.  Prosper's counting of "members" is clearly just intended to state as high a number as possible, using methodology (like almost all of Prosper's advertising) that is highly misleading at best (if not downright fraudulent at worst).  Aside from requiring an SSN to register (as Traveler suggested), Prosper could simply count only registered lenders and borrowers as "members" in its statistics.  After all, those are the only "members" that matter in any substantive way.  People who simply sign up to endorse a friend or relative are irrelevant (to say nothing of the multiple account issue). 

[cowdog]

Prosper is a financial services site.  There is nothing that one can actually *do* on Prosper (other than endorsing a friend) without providing a SSN, which is a unique identifier (absent identity theft or other extreme exceptions).  So there is no reason not to make the SSN (and SSN-based identity verification) a prerequisite for membership, other than to inflate the membership numbers.  If all Prosper wanted was emails that they could use for marketing purposes, it could create a category of "information requesters" who are not yet members.

I suck at business because I am too literal and have a tinge of ethics.  "We told you we had 150,000 members.  We never said said we had 150,000 clients."

Bingo.

In my view, Prosper pushing their "membership" numbers is just one more example of the unethical approach to business by senior management. Any numbers or statistics, especially on a financial site, really need to be explained with a notation or footnote delineating what was or wasn't included for the calculation.

Come on Prosper, just another example of your sleaze factor.

[Tokyo Joe]

Your post was so unclear, I had to do the math myself. 

...

Assuming the 6 people with no accounts are not counted as Prosper members, then Prosper would count 64 accounts for 44 real members. That would overstate membership by 145%.

If there are 44 real members, and 64 accounts total, wouldn't that overstate membership by about 45%? (20 extra accounts divided by 44 real members)??

[HollowOak]

Your post was so unclear, I had to do the math myself. 

...

Assuming the 6 people with no accounts are not counted as Prosper members, then Prosper would count 64 accounts for 44 real members. That would overstate membership by 145%.

If there are 44 real members, and 64 accounts total, wouldn't that overstate membership by about 45%? (20 extra accounts divided by 44 real members)??

<red-faced>