Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Whimsical AW search proves bewildering  (Read 512 times)

Offline LLPunting

Late night whimsy got the better of me as I'd just confirmed the dearth of AW options around Golders Green for <=100.
I tried search for:
 <£95ph, any age, with pics, bareback across London and got 85 hits.

Then switched BB for each of the following:
Unprotected                          75
FK (not at discretion) and got 187
A                                 gives 92
BDSM (receiving)                  42
Filming                                 98
Enema                                 38 :wackogirl:
Fem ejac                              92  :timeout:
Fisting (receiving)                  41
Gang Bang                            56  :wackogirl:
Milking                                  40
OWO (at d)                           235   :unknown:
OWO (no discretion)              228  :yahoo:
CIM                                      141   :drinks:
CIM (at d)                             145  :unknown:
DT                                        175
swallow                                 55
swallow (at d)                        71
RO                                        247
snowballing                           63
Rimming (giving)                   48
Pregnant                               18  :scare: :scare: :scare:
Bukkake                                56

Feel free to comment on the absurdity and brokenness of AW adverts or enlighten us as to the counts for other price points of interest.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 04:23:13 am by Head1 »

Offline Warm-Hands

18 pregnant? That sounds a lot. I would expect around 1 or two....

Offline Heph

Outstanding research.

I feels your pains.

Offline whoya.kiddin

LLP, I am not sure what to make of your data but from my own experience I expect at least two things are going on.  First, any profile where bb is ticked is possibly more likely to be ticking other options (to a greater or lesser extent) indiscriminately. 

Second, I find you get different results with the <bb> option ticked to the <unprotected sex> option ticked! 

Some of this is error.  Some of this is undoubtedly SP's inflating the number of services they offer (fk being the very obvious example).  On some profiles SP's don't tick any option at all.

There is also another factor of SP's not ticking <bb> or <unprotected sex> but implying the offer in the profile by referring to "full" service or inviting you to call to discuss services...

My simple take out of this is that increasingly I search by <can accommodate> and geography with a limited range (2 miles from the postcode) without ticking any service options and then search manually. 

I will have nothing to do with outcall - too high risk for me with an unknown quantity.  :hi:

« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 11:10:45 am by whoya.kiddin »

Offline LLPunting

LLP, I am not sure what to make of your data but from my own experience I expect at least two things are going on.  First, any profile where bb is ticked is possibly more likely to be ticking other options (to a greater or lesser extent) indiscriminately. 

Second, I find you get different results with the <bb> option ticked to the <unprotected sex> option ticked! 

Some of this is error.  Some of this is undoubtedly SP's inflating the number of services they offer (fk being the very obvious example).  On some profiles SP's don't tick any option at all.

There is also another factor of SP's not ticking <bb> or <unprotected sex> but implying the offer in the profile by referring to "full" service or inviting you to call to discuss services...

My simple take out of this is that increasingly I search by <can accommodate> and geography with a limited range (2 miles from the postcode) without ticking any service options and then search manually. 

I will have nothing to do with outcall - too high risk for me with an unknown quantity.  :hi:

Thanks,  the numbers are for commentary at face value allowing for your indicated inaccuracies, (anyone who has been paying attention whilst using AW even for a few months should've sussed what you said and if they hadn't then they should pay thankful, close attention to what you wrote).
I was asking given most of the options will have been considered and chosen by many pimps/SPs, (whether to tick regardless or actually profile services genuinely offered and assuming they understood the term  :dash:)

Offline whoya.kiddin

I cannot prove this of course...but I suspect <pregnant> and particularly <symbian & machine sex> are the two options that catch out the random box tickers and those whose English is poor.

Offline scutty brown

I cannot prove this of course...but I suspect <pregnant> and particularly <symbian & machine sex> are the two options that catch out the random box tickers and those whose English is poor.

Fucking a Romanian is usually like fucking a cold machine, so "machine sex" is at least partially right