...
I'm sure you do care, but do you think you value/care about UKP more than Kevin Boss or Lilly? I'd say you all equally value & care about UKP, wouldn't you agree? This point is not a criticism, more that members should be more careful about putting themselves on a pedestal that clearly doesn't exist.
I don't think he was suggesting any pedestals be involved, merely suggesting that the implied negative criticism by LTS that criticism of an idea was a bad thing was unwarranted. Very much seems the case that whenever a suggestion is challenged that people get all sensitive about OP being "attacked" when it is the idea that's being questioned either because it hasn't been fully and clearly expressed (so challenges actually have been taken into account in the unexpressed thinking) or it hasn't considered what's been raised.
OP has confirmed that he's going to try revising his idea to make it more robust given the points raised. That shows the commendable maturity he has. Once he reconsiders how the proposed thread can't be managed or assured and the limits of the forum search function he may well conclude that it is still best that people just post reviews BUT ALSO perhaps suggest certain details or labels or a method be included going forward to improve searchability. Maybe he will come up with a brilliantly simple solution to enhance utility, I would happily applaud that. He is fighting the same uphill battle that so many previous suggestions have broken themselves on which is to convince UKPers to firstly review their punts and secondly adhere to a minimum set of information to make it easier for everyone to search what has been shared.
Sadly very few UKPers out of the tens of thousands that join each year are active, collaborative, cooperative contributors willing to put in the little effort needed for a sufficiently informative review knowing they get so much back from the collective. Whether they write a few concise lines or use (far too many) emojis or they write lengthy reviews that shamelessly flout their anonymity they all act to help others.
The lame excuse of the silent majority about privacy or anonymity or "she's already been reviewed" isn't just laziness it's also contempt for "us mugs willing to write up our escapades".
What does UKP ask of it's members?
5-10 mins of your time to write a brief but sufficient review (10 secs to type a useful title; 10-20 secs to copy/paste the correct link to SP's ad (and perhaps state number used); 10-20 secs to comment about ease of comms; 10-20 secs to describe the location; Possibly 10-20 secs to select a few representative screenshots to upload; 1 min to describe the SP; 3+ mins to list services rendered in no particular order and concisely describe how she performed them, no need to mention how many times you or she came).
The most difficult review to write?
A negative where something particular caused the failure during the encounter. In such an instance if you must hold on to your anonymity then it will be necessary to fudge the detail and not mention refunds or arguments or time curtailed.
NONE of what you "need" to write should be a risk to you, often even if you wrote it the same week as the punt.
The only risk is a punter's own inability or desire to omit the unique details that an SP might recognise, be it; what you talked about; the clothing worn by either party; the exact sequence of (memorable) sexual events; that one commented on something about the other; that one or the other couldn't cope with what was being done; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...
What does UKP give in return?UNLIMITED access to most everything captured here to make as much use of as you want to make time to do so.
Every time you make a decent decision using intel here you either save money by not seeing an SP or spend it more wisely by choosing a reviewed SP or known establishment. Whether you paid for membership or you earned it for free. Whether you punt a few tens of quid a quarter or you drop hundred(s) every other day.
Even if you make a more "foolish" decision to punt an unknown UKP will have aided in that assessment of risk.
