New feature Countdown Timer

[Head1]

Previously, if a member spent time asking questions without contributing to the site through review, they would receive a temporary ban.
I imagine when they returned, they would not ask any more questions but go back to lurking in the background.
This has been replaced by a 'future ban.'
This involves a countdown of 30 days being put on the member. If they post a review (given the ok by a mod), they will have the countdown removed.
If no review is posted after 30 days, they will be banned when they next go to log in.

Here's an example
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=394592.msg4002523#msg4002523

[mr.bluesky]

  good idea. Lurkers are living on borrowed time so to speak 

[Blackpool Rock]

I think it's a great idea as it gives ample time for them to reflect and to actually write the review that they in many cases promised but didn't deliver.

Previously a ban or temporary ban would come out of the blue so was possibly counter productive as they couldn't post a review while they didn't have access to the site

There was another thread I saw earlier where Davie has called someone out again for their lack of reviews and the guy has responded by calling Davie a "Fanboy" 
I'm thinking he just doesn't quite get it and will be lucky to see the timer run to zero anyway 

[FLYING BLUE]

An excellent idea

[scutty brown]

I clicked on this link hoping it was about Carol Vorderman............
disappointed again

[Blackpool Rock]

I clicked on this link hoping it was about Carol Vorderman............
disappointed again

4 from the bottom and 2 from the top 

[Thephoenix]

I clicked on this link hoping it was about Carol Vorderman............
disappointed again

You're a bit out of date Scutty.



Hidden Image/Members Only

[FiveKnuckles]

H1 & Mods.  Nice feature 

just thinking aloud; rather than an outright boot, is it worth monetising so the members account gets switched to paid subscription?   Countdown is toggled by moderator to outright boot (for those that consistently not contribribute) or paid account (first time caught).

Once the timer expires, they next logon to find they needs to pay or got fully booted.

[versace]

No. Conflict of interest.

[speedygonzal]

Good Idea, Would love to see something similar to force people to review at least one unreviewed lady (Aka TOFTT) unfortunally same ladies are reviewed all over again and again.

[badsin]

Is this only for lurker's and leeches that decide to ask questions or comment on others threads?
I'll bet there's plenty they never show themselves......

[Head1]

No. Conflict of interest.

Correct. The whole point is to get more members sharing their experiences by way of a review.

[MissWolf]

Good Idea, Would love to see something similar to force people to review at least one unreviewed lady (Aka TOFTT) unfortunally same ladies are reviewed all over again and again.

But if you start imposing things like must review a toftt or must do x amount of reviews per month etc all that will happen is guys will post fake reviews,  it's not difficult to do and a percentage will get away with it,  that's no reflection on the team here btw it's just a fact.

The point as Head1 says is to get people sharing real experiences and contributing actively to the forum.

The counter is great used properly for what it's intended for. Lurkers are given a time-limit to contribute where they have posted about booking escorts on others reviews but not reviewed themselves  and leaches who ask and ask but never give and are called out by the mods get the time to reply or comply to the question the mod has asked, if that's not done then bye bye.

In both cases (and I'm sure there are plenty more uses) the member can see he has a time limit and what it's for rather than not being able to log on again for a few weeks and then coming back to leach and lurk once more but never pop his head up over the parapet again.

[FiveKnuckles]

No. Conflict of interest.

Correct. The whole point is to get more members sharing their experiences by way of a review.

Full boot actually makes more sense.  The price of a 4yr subscription is pennies for some guys so they'll just pay and remain in the shadows and offer nothing back to the community.

[alabama1]

H1 & Mods.  Nice feature 

just thinking aloud; rather than an outright boot, is it worth monetising so the members account gets switched to paid subscription?   Countdown is toggled by moderator to outright boot (for those that consistently not contribribute) or paid account (first time caught).

Once the timer expires, they next logon to find they needs to pay or got fully booted.

So he has to put his hand in his pocket to leech. That's not the ethos of this site.

[Dipper]

Good Idea, Would love to see something similar to force people to review at least one unreviewed lady (Aka TOFTT) unfortunally same ladies are reviewed all over again and again.

In my opinion this is fine and gives a good up to date guide, which I find useful. It’s still good to know those with many (particularity positive reviews) greens are still up to scratch. There’s nothing to say standards won’t slip at some time.

[PilotMan]

I think it's a fantastic idea, the site is nothing without reviews, they are the lifeblood.

As Badsin says, there are plenty of lurkers and leaches who remain silent, let alone those who post questions comments. But, it would be nigh on impossible for MODS and ADMIN to monitor and police everyone who uses the site, given that there are thousands of "members" on line at any one moment.

Take a look at the current "Users Online" / members, there's a huge percentage like that who do not contribute.

e.g.

I picked the very first member who is online and currently at the top of the list of "Users Online" on the UKP home page - user name "240288" - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=96039

7.5 years a member, several mentions consistently over the years of girls that he has seen in his posts, but not a single review.

[jamiekinkxxx]

I think it's a fantastic idea, the site is nothing without reviews, they are the lifeblood.

As Badsin says, there are plenty of lurkers and leaches who remain silent, let alone those who post questions comments. But, it would be nigh on impossible for MODS and ADMIN to monitor and police everyone who uses the site, given that there are thousands of "members" on line at any one moment.

Take a look at the current "Users Online" / members, there's a huge percentage like that who do not contribute.

e.g.

I picked the very first member who is online and currently at the top of the list of "Users Online" on the UKP home page - user name "240288" - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=96039

7.5 years a member, several mentions consistently over the years of girls that he has seen in his posts, but not a single review.

Must be simple DB queries / reports that can show people who logon consistently but do not submit reviews and/or comments to threads?

[Blackpool Rock]

Must be simple DB queries / reports that can show people who logon consistently but do not submit reviews and/or comments to threads?

But presently a non member can look at a restricted number of pages every day 

Yes I guess it would be possible to run reports however I think for many there is a difference between a lurker who occasionally logs on and reads a few pages and those who constantly read numerous pages daily.
And there is also a difference between a pure lurker and those who lurk but then leech by asking questions

[Stevelondon]

I’ll just pick up on something Jamie said. Because for the life of me. I too can’t understand why anyone would be on this forum chatting about the SP’s they have visited. Yet who fail to write about their experience.
I simply find it incredibly strange not to do so.

[Dylanbob]

It's a good idea. As someone who lurked for many years, it gives the person a fair chance to contribute.

[myothernameis]

Londonsfinest91 last log in 24 Jan, so wonder what he will make of this when he log's in next time

[Doc Holliday]

Londonsfinest91 last log in 24 Jan, so wonder what he will make of this when he log's in next time

The countdown timer also shows if you are not logged in. 

[akauya]

I just had a look at the current "Users Online" and found a few 'members' that joined years ago who have no posts whatsoever. I wonder if some of those are actually not punters but "researchers" of some kind?

[Doc Holliday]

I just had a look at the current "Users Online" and found a few 'members' that joined years ago who have no posts whatsoever. I wonder if some of those are actually not punters but "researchers" of some kind?

A tiny number will fit that category, together with other small 'non sex work' groups (eg law enforcement) but the vast majority are punters active or otherwise and the next, but much smaller proportion, are likely to be SPs.

The introduction of an annual membership fee will have influenced that ratio in favour of punters. However it is important to remember that the joining process will show an account as created but that does not mean that payment was made and the account is fully active. I would guess in most new accounts payment does not happen?

As UKP account holders the current forum settings don't allow us access to the members list data, but based on past access to such elsewhere around 70% of total membership accounts have 0 posts. A significant number of them may have only logged in once or twice and some have never actually used the account at all.

Maybe another 20% have a fairly small number of posts up to say 100 and the majority of the forum input will be from around 10% of the total membership.

In terms of the 'users online' then this indicates someone who has an active account which they are using and so the above figures wil be slightly different but the same principle applies that the majority will have either no posts or a very small number.

You can only influence this situation on an extremely small scale and worrying excessively about lurkers is a futile exercise. 

[Mr Sinister]

I just had a look at the current "Users Online" and found a few 'members' that joined years ago who have no posts whatsoever. I wonder if some of those are actually not punters but "researchers" of some kind?

Yes the are "researchers" in many forms it's not just prossies in the traditional sense, but also have to look at the reviews/discussions for things like Seeking or massages.

[akauya]

Cheers Doc & MrSinister

 

[signy]

I think we must also recognise that there are lurkers who are "punting-curious". That is, people who would like to punt, but are scared or reluctant to do so, which might be because of nerves, fear, consequences, etc. We need to be considerate and supporting of these people, as once they have taken that jump they could become valued members of the board. In these cases, a draconian approach is not helpful.

OTOH, lurkers who are just abusing the system and parasiting off the reviews and experiences of others are best got rid of quickly.

We ordinary members need to trust the mods to deal with each case appropriately, which I think is better than having too many hard-and-fast rules.

[Head1]

I think we must also recognise that there are lurkers who are "punting-curious". That is, people who would like to punt, but are scared or reluctant to do so, which might be because of nerves, fear, consequences, etc. We need to be considerate and supporting of these people, as once they have taken that jump they could become valued members of the board. In these cases, a draconian approach is not helpful.

OTOH, lurkers who are just abusing the system and parasiting off the reviews and experiences of others are best got rid of quickly.

We ordinary members need to trust the mods to deal with each case appropriately, which I think is better than having too many hard-and-fast rules.

Excellent points 🍻

[JontyR]

I think we must also recognise that there are lurkers who are "punting-curious". That is, people who would like to punt, but are scared or reluctant to do so,

So when it comes to paid for sex they are actually "buy-curious."

[alabama1]

So when it comes to paid for sex they are actually "buy-curious."

And also 'review curious' 

[scouting]

So when it comes to paid for sex they are actually "buy-curious."

Very good Jonty 

[Fuzzyduck]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the cohort of punters who get a countdown ban.

IMO contributing in general is ingrained into the kind of person you are and changing the behaviour of people who only "take" is difficult. Some of them will just say "fuck you" and take the ban but others will post a review solely to remove the countdown and then carry on as before. I fear not many will reflect and start contributing more positively. Still, even if it's only a few, the overall mix of punters on here will have improved for the better. Great initiative.

[catweazle]

others will post a review solely to remove the countdown and then carry on as before.

I.think it will be picked up by the mods that only 1 review was added  a long time ago, and the clock will start ticking again.

[Dipper]

I.think it will be picked up by the mods that only 1 review was added  a long time ago, and the clock will start ticking again.

Could it increase the potential for fake reviews also?

[DastardlyDick]

Could it increase the potential for fake reviews also?

Possibly more to the point, how would you 'detect' a false review?
It could lead to perfectly genuine reviews being deleted, which would help nobody.

[Kool Keef]

Seems to have worked in this case, whether it's a one off or the first of many reviews remains to be seen.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=395434.0

[Fuzzyduck]

I.think it will be picked up by the mods that only 1 review was added  a long time ago, and the clock will start ticking again.

Perhaps, though I suspect the mods have better things to do than mange naughty lists. It's always been the case though - punters are called out for no reviews, they do one to get people off their back and then revert to old ways. The countdown at least automates the process and removes some hassle for the mods.

[daviemac]

Possibly more to the point, how would you 'detect' a false review?
It could lead to perfectly genuine reviews being deleted, which would help nobody.

Reviews don't get deleted, plus the mods will be looking very closely at any review posted by a member on the timer, however the same rule should apply as with  any review.

If when reading a review a member thinks it's in any way dodgy then disregard it, otherwise they should take from it the information they find useful and act accordingly. We are all different what would be a negative point for one could be a positive point for another.

[SkywalkersSaber]

I’ll happily take a permanent ban. My circumstances have changed and no longer have the need or want to pay any service provider for sex.

[PilotMan]

I’ll happily take a permanent ban. My circumstances have changed and no longer have the need or want to pay any service provider for sex.

Don't be a drama queen.

If you are no longer punting, then you will have no need to visit the site, will you.

[SkywalkersSaber]

No drama, I’d rather be banned

[daviemac]

I’ll happily take a permanent ban. My circumstances have changed and no longer have the need or want to pay any service provider for sex.

Just log off and don't log on again.

[Blackpool Rock]

Seems to have worked in this case, whether it's a one off or the first of many reviews remains to be seen.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=395434.0

Not quite as he did the review early doors but the timer is still ticking 
Perhaps he now needs to do a review every 30 days 

[myothernameis]

Not quite as he did the review early doors but the timer is still ticking 
Perhaps he now needs to do a review every 30 days 

Perhaps it also his replies in some posts, to the mods

[SeekingSteve]

One thing I do find strange, massage reviews northwest are 'members only' but escort reviews anyone can view. Surely this would be better the opposite way round?
Need to discourage the freeloading, id start by making all escort reviews hidden to non members.

[Blackpool Rock]

One thing I do find strange, massage reviews northwest are 'members only' but escort reviews anyone can view. Surely this would be better the opposite way round?
Need to discourage the freeloading, id start by making all escort reviews hidden to non members.

I believe the massage reviews are hidden not to stop leeches reading them but to stop massage parlour owners reading them and working out which girls are offering extras.
Some of these massage places don't allow extra services and the girls get sacked if found out

[PumpDump]

No drama, I’d rather be banned

You'll regret that when the sex at home dries up 

[JontyR]

I’ll happily take a permanent ban. My circumstances have changed and no longer have the need or want to pay any service provider for sex.

Ah the missus found out and deknackered you did she?

[PilotMan]

Ah the missus found out and deknackered you did she?

No, she's the one logging in asking for the account to be deleted