Working girls reading our reviews

[mrfishyfoo]

I quite often change the details round in my reviews

can be stuff like date/booking length/what she was wearing

always keep services offered/refused and positive/negative true to the booking though

I don't change anything.

FFS it can be "costly" though as I've lost count of how many lasses have taken offence to my honest descriptions of them.

Stating that a lass has a mummy tummy and saggy tits tends to cause the greatest offence. 

Ask me if I give a shit as it would take me just short of 45 years at one whore a day to fuck just the ones that are within 100 miles of Leeds.

NEXT !!!

[NigelF]

Ask me if I give a shit as it would take me just short of 45 years at one whore a day to fuck just the ones that are within 100 miles of Leeds.

NEXT !!!

Yeah but you probably wouldn't want to shag most of them! Some will be ridiculously priced too. Of course you're being deliberately extreme and I agree with your sentiment as there's plenty of others out there who are suitable. Although really good girls are rare and unless you give them a totally glowing/perfect review, some of them may well get annoyed and it's a shame to either not be able to see them again or have it spoil the subsequent punt/s a bit.

[Fulcrum]

Not bothered about WG Reading the reviews on here. I suppose some (very few) do take any criticism on board and try and improve. Most do have a hissy fit and throws the out of the pram.
I don't care. I write review here for information sharing. Just like I've deleted a few SP from my hot list on reading regular negative review and other information provided by members.

[Rochelle]

Yes, that's one of the main reasons why it's a good thing that WG's are allowed to post on here. Of course in my experience, when the WG does comment it's because she wants to make her own shit up, but of course my reviews are always honest and accurate.

Even for other reviews though, I'd say in around 95% of cases the WG is talking shit or at least, the WG is talking more shit than the reviewer. Of course presumably you fit into that 5% and I don't know if I'm correct/can remember properly but I think that was proven in one of your reviews which was labelled fake (possibly by admin but I'm not sure) or at least moved to the discussion section (and the OP was banned).

It was moved to the regional section. I guess admin didn't think there was enough to label it fake, but also not enough to consider it genuine.

[king tarzan]

Reviewing SPs is perfectly valid, they're selling a service/entertainment to their customers and we're entitled to comment on the experience and our expectations.
Like any provider they can choose to act positively on the feedback or contest its veracity or they can enter into a destructive cycle of controversy.
They're entitled to whatever anonymity they put forward as part of their service as are punters in their guise of customer.  Any attempt to pierce that veil is an infringement of privacy law under the ECHR.

 

[mrfishyfoo]

Yeah but you probably wouldn't want to shag most of them! Some will be ridiculously priced too. Of course you're being deliberately extreme and I agree with your sentiment as there's plenty of others out there who are suitable. Although really good girls are rare and unless you give them a totally glowing/perfect review, some of them may well get annoyed and it's a shame to either not be able to see them again or have it spoil the subsequent punt/s a bit.

I like hunting for unicorns. 

It's a 2 edged sword IMHO as some lasses are appalled whereas others, the more savvy ones, welcome and even covet reviews.

This is why I go in anonymous off of AWank and avoid using AWank emails and booking requests when I can.

Not as easy with agencies as the goalkeepers eventually work it out.

[starnatalia]

I think is great so we can read what you write, so we can understand more what you ask this days ,I think since I read lods think in UK punting I do understand men little more than before ,for example will now never offer coffee or tea becouse if will count like waisting time technique but before I will never think that way just thought it was friendly but all good cos I hate do drinks for punters I prefer to shag them....

[NigelF]

I think is great so we can read what you write, so we can understand more what you ask this days ,I think since I read lods think in UK punting I do understand men little more than before ,for example will now never offer coffee or tea becouse if will count like waisting time technique but before I will never think that way just thought it was friendly but all good cos I hate do drinks for punters I prefer to shag them....

I think people who think offering a drink (or a massage or whatever) is a timewasting tactic are being a bit harsh/cynical. Offering something is fine, the punter can just say "no thanks" and only a few seconds have been wasted. If you insist (or ask forcefully) or take ages making the drink then I think it can and should be seen as a timewasting tactic. Also, some punters might actually like a drink but might not want to trouble you unless you ask.

Anyway, it's good that you read what's on here and try to improve based on what you've read. Of course as I've said previously, you're in the minority unfortunately.

[WARSZAWA16]

Two sugars please - and make it quick!

[LLPunting]

I think is great so we can read what you write, so we can understand more what you ask this days ,I think since I read lods think in UK punting I do understand men little more than before ,for example will now never offer coffee or tea becouse if will count like waisting time technique but before I will never think that way just thought it was friendly but all good cos I hate do drinks for punters I prefer to shag them....

A cuppa takes 2 mins which is fine whilst I'm undressing or in the shower so not a timewaster at all, unless you're meant to be in the shower with me.
I prefer the timewasting when the lady makes me dinner afterwards.  I will never write a neg about a lady who does this.

[bearcat69]

It's not exactly something that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. But I guess one should try to appreciate the benefits that are perhaps less obvious... Sometimes there's something to be gained from taking the rough with the smooth.

I always these days review WGs as frankly and as honestly as I can. Had a few reactions from some girls in a few minor ways. Can be a bit annoying at the time, but this is a very well moderated forum IMHO, and I've never had any serious lasting blowback that's worth mentioning.

All in all, I do wonder sometimes what prossies think when they read my reviews of them, I mean, look, I'm only human, as are they, apparently but I don't think it's something that's worth giving too much thought to. In my eyes, the main purpose of this site is to review, share advice, knowledge, experiences, opinions, and so forth, on prossies, with other punters, and that's primarily what I use it for. If that irks certain prossies, then that's just the way it goes.

[DastardlyDick]

As others have said, I think it's a good thing that SPs can read our reviews if it means that their service improves and/or they realize that they're taking the piss with their rates and lower them to a sensible level.

[Midori]

Cheers for confirming how easy it is (although if you only do outcalls and only see relatively few clients then it is easier for you but I still think what you've said is true for all/almost all girls). I think punters (or at least I) often underestimate how memorable we are, I usually think I'm forgotten the moment I leave but not all WGs are like that, indeed many aren't (even if they're very busy).

All of the reviews I've been identified from included things that were easy to link to me but I either didn't think it through or thought they wouldn't remember or notice.

I could have sworn admin posted saying that he stopped all WG's from being able to see review lists but perhaps it's just the post reports and deleted posts (unless you can see them too?). I think I'm still right in saying that all members (punter and WG) with a low post count can't see review lists?

Anyway, as for title of this topic, I don't have a problem with WGs reading our reviews or indeed commenting, in fact I think both of those things are usually good. I just wish most of them wouldn't be so ultra sensitive about their reviews. It boggles the mind how so many think they must be totally perfect.

I think it's down to higher post count whether you can see or not because I had the capability to see, then it got taken away and now I can see again.

Also, it is pretty easy for even incall wgs to work it out. I don't want to burst any bubbles here but I linked every single person who has reviewed me and knew who id seen. Even without cross referencing, it's usually a no brainer if you are a lower volume escort and/or you usually see regulars that the review that's just popped up is that new person you saw a couple of weeks before.

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference though, apart from validatingy "Spidey sense". Good bookings that end in positive reviews generally are super positive on my side too, so its nice to read back myself.  Others I can reflect on as and when they occur about where I can do better, or put it down to a lack of chemistry and think about how I can do better there or dismiss because they would have been added to my block list regardless of review or not *shrugs*.

[Midori]

No, I can no longer see post reports and deleted posts.
Indeed, many are ultra sensitive. However, if someone wants to write a review and make shit up, I sure as hell am saying something and not letting it go. How one goes about that makes a difference of course.

I read that and thought you held your own really well.

[winkywanky]

She normally has someone else to hold them for her.

[PatMacGroin]

Yes, yes and yes.
Just be honest and tell the truth.
I don't mind the SPs commenting on my reviews, or working out who I am. This may change when I have a negative experience but for now I am selecting only positives from here, most of which I have met before.
I will then follow this advice:
Protect your ID, don't let them link your AW I'd to UKP, since some will try and discredit or out you.
Don't book on Aw unless there is no other way. Leave it a few weeks before you review. Don't mention dates or times or anything too specific that would identify you.

Why do you advise not to book on AW?

I have generally found my shit punts occur when the WG refuses to take or confirm the AW booking in advance. They seem to believe it means they can't get back feedback, so they try to play games.

[PatMacGroin]

…

- WG accused me of being NigelF, which made for an awkward denial and subsequent conversation

...

Wait... So you are not the NigelF?

So many people say the avatar of MrHappyPants makes his post sound Trump like.

You have the name, the avatar and your posts even have the same rhythm as his speeches! (Including the little asides in brackets). Whenever I read them I cant help but picture Farage propping up a bar with a pint or sitting behind a radio mike on LBC. Always felt it was a double bluff, hiding in plane sight.

[PatMacGroin]

I've sometimes felt that WG's could get pissed off with a positive review if it's too effusive.

That they are worried all other punters will expect the passionate, acrobatic, no holds barred service described by a review. And that some punters might get angry or aggressive with them if they feel they are getting short changed compared to what someone else has reported.

When actually the source of the glowing positive could actually be something like:
- Bare faced lies by a member trying to show off for some reason.
- Exaggeration brought on by a misguided need to White Knight
- Delusions brought on by some form of EAS
- A lucky bit of one off chemistry between the WG and that Punter   
- Some amazing swordsmanship by the punter who happens to be a total stud, (Fuck right off you lucky git)

[Moby Dick]

All valid points.
Although I doubt effusive is a word in the average WG vocabulary.

I've sometimes felt that WG's could get pissed off with a positive review if it's too effusive.

That they are worried all other punters will expect the passionate, acrobatic, no holds barred service described by a review. And that some punters might get angry or aggressive with them if they feel they are getting short changed compared to what someone else has reported.

When actually the source of the glowing positive could actually be something like:
- Bare faced lies by a member trying to show off for some reason.
- Exaggeration brought on by a misguided need to White Knight
- Delusions brought on by some form of EAS
- A lucky bit of one off chemistry between the WG and that Punter   
- Some amazing swordsmanship by the punter who happens to be a total stud, (Fuck right off you lucky git)

[Moby Dick]

They are fair points but they can still mess you about even with a booking request which can be ignored.
I simply don't care for the Aw feedback process which is abused where the punter has more to lose wrt reputation.
A record of your booking and feedback helps the WG and others work out your UKP ID.

Why do you advise not to book on AW?

I have generally found my shit punts occur when the WG refuses to take or confirm the AW booking in advance. They seem to believe it means they can't get back feedback, so they try to play games.

[Rochelle]

All valid points.
Although I doubt effusive is a word in the average WG vocabulary.

Wow.

[OakTree]

All valid points.
Although I doubt effusive is a word in the average WG vocabulary.

It would appear it’s not just WGs. In nearly two and a quarter million posts that word only turns up in fifty. I have to admit although I know it’s meaning it’s not a word that comes readily to hand/mind.

Perhaps it might now.

[RogerBoner]

I've sometimes felt that WG's could get pissed off with a positive review if it's too effusive.

That they are worried all other punters will expect the passionate, acrobatic, no holds barred service described by a review. And that some punters might get angry or aggressive with them if they feel they are getting short changed compared to what someone else has reported.

When actually the source of the glowing positive could actually be something like:
- Bare faced lies by a member trying to show off for some reason.
- Exaggeration brought on by a misguided need to White Knight
- Delusions brought on by some form of EAS
- A lucky bit of one off chemistry between the WG and that Punter   
- Some amazing swordsmanship by the punter who happens to be a total stud, (Fuck right off Roger)

I totally agree with you. I've had punters showing girls my review and demanding the same.

[mrfishyfoo]

I totally agree with you. I've had punters showing girls my review and demanding the same.

I've had that happen as well.  Deluded fuckwhits ain't me though are they. 

[LauraHoD]

I like to read the negative ones because they are often hilarious and serve as a "what not to do" guide. 

[wolfiesmith69]

Reviews whether they are positive or negative help the punter choose or not choose their next punt & the SP can improve her service or continue to deliver as before, We are  all on here for the same reason & as this forum is called the 'trip advisor' of the seedy sex World then let it continue!!!!

[Token]

I kinda doubt that you SPs Can really identify Who is the person reviewing, especially when an SPs sees quite a few of those at day and the review refers to months before.
Unless the reviewer gives too many hints, which I don't see the sense of It.
Of course, my opinion.

[Rochelle]

I kinda doubt that you SPs Can really identify Who is the person reviewing, especially when an SPs sees quite a few of those at day and the review refers to months before.
Unless the reviewer gives too many hints, which I don't see the sense of It.
Of course, my opinion.

It's really not that hard to know who the reviewer is (for me anyway). There's one review of me by a guy here, I didn't know he was on UKP at the time and he booked me through UKE. When I read the review I knew exactly who it was, and it was a different name to what he uses on UKE.
I reckon there are many that could work it out fairly easily.

[TailSeeker]

I kinda doubt that you SPs Can really identify Who is the person reviewing, especially when an SPs sees quite a few of those at day and the review refers to months before.
Unless the reviewer gives too many hints, which I don't see the sense of It.
Of course, my opinion.

Really depends on traffic and hints. I know exactly who each of my reviewers are. But I'm low traffic (2 or 3 a week), so it's pretty easy to remember the details. I suspect many punters over estimate the number of gents we see. Some will certainly be high traffic, but I'd say a good chunk are low  to mid traffic.

It doesn't bother me, I've only responded to one, and that was to hold my hands up and admit I'd fucked up. And it made me tighten up my procedure in booking so that it's not occurred since. So there is definitely a benefit for posting reviews and us being able to see it, keeps us on our toes.

Plus I do enjoy reading the negs, gives a lot more insight on what punters want and expect than the pos reviews.

[Token]

Really depends on traffic and hints. I know exactly who each of my reviewers are. But I'm low traffic (2 or 3 a week), so it's pretty easy to remember the details. I suspect many punters over estimate the number of gents we see. Some will certainly be high traffic, but I'd say a good chunk are low  to mid traffic.

It doesn't bother me, I've only responded to one, and that was to hold my hands up and admit I'd fucked up. And it made me tighten up my procedure in booking so that it's not occurred since. So there is definitely a benefit for posting reviews and us being able to see it, keeps us on our toes.

Plus I do enjoy reading the negs, gives a lot more insight on what punters want and expect than the pos reviews.

Yes, my point was in reviewing girls who see plenty of punters every week and a review coming months after.
I guess for part time SP It would be different.
But in any case, I would probably change some details in the review to protect my privacy.

I do think negatives are actually the most interesting and they won't necessarily prevent a punter from seeing a girl since the idea of what constitutes a good service varies greatly.

[Branny]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the Rom pimps yet? They obviously read UKP from what I've read?

[datwabbit]

I could not give a toss if a WG read my reviews, Im not keen on them lurking on the the site, if there on here they might as well contribute, rather than responding to neg review with 'total lies he had a smelly cock' etc etc etc

The review system helps filter out the timewasters and scammers.

+1

We know that they read reviews and our opinions can get us blacklisted. I wish it worked both ways. My main gripe is when popular girls turn on a negative and the "I've seen her and enjoyed myself" posts turn up, which deflate the negative, even if it's unintentional.

[konrad66]

I think it is a good thing if WGs read their feedback

[Turtle1]

The whole point is for WG to know about reviews and read the damn reviews. That’s why the bad ones just change their names instead of offering better service.

[LLPunting]

The whole point is for WG to know about reviews and read the damn reviews. That’s why the bad ones just change their names instead of offering better service.

Wrong, the whole point is for the reviews to be by and for punters to confidently find/avoid service providers.  If a conscientious SP comes here then we'd expect her to take any constructive criticism on board and also be permitted to politely refute any fabrications.  Anyone caught acting in bad faith is booted.

[fairfield]

I review for fellow punters and not at all for SP's.
And since i try to give a warts and all account - it must be very easy for them to identify my visits. So personally i'd be happy if SP's were banned from the review section - i just dont see they add much to a punters review.
Also when a useless wg adopts a whole new profile after me giving a neg - it puts me in a real quandary. Do i add a link to the new profile - and come over as a vindictive stalker - or just turn a blind eye? One time i did link to the new profile, and bugger me the wg created a third AW profile.

[Rochelle]

I review for fellow punters and not at all for SP's.
And since i try to give a warts and all account - it must be very easy for them to identify my visits. So personally i'd be happy if SP's were banned from the review section - i just dont see they add much to a punters review.
Also when a useless wg adopts a whole new profile after me giving a neg - it puts me in a real quandary. Do i add a link to the new profile - and come over as a vindictive stalker - or just turn a blind eye? One time i did link to the new profile, and bugger me the wg created a third AW profile.

What's the quandary exactly? You link the new profile, simple.
 

[fairfield]

What's the quandary exactly? You link the new profile, simple.
 

The punt was shit enough - without me having to follow the tart around the internet, highlighting everytime she changes her AW profile.
Makes me look/feel like a right twisted saddo - i think like a lot of blokes, i just wanna 'fire and forget.' 

[T0pgun]

This site is no different to any other review site. Just think about the role Which? magazine play in the consumer world.

The purpose of this site is to protect the consumer. It is fair and appropriate. There are fair too many time wasters and people who think they can con consumers - typical bait and switch merchant!

This site allows like minded individuals to share there experiences to benefit others.

[mrfishyfoo]

I review for fellow punters and not at all for SP's.
And since i try to give a warts and all account - it must be very easy for them to identify my visits. So personally i'd be happy if SP's were banned from the review section - i just dont see they add much to a punters review.
Also when a useless wg adopts a whole new profile after me giving a neg - it puts me in a real quandary. Do i add a link to the new profile - and come over as a vindictive stalker - or just turn a blind eye? One time i did link to the new profile, and bugger me the wg created a third AW profile.

 

There's nothing wrong with linking a SP to her old AWank profile.

We do it all the time on here for good and bad SPs.

[Ali Katt]

I think is great so we can read what you write, so we can understand more what you ask this days ,I think since I read lods think in UK punting I do understand men little more than before ,for example will now never offer coffee or tea becouse if will count like waisting time technique but before I will never think that way just thought it was friendly but all good cos I hate do drinks for punters I prefer to shag them....

One escort I saw gave me a bottle of water on a punt. I thought that was a really nice touch.

[winkywanky]

One escort I saw gave me a bottle of water on a punt. I thought that was a really nice touch.

With all the bodily fluids coming out of you (sweat, plus some others) she must've thought: 'the poor darling will be dehydrated'   .

[Ali Katt]

With all the bodily fluids coming out of you (sweat, plus some others) she must've thought: 'the poor darling will be dehydrated'   .

It was also during the hot summer. Not being offered a drink or use of the bathroom I find pretty rude TBH.

[winkywanky]

It was also during the hot summer. Not being offered a drink or use of the bathroom I find pretty rude TBH.

Quite right too, the comfort of the client is paramount 

[TailSeeker]

It was also during the hot summer. Not being offered a drink or use of the bathroom I find pretty rude TBH.

Quite frankly water and the bathroom should be standard no matter the time of year.

...but then I see on SAAFE WGs saying they don't want to offer their bathroom at all (not even for a piss, let alone a shower), so not that unexpected some don't. However they should list it in their add that bathroom facilities are not available.

[LLPunting]

Quite right too, the comfort of the client is paramount 

Ah yes but it could be bathroom shame.  I've seen some abysmal facilities in the past;  toilets that haven't been cleaned in months, tapless baths and showers and the grouting!  Don't start me on about the grouting!   

[LLPunting]

Quite frankly water and the bathroom should be standard no matter the time of year.

...but then I see on SAAFE WGs saying they don't want to offer their bathroom at all (not even for a piss, let alone a shower), so not that unexpected some don't. However they should list it in their add that bathroom facilities are not available.

It'd also be useful to state if there's limited headroom on the premises.  Wouldn't want to bang my head against anything too low and unyielding.

[PatMacGroin]

Ah yes but it could be bathroom shame.  I've seen some abysmal facilities in the past;  toilets that haven't been cleaned in months, tapless baths and showers and the grouting!  Don't start me on about the grouting!   

I inspected one of my properties after the tenants had been in it a year. One of the ensuite shower rooms was disgusting, covered in filth and mould, compared to perfect condition when she moved in. Turned out she had not cleaned it once, and had switched off the extractor fan because she found the noise annoying.

After sending her links to decent mould removing sprays and a how to clean youtube video, with the threat of eviction she got it mostly cleaned up. Then she confessed she had considered smashing up all the tiles in the bathroom because one of her friends had told her that would mean I would have to redecorate for her!   

It's an old cliche but so many of the young ones today really haven't got a clue. I've got so many more examples like that one.

[Ali Katt]

Ah yes but it could be bathroom shame.  I've seen some abysmal facilities in the past;  toilets that haven't been cleaned in months, tapless baths and showers and the grouting!  Don't start me on about the grouting!   

And worst of all it was an outcall. 

[Kinkykate78]

Wow.

Indeed