New profile feature coming to UKPunting

[Sedlmayer]

That may well be true but who would you trust the most, someone who has been a member for 12 months or someone who has been a member for 12 hours.       

I know what you mean, but I don't necessarily trust someone just because they have been on here for X amount of months, or made X amount of posts/reviews - you judge people on their individual merits don't you?

Of course, someone who's only been on here a very limited time won't have had chance to build up any kind of track record to be judged by.

Another thing here is that a punter may have only recently discovered this site, but may have been punting for 20 or 30 years - once he'd established himself he'd have more knowledge and experience to impart than someone who's been on here for 18 months, but only been punting for 18 months.

[Horizontal pleasures]

You don't even escort and when you did you had 2 feedbacks in 5 years, and you will only know the market from the guys that contact you, how many brothels have you been into  and line ups have you seen, they are a true reflection of the market.

we do not know if you know the market from the meerkat as you never posted a review.

[Horizontal pleasures]

I like the ideas proposed by admin, not worried about the details that are getting so much heat, light, and attention.

I wonder if Admin realises how much admin work might be involved with running this venture?

[Jason]

First regarding the reviewers’ status I don’t know why we are even discussing it here. It has nothing to do AT ALL with the topic of service providers’ profiles. Talking about derailing and hijacking a thread…and not any thread a thread started by Admin. It takes trolling into another level.

Back on topic. Adam I am wondering how all these basic profiles will technically be created? Automatically with some kind of algorithm like you currently fetch the nickname from the AW profiles but this time also fetching the phone, location and rates? Obviously this will work only for Adultwork profiles at least at the moment. Are you planning to do the rest (personal websites, agencies, parlours) manually? That is a lot of work! Besides the devil is in the details…
(i) For example how are you going to fetch the location –from the postcode they supplied on AW for proximity search or is it going to be taken from the fields: region, county, town at the bottom of the AW profiles? Also obviously a profile manually created by the reviewer (as per your original plan with the ages and nationalities) would be more precise yet again prossies change location all the time and that way it can quickly get out-dated.
(ii)Also an issue I found with the current system is with the automatic linking. When you first created it any link mentioned in a review thread opening post was creating a (review) profile for that particular SP assuming a moresome and the review was listed under other sp without being reviewed creating confusion especially when a name change takes place. But many times punters post links of SPs not related to the punt e.g. to make comparisons or to refer to a flatmate. It would be good to have a fill-in form for the url (or multiple urls in case of moresomes) of the girls actually being reviewed. I think you tried to rectify the issue by taking only the first link posted in a thread BUT this way Brenda (External Link/Members Only) for example has now 2 reviews one +ve (from me for a duo) and one -ve (from SamLP for his solo) but no (review) profile at all.

As for body types: ‘voluptuous’ is certainly a +ve adjective in my book but how is ‘voluptuous’ related to the size? All these fatties describing themselves as voluptuous are ridiculous. Surely girls with hourglass body types which are commonly referred to as ‘voluptuous’ can be slim size 8-10 or borderline chabby size 14. Same with ‘buxom’. I have used these adjectives in the past to describe SLIM (size 8) girls with hourglass figures (big breast, small waist, big hips). I think going with dress sizes, heights and breast sizes is much less subjective. Those who are ignorant about estimating sizes and/or heights and/or breast cup sizes better say nothing on the profile creation and just stick with their own review. The next knowledgeable reviewer can fill up the blanks.

[Quesadilla]

<snip>

As for body types: ‘voluptuous’ is certainly a +ve adjective in my book but how is ‘voluptuous’ related to the size? All these fatties describing themselves as voluptuous are ridiculous. Surely girls with hourglass body types which are commonly referred to as ‘voluptuous’ can be slim size 8-10 or borderline chabby size 14. Same with ‘buxom’. I have used these adjectives in the past to describe SLIM (size 8) girls with hourglass figures (big breast, small waist, big hips). I think going with dress sizes, heights and breast sizes is much less subjective. Those who are ignorant about estimating sizes and/or heights and/or breast cup sizes better say nothing on the profile creation and just stick with their own review. The next knowledgeable reviewer can fill up the blanks.

Firstly I totally agree - in my head "voluptuous" is a compliment and BBW is not.  Maybe that's narrow minded of me but voluptuous to me means "curvy in the best possible way" vs BBW which is the wrong side of curvy.

I also agree dress size is less subjective. I have a fair idea about dress sizes having dated women at size 10-14, seen my ex go from 14-16 all the way up to size 20-22, and also punted many in the size 6-12 range. I agree it's not always easy as it's partly subjective but also very much variable based on height. 

A great example of the difficulty is someone like the delectable Hayley X X - who is skinny, but with an utterly unbelievable hourglass figure - "generous handfulls of boob" (her words but very accurate), slim waist, wide hips with the most amazing peach of a butt; she points out on her profile she's a size 8 up top, size 6 waist, and 10-12 hips/butt!  So it's always going to be an inexact science at best.

I would agree use the dress size because often in the first instance we have the AW profile to go on as a starting point (Hayley helpfully averages hers out to an 8 which I doubt many would disagree with), and then punters can argue the toss about whether in their experience that seems accurate or needs to be notched up or down a dress size.

It's a mine field either way but I agree that dress sizes are less subjective.  Not suggesting that we all surreptitiously check the label on the WG's dress as we unzip it but...at least that would be more accurate!   

[GeeWiz]

Skinny / Boney
Slim - straight lines
Slim - with curves in the right places
Fit / Toned
Muscular
Cuddly
BBW - Voluptuous
BBW - Large
BBW - Extra Large
SSBBW - Huge

Looks more confusing than ordering in a coffee shop.  Four categories is all you need.


Hidden Image/Members Only

[Dodo]

I like the ideas proposed by admin, not worried about the details that are getting so much heat, light, and attention.

I wonder if Admin realises how much admin work might be involved with running this venture?

I would guess Sir Admin would delegate this onerous task to a suitable lieutenant.

[Ali Katt]

This body type thing is a minefield. I read the reviews and look at the pictures in a profile and that is enough for me to make a judgement.

[Quesadilla]

Looks more confusing than ordering in a coffee shop.  Four categories is all you need.

Sorry but totally disagree - BMI is the bluntest possible tool for evaluating someone's weight / health let alone how attractive they might be, which for our purposes is the point.  And the blunter the tool the less useful it is.  Just knowing someone is a "healthy weight" really doesn't tell me anything at all.  Slim, fit, toned, muscular and curvy in my mind all fit in that bracket and are completely different types of WG.

I don't necessarily think having 10 different options is too much as they all seem pretty self-explanatory to me - except if I'm honest the BBW options but then that's not my cup of tea - I can see how for the BBW enthusiasts it probably does matter and the rest of us can ignore them to some extent. I note that none have chimed in - if there aren't any on the board maybe we can simplify the BBW options to two. 

If it's a bone of contention the only sensible alternative is dress size.  It is also very open to interpretation BUT at least it is an objective measure and we generally have the dress size given by the WG as a starting point so we can then make a call as to weather it seems accurate.

This body type thing is a minefield. I read the reviews and look at the pictures in a profile and that is enough for me to make a judgement.

Yes, but the point is once you've seen the WG you might want to tell other members that the pictures are now out of date and she's gone from being Curvy to BBW. Or size 10 to size 14.

[Dodo]

Height, weight, cup size and dress size gives you everything you need really.

If said girls is 5', 9st and size 10 shes a bit of a porker......if she is a size8 then chances are she has a nice pair.
If she's 5'9", 9st and size 10 you know chances are e has a sound body.

I have never beeen far out in assessing a girls body pre punt from the above.

Biggest issue for me is how attractive the is.........always a personal thing but so important to me

[Trevor12]

Another suggestion (I'm not sure if this already exists, but I haven't found it) would be to include an 'advanced search' function, where you can search within the reigonal sub-forums, or to search within a specific thread. The longest thread I view frequently is 55 pages and growing, which makes it quite difficult to search through.

[Bigus Dickus]

Dress size works for me.

A guide!

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Mr Farkyhars]

As has already been said, dress size depends a lot on height, and without knowing that accurately it becomes extremely blunt as a method of comparison.
I agree with Quesadilla. I'm a BBW enthusiast, but above 'voluptuous' we only need to distinguish two varieties (large and super-large).

[Dodo]

Another suggestion (I'm not sure if this already exists, but I haven't found it) would be to include an 'advanced search' function, where you can search within the reigonal sub-forums, or to search within a specific thread. The longest thread I view frequently is 55 pages and growing, which makes it quite difficult to search through.

Agree.......take it your refering to the Midlands FBSM thread?

[Dodo]

As has already been said, dress size depends a lot on height, and without knowing that accurately it becomes extremely blunt as a method of comparison.
I agree with Quesadilla. I'm a BBW enthusiast, but above 'voluptuous' we only need to distinguish two varieties (large and super-large).

yea, you need dress size and height for it to make much sense

[Trevor12]

Agree.......take it your refering to the Midlands FBSM thread?

Yep, that's the one.

[CatBBW]

As has already been said, dress size depends a lot on height, and without knowing that accurately it becomes extremely blunt as a method of comparison.
I agree with Quesadilla. I'm a BBW enthusiast, but above 'voluptuous' we only need to distinguish two varieties (large and super-large).

Yes, that's along with what I was saying. As long as "BBW" was a keyword beside them, for SEO.

[GeeWiz]

Why all the 'big beautiful' nonsense?

Overweight and obese.

[azrael]

Some pretty good ideas above, dont know if this has been sugested but about wg who use fake profiles/pictures can be outed by punters who have visited them kinda like the prostitute blacklist page

[Johny Stone]

It is possible to link aw's profile to WG's forum profile on here?

Like reviews for punters for example?

It's a bit  annoying not knowing how a prossie looks or charges or else, can't dig the forum for info all the time,  too much to read around