UKP Members Faking Reviews to Increase Their Post Count

[PatMacGroin]

A comment on a recent negative review asked something along the lines of "Why do some WG's continue to get more negative reviews after already being reviewed enough to warn any sensible punter away?". If I remember correctly the WG being discussed already had atleast 4 negative reviews and 1 positive at most.

My first though to that question was that some of them might be UKP members that want to boost their review count. Adding a basic extra negative review to a unanimously panned WG would probably be an easy way to do it.

And if that happens for negative reviews, the opposite would be just as likely. Add another positive report to one of the forum darlings. Some of those with reviews in the double digits would have plenty of details revealed making it easy to paraphrase and plagiarise.

Some might do it for a bit of credibility with other members. Or boost their count enough to unlock sections of the site only available to established members. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to do it.

Many of the eagle eyed regulars seem able to spot the reviews by tout's and trolls pretty easily. But would reviews like these be harder to spot? 

(P.S. Forgive me if this has been discussed before. Or if it's just too bloody obvious and not worth discussing. Searching anything like "Faking" brings up lots of hits on a wide range of subjects, but couldn't spot a similar topic from a quick scan read over the results.)

[smiths]

A comment on a recent negative review asked something along the lines of "Why do some WG's continue to get more negative reviews after already being reviewed enough to warn any sensible punter away?". If I remember correctly the WG being discussed already had atleast 4 negative reviews and 1 positive at most.

My first though to that question was that some of them might be UKP members that want to boost their review count. Adding a basic extra negative review to a unanimously panned WG would probably be an easy way to do it.

And if that happens for negative reviews, the opposite would be just as likely. Add another positive report to one of the forum darlings. Some of those with reviews in the double digits would have plenty of details revealed making it easy to paraphrase and plagiarise.

Some might do it for a bit of credibility with other members. Or boost their count enough to unlock sections of the site only available to established members. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to do it.

Many of the eagle eyed regulars seem able to spot the reviews by tout's and trolls pretty easily. But would reviews like these be harder to spot? 

(P.S. Forgive me if this has been discussed before. Or if it's just too bloody obvious and not worth discussing. Searching anything like "Faking" brings up lots of hits on a wide range of subjects, but couldn't spot a similar topic from a quick scan read over the results.)

Its been done in my observations by some looking to build their credibility on here in others eyes, and its been revealed they were well dodgy, YLF was one for example, also touting but pretending they were being impartial by posting positive reviews of other WGs and agencies/brothels/parties as a cover.

For me it all comes down to whether I find a reviewer credible and/or trust them. On the London review board things have improved compared to a couple and longer ago years ago when pricks like Finch and Unclesweetheart were posting reviews on that board, more recently that YLF character. But vigilance is always required in my opinion and admin is on the case of course.

[Vivago]

Interesting question but one of which there is no obvious answer.  It would be almost impossible to legislate against malicious false reporting.  I occasionally read reports that are written in such a fashion that they appear made up but there again that might be just the individual members flowery or long winded style. But I would be far more likely to believe a report on here than the shit on AW.

[smiths]

One point about reviews is the reviews that come up when an A/W numbered link in a review is given on here aren't necessarily all the reviews that WG has got on here because some WGs change profiles completely. Obviously more recent reviews are more relevant but its worth bearing in mind in my view.

What admin offers on here are interactive reviews where the reviewer can be questioned, this certainly wasn't the case when I was doing reviews elsewhere nearly a decade ago, or on A/Ws reviews or feedback, not one word of which I believe unless I find the punter who has left it credible and/or I trust them. This questioning is how many low lifes have been sussed out and particularly by sniffer dog like punters as well as admin. Those punters that moan and gripe about being attacked for doing a review in my view would be wise to understand its more important to some of us to suss out scum than worry about the hurt feelings of the fragile. If you are genuine stick to your guns and over time credibility will come, at least in the eyes of some.

[OldAdmin]

Doesn't necessarily mean it's not genuine.
Punters can think with their dick and still punt a prossie despite the fact she has loads of negative reviews on UKP.
Those of us have been around for years have seen it for ourselves, affects even the most experienced punters.

[Titi]

Doesn't necessarily mean it's not genuine.
Punters can think with their dick and still punt a prossie despite the fact she has loads of negative reviews on UKP.
Those of us have been around for years have seen it for ourselves, affects even the most experienced punters.

Think it’s fair to say we all think with our dicks on here. However some of us choose to engage our brains from time to time. Keep on the good work by the way.

[mrhappypants]

I certainly do see reviews that appear to contain little or no information that could not be gleaned from reading previous reviews. 

Alongside this there are a number of active members whose review and post count has increased very quickly, and who seem to go to lengths to draw attention to themselves and build a following.  West8, Panel/Password and Yeboahsleftfoot all followed this pattern.  I think a sober reflection on their review history suggests they may each have had vested interests.

Both are suspicious.  This is an inevitable result of UKP’s success. 

[HarryZZ]

If a negative review meant a WG would never work again then what you say would make more sense, unfortunately it's like kids in a sweet shop, they see something they think they want and grab for it, only realising when it's too late that there's a large flashing warning sign, "AVOID!"

Multiple reviews are always better than one single review, even if just to confirm what has been previously written, also in some cases negative reviews are from a punter who's posted a positive for the same girl. And I don't think people do it t boost their profile, it would be counter productive if you're just making your self look stupid for not researching properly.

[Mr_Shins]

Not every negative review means avoid at all costs.

People have different tastes and you might decide to take a punt anyway just in case.

[Billy no mates]

Its hard to say.

Personally, I read a few reviews of each girl, a use those to help form an opinion. Rather than base my whole decision, on one review.

[Zimbaman]

All too often I don’t remember to check reviews until it’s too late. All too easy to be taken in by a convincing profile. Getting better more recently, but even with a negative I may still decide to try. After all... you guys might be really ugly so I’ll naturally get better service being only marginally ugly 

[PatMacGroin]

Doesn't necessarily mean it's not genuine.
Punters can think with their dick and still punt a prossie despite the fact she has loads of negative reviews on UKP.
Those of us have been around for years have seen it for ourselves, affects even the most experienced punters.

^^ I definitely understand that can happen.

My own first review was a negative for a WG that already had several negatives with Avoid like the plague written all over them. I met her before I found this site. I decided to go ahead and write up my negative experience because previous review was several months old. And from her AW feedback it looked like those reviews had done little to nothing to deter punters. (Although many probably hadn't discovered UKP either)

(TBH, I occasionally spot her profile and for a moment think "should I give her another go?" before sense prevails. She knows how to post a great free gallery  .)

[PatMacGroin]

I certainly do see reviews that appear to contain little or no information that could not be gleaned from reading previous reviews. 

^^ That's exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get at.

I'm less concerned about fake negative reviews, especially if the WG already a higher negative aggregate. If they've had enough poor reviews I think it's best policy to swerve and try one of the many other WG's there's not been time to meet.

What bothers me more is the possibility that some WG's that already have twenty, fifty or even a hundred good reviews seem to hit a critical mass. So that more and more good reviews just pile up.

It creates the impression that this girl must be something amazing! Which in my opinion creates an expectation which is hard to fulfil. So even though the visit was good, it's not the out of this world session you anticipated. Which ultimately makes it disappointing.

A bit like when you've been looking forward to going to see a film, that you've built up in your head because of all the good things you've heard. Even though it's a great movie, it can never live up to the hype.

(And I'm venting really, I don't expect there's anything that could or should be done about it)

[pewpewpew]

I have to say that if this was to happen I'd probably be suckered by it. When researching i tend to discount reviews from low count reviewers so for me if i see a positive review from someone with 10+ reviews it's a go (depending on the review content of course).

Also agree that one reviewers negative can be another punters positive. If it's negative as the girl didn't do dfk or ro that's absolutely fine by me

[Haruki]

While reviews are useful, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I assume we all find something slightly different attractive and are after something slightly different in a punt.  A girl I've seen a few times is very popular, her skill (as well as being a stunner and great in bed) is in reading people and judging what they want from this time.

If a review is really bad based on BandS, poor hygiene etc then that is obvious to all but a review may be negative because a girl is size 16 where as another man may like that etc

[Malvolio]

^^ That's exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get at.

What bothers me more is the possibility that some WG's that already have twenty, fifty or even a hundred good reviews seem to hit a critical mass. So that more and more good reviews just pile up.

It creates the impression that this girl must be something amazing! Which in my opinion creates an expectation which is hard to fulfil. So even though the visit was good, it's not the out of this world session you anticipated. Which ultimately makes it disappointing.

That's kind of the point of this site - the review count helps punters judge who might be worth spending their cash on, especially if they're visiting somewhere outside their usual punting area.  I wouldn't expect any punt to be amazing just because a WG is well reviewed though - there's no logical connection for thinking that.

Of course, you can ignore all the positive reviews and punt who you like.

[David1970]

How often has someone commented on a thread about a working lady, only to be answerd with           
" didn't see your review on her" or " well post a review " from other members. Some members may be doing the review on a lady who has been well reviews to cover their ass.
Personally I think if you have nothing to add to knowledge of a lady, don't add anything.

Like any walk of life people keep scores on what they have achieved, getting more reviews may be seen as an achievement.

[Home Alone]

Not every negative review means avoid at all costs.

People have different tastes and you might decide to take a punt anyway just in case.

Very true. As an elderly punter, my criteria in a Report will necessarily be different from young stags like, for example, Cueball!

[myothernameis]

It would be almost impossible to legislate against malicious false reporting.

So true, you could easily use past bookings and post them as a review which happened last week, so it just so hard to spot fake reviews, even though they might sound convincing