The 5% ratio ..

[dreamwrx]

Being a bit sad I've started noticing people's Posts / Reviews ratio.

Having just seen qarma's review of Rihanna on the Yorkshire & The Humber board, I noticed that he's done 18 reviews and only 71 posts ... a quite superlative 25.4% ratio.

Excellent work, qarma.

Before writing this I'm batting at exactly 5% myself .. 7 reviews and 140 posts .. I'm quite new ..  but I'm thinking that's not a bad ratio to aim for.

I just saw a lad with 1 review / 794 posts .. 0.13% .. but I think he may be a slightly older gentleman with less .. opportunity than he would like.

And of course the Admins have to post an awful lot, and they'd never get the chance to Review at anything like a high ratio of 5% or above.

I am posting this because, frankly, I'm putting off a piece of work which I just don't want to do, but I have to. So I'll bugger off and please feel free to ignore.

But I'm putting 5% out there as the ratio to aim for ... sound reasonable?

YES I AM OVERTHINKING THIS .. I KNOW .. FFS can somebody come and do this work for me?

[Fuzzyduck]

A simple ratio doesn't give the full picture. Guys with loads of posts engage in conversation and debate here; some of that will be useful contribution, some will be bollocks. It just shows they are an active member. The number of reviews is the only definitive metric IMO.

[Winker121]

. The number of reviews is the only definitive metric IMO.

I don't completely agree with you there. It's possible to make useful contributions to a thread at times perhaps by supplying information that others ask for.

[Fuzzyduck]

I don't completely agree with you there. It's possible to make useful contributions to a thread at times perhaps by supplying information that others ask for.

I agree 100%. How do you measure that? OP was after a metric by which he could make a sensible comparison to other members

[Gordon Bennett]

Up until what, 18 months or so ago, there was a very busy general non-punting thread on here. Anyone who's been around a few years possibly racked up hundreds of posts about Brexit, Trump, HS2 and their favourite breakfast cereal.
Yes, the meat and potatoes is always the reviews but a single post that links a new profile to an old profile of a thieving skank is gold-dust too isn't it?
Far worse than contributing little or nothing are the posters who pop up after a negative review to say "Me too! She was shit as well when I saw her last October" but they never previously mentioned it!? Makes me want to reach into my screen and poke them in the eye.

[dreamwrx]

And as the OP I can already see the fatal flaw in my rubbish "5% ratio" hypothesis ...

Namely, the more you contribute as regards Posting, the less likely you'll get anywhere near 5%.

Gordon Bennett (currently 0.49%) at 1,443 posts would have to have racked up a huge 72 Reviews. Fuzzyduck (1.15%) at 4,189 posts would need to have done a truly a wallet-busting 209 Reviews.

Undoubtedly enjoyable (mostly), but that's roughly £16k worth of punts at let's say £75 a pop being pessimistic. Not many lads have that sort of wedge to simply spunk away...

If I could be bothered I would probably suggest some sort of staged ratio which decreases rapidly the more you Post.

But the bottom line is, if you've posted Reviews reasonably regularly during your time here, and acted in the spirit of the Board, it would never seem to be a problem.

Yours, not-Hawking.

[myothernameis]

There a member on here posted 2 reviews, and not to clever of him, word to word what he also said on AW, so I checked him out, and over 2019 had seen around 30 escorts, and most of them got some sort of feedback

It makes you wonder, why join ukp, and not even bother to review escorts you have seen, so if you going to leave feedback/review on AW, its very simple leave a review on here, isn't that why we join

As for myself, as for the last 2 years haven't punted or seen any escorts, but any escort I have seen, I have posted a review on here, and uslay now in life, I might see one or two escorts per year. 

[RedKettle]

Up until what, 18 months or so ago, there was a very busy general non-punting thread on here. Anyone who's been around a few years possibly racked up hundreds of posts about Brexit, Trump, HS2 and their favourite breakfast cereal.
Yes, the meat and potatoes is always the reviews but a single post that links a new profile to an old profile of a thieving skank is gold-dust too isn't it?
Far worse than contributing little or nothing are the posters who pop up after a negative review to say "Me too! She was shit as well when I saw her last October" but they never previously mentioned it!? Makes me want to reach into my screen and poke them in the eye.

The off topic posts were not included in your post count!  If they had been my arguments with JRC and James999 would have put me in the tens of thousands 

[B4bcock]

And Gordon and Fuzzy would have to review every girl they saw to achieve the "magic" 5% figure.

Maybe, as you seem to be realising, OP, and as your avatar suggests, it's time to kick this one into touch and get back to that onerous work!   

[millbush]

Join date divided by reviews would be the best metric,you've only to see the usual bell ends trolling my last topic to see how they like to bump up their post numbers whilst contributing nothing of use.

[Fuzzyduck]

And Gordon and Fuzzy would have to review every girl they saw to achieve the "magic" 5% figure.

Or not post so much nonsense

[Boristheboy]

I can honestly say that although I have only a handful of reviews on here, I do write up every punt - it's simply that I don't punt that often. I see that as better than someone who sees 10 girls a month but only provides reviews for 2 of them.

[GingerNuts]

The percentage of reviews doesn't tell the whole story though it might be telling on those who've never posted any or have only posted the occasional one over a long period of time.

There's a member whose reviews account for more than 10% of his posts but they're usually so lacking in detail as to be virtually worthless.

What about reviews from members who discuss them with WGs? Can they be trusted? Are they of any value?

[Moby Dick]

Can you imagine how boring UKP would be if comments about reviews could not be made?
Fluffy cunts, touts, pimps, fake reviews would be rife.
UKP would be no different to AW

Can you imagine if we all posted every green punt?
Pussy inflation is already out of control.
UKP is here for the benefit of members (unfortunately guests and leeches take advantage) but it’s not here for the benefit of the WG.

My review ratio is low 12/3000, and as I punt less, recently abstained for several weeks, it will only get lower. So what? If I want to post here I will.

Surely it’s about the quality of the reviews and comments made.
I get useful information from post review comments, and I appreciate the humour and poetic prose of other member on non review related threads. This is what makes UKP interesting, not statistics and ratios.

I have a handful of regulars, and tend to favour group fun over solo bookings.
I have been here 2.5 years, 4 or 5 reviews a year I feel is a decent contribution.
Since being a member I have not had a negative punt and I have only reviewed one TOFTT, and she was part of a party, so worth the lower “party” fee to check her out.
I prefer experienced established WG early 30s, most in my HL are well reviewed already, so TOFTT opportunities don’t really exist for me.

So I fill my time helping and taking the piss out of my favourite members, pulling up fluffy cunts, pimps and touts, discussing pussy prices on piss taking price threads, sharing information, educating newbies and failing miserably at encouraging leeches to post reviews.

But why do I bother?
I have recently become acutely aware of the vast numbers of non contributing leeches and guests accessing this site 24/7.
I feel something needs to be done to limit their access to reviews. Their leeching and subsequent pussy inflation puts me off saying anything positive about WG, and  “me too” reviews.

[Fuzzyduck]

I can honestly say that although I have only a handful of reviews on here, I do write up every punt - it's simply that I don't punt that often. I see that as better than someone who sees 10 girls a month but only provides reviews for 2 of them.

Probably, but that guy would have 20 reviews in the same time you've been a member and he might be contributing to other discussions e.g. about agencies, so he's not exactly a bad egg. Rather than make comparisons to other punters I think we should all just try to be better members ourselves, e.g. helping out newbies who need some guidance or adding extra intel to a discussion.
Remember also that prolific punters may have a stable of regulars and they don't see too many new girls so don't review as much as you'd expect them to.
That said, I'd sure there are veterans who have just gotten lazy and don't bother to review anymore and, with loads of reviews already under their belt, they know they won't get any grief.

[winkywanky]

A simple ratio doesn't give the full picture. Guys with loads of posts engage in conversation and debate here; some of that will be useful contribution, some will be bollocks. It just shows they are an active member. The number of reviews is the only definitive metric IMO.

This.

I guess at a pinch, at least two or more reviews over the last 12mths might also be a good benchmark. But ultimately, a quick browse of someone's post/punt history will tell you whether they're usefully active members over their time on UKP.

I probably fall into the 50%-is-bollocks category, but I do try to keep it lighthearted  .

[Moby Dick]

This.

I guess at a pinch, at least two or more reviews over the last 12mths might also be a good benchmark. But ultimately, a quick browse of someone's post/punt history will tell you whether they're usefully active members over their time on UKP.

I probably fall into the 50%-is-bollocks category, but I do try to keep it lighthearted  .

Arthur Bollox, know him well, drinks in the crown with that old fat lass Fanny Gaping.
I enjoy listening to old farts that have a tale or two to tell. 
My diminishing review ratio has just diminished by a fraction of a percentage....move along, move along,
Moby Clunge is just Making a Dick of himself again.

[HarryZZ]

I think I'm about 3% but see myself as an active member, I've not reviewed every punt, maybe only half, partly because they were repeat visits and partly because they were well reviewed or recently reviewed and another review saying exactly the same would not really add anything, I doubt my opinion of a WG with 100 positive reviews wouldn't sway anybody by adding the one hundred and first review, additionally I have often added "this was also my experience" so anyone truely doing their full diligence will see similar additions to existing reviews but I always review new or new to the area girls.

We need to get away from the numbers, quality is far better than quantity and we'll all be aware that reviews frequently fall into "I've shagged her, me" category and actually offer very little help to fellow punters.

[Home Alone]

I think I'm about 3% but see myself as an active member, I've not reviewed every punt, maybe only half, partly because they were repeat visits and partly because they were well reviewed or recently reviewed and another review saying exactly the same would not really add anything, I doubt my opinion of a WG with 100 positive reviews wouldn't sway anybody by adding the one hundred and first review, additionally I have often added "this was also my experience" so anyone truely doing their full diligence will see similar additions to existing reviews but I always review new or new to the area girls.

We need to get away from the numbers, quality is far better than quantity and we'll all be aware that reviews frequently fall into "I've shagged her, me" category and actually offer very little help to fellow punters.

Well, I'm at about 1% but that's largely because I fear - 'regret' would probably be a more appropriate word! - I'm in the twilight of my punting experiences. I had a spate of reviews some years ago when I saw Reasonably-priced MILFs - rarely above £100 - along the M62, reviewing them from the perspective of a late 60s/early 70s mobility-impaired - and punting-impaired! - owd beggar!

But, since the departure from 'the industry' of my last Regular a couple of years ago, I've struggled to replace her to my satisfaction and the sparkle's gone out of my punting a bit. I've seen some girls and reviewed them but I d come to feel that the 'schtick' for one of my Reviews- from the specific viewpoint of a disabled punter - had evaporated. So that meant that I was seeing SPs about whom, as Harry notes above, I couldn't really add to the sum total of knowledge.

So I've kinda stuck to offering mainly wry, sometimes grumpy, occasionally witty - well, they amused me when I thought of them! - comments on various threads.

[usroads]

Guess I'm piss poor at 1.4%     Must try harder   

[catweazle]

I'm almost spot on the 5% mark, at 1387/69. Reviews are the lifeblood of this forum, but there is also a valuable space for constructive comment on other threads. I'd agree also about the " yes, l had that when l saw her last month" - with no review leeching comment being infuriating.

[Fuzzyduck]

I probably fall into the 50%-is-bollocks category, but I do try to keep it lighthearted  .

Only 50% WW?

[winkywanky]

As ever, it's for others to judge  .

[dreamwrx]

Loving this little thread 

Some of the lads who have posted thousands of times are doing sterling work to get anywhere near 5% .. OBE for Catweazle lol

I've got to say that member 'qarma' is doing fine work, 18 reviews, each of them properly written and fairly detailed, in less than 75 posts. The man is a reviewing machine at 25%-ish.

But as I've said before, I realise this is just a stupidly statistical way to look at it, and we're all intelligent enough to know that *all* that matters to keep this board alive, healthy and USEFUL is if people play fair .. if you meet an SP, post a review. If people see you're doing that, then you've earnt yourself plenty of brownie points to stay on the board and post as often as you like.

I've not been on here that long myself, so I'm still a relative newbie, but I'm super-grateful to the Admins and other long-time board supporters that UKP actually exists - it's saved me a ton of money in the past.

Plus it's helped me find a few girls I wouldn't have known about otherwise.

Plus it's entertaining as fuck :-)

[Steely Dan]

I totally disagree with a ratio being any sort of measure.  We of course want as many reviews as possible.  All reviews add value.  But of course this is limited by the number of punts we have (and if seeing a regular, limited by the rule against reposting too soon).

And many (probably most) posts add value.  We want as many good posts that help punters as possible.  More good posts even if they lower the ration.  And no bad posts at all.  More reviews.  More posts.

The chap mentioned by the OP is helpful for writing some great reviews, but could give back even more by responding to others' posts.

In terms of leeches - whatever.  I have no worry. If the leeches know to avoid a bad provider, she gets a dusty phone and  buggers off back to Romania or her checkout job at Tesco. And if they book the good providers then they have enough business to stay in business.  Unless you can fund an escort yourself, you rely on other punters to keep her in business.  While there is occasional anecdotal evidence of a price rise or two, on balance UKP the way it is, is a force for better (and cheaper) punting in the UK.  Blocking views of non contributors (such as escorts) is short sighted.  Anyway, this is only Admins decision.

[LLPunting]

...
In terms of leeches - whatever.  I have no worry. If the leeches know to avoid a bad provider, she gets a dusty phone and  buggers off back to Romania or her checkout job at Tesco. And if they book the good providers then they have enough business to stay in business.  Unless you can fund an escort yourself, you rely on other punters to keep her in business.  While there is occasional anecdotal evidence of a price rise or two, on balance UKP the way it is, is a force for better (and cheaper) punting in the UK.  Blocking views of non contributors (such as escorts) is short sighted.  Anyway, this is only Admins decision.

Leeches avoiding bad SPs is the ONLY "benefit" from leeches getting a free ride here, it does not particularly benefit UKPers who constructively participate as whether a bad SP leaves or not is irrelevant if the informed steer clear.
 
Leeches making good girls "too" popular (and treating them badly) has and will drive up prices, can shorten their stay in any one location or in the business and does make booking them more difficult (wasting UKPer time/money and possibly resulting in Negs for failed arrangements). 

UKP is not for SPs' benefit so blocking escorts from reviews would be fine.  Any escort worth her salt improves her service by realising she's not pleasing a customer and addressing her technique/performance during the punt.  Those who are canny also recognise what did or didn't work for previous punters and will use/remove that behaviour going forward, whether it's to enhance their business or control rough/disrespectful customers (although most women know instinctively how to kibosh a fuck). 

Restricting escort access would devalue trading reviews for favours as would (perhaps moreso) blocking unregistered/non-contributory access to the reviews section.

[LLPunting]

As to OP's opening post.  What matters is the usefulness of a poster/reviewer's ongoing contribution.  Posting hollow, incomplete reviews and failing to flesh them out when questioned is contemptuous and self-serving.  Withholding warnings of bad SP experiences until a more civic minded UKPer brings it up is similarly disrespectful to the community that one is profiting from.
Review counts/ratios only tells you if a UKPer is contributing at all, it is not a measure of quality.
Post counts tell you even less about the value of a poster's contribution.

A post ratio of asking for vs giving of information vs blather would be a better measure but in the absence of AI pretty much impossible to keep proper score of.  If it were possible then incorporating timeliness would further improve the value measure. 

[Moby Dick]

I wouldn’t ban WGs from reading and commenting on reviews.
Being able to question or offer “their side of the story” can sometimes be helpful, more than not it is just entertaining. But I would want them to be registered with their works number/profile so we know they are genuine.
I think some threads should be limited to contributing members only.
Guests being allowed access to 20pages/day is a bit generous IMO.

[LLPunting]

I wouldn’t ban WGs from reading and commenting on reviews.
Being able to question or offer “their side of the story” can sometimes be helpful, more than not it is just entertaining. But I would want them to be registered with their works number/profile so we know they are genuine.
I think some threads should be limited to contributing members only.
Guests being allowed access to 20pages/day is a bit generous IMO.

Giving SPs direct access to reviews enables them to potentially identify punters and therefore compromises privacy.
If an SP learns of an objectionable review then she can still contact Site Admin(s) who can discretely mediate the situation and then enact the necessary correction.
If an SP wants to enter into banter and discussion with the community they can do so via the open discussion threads or hoik their skirts/leggings/thongs/[if only commando] off to UKE to drum up business.
We should sanction any UKPer who divulges identifying details from a review to an SP as they are colluding to compromise another UKPers privacy.

[bedhedred]

Up until what, 18 months or so ago, there was a very busy general non-punting thread on here. Anyone who's been around a few years possibly racked up hundreds of posts about Brexit, Trump, HS2 and their favourite breakfast cereal.
Yes, the meat and potatoes is always the reviews but a single post that links a new profile to an old profile of a thieving skank is gold-dust too isn't it?
Far worse than contributing little or nothing are the posters who pop up after a negative review to say "Me too! She was shit as well when I saw her last October" but they never previously mentioned it!? Makes me want to reach into my screen and poke them in the eye.

Yes! That happened to me in January when I wasted £ on some silly bitch with 3 positives. I was lured in, whilst others knew different.

[mrfishyfoo]

My ratio is shite. 

[dreamwrx]

My ratio is shite. 

Ermm but with 187 reviews you're already in the Pantheon FF, and you know that 

[mrfishyfoo]

Ermm but with 187 reviews you're already in the Pantheon FF, and you know that 

Hence the..... 

NEXT !!!!

 

[Malvolio]

Can't just work on the ratio - you have to decide whether it's worth believing a word some posters put in their reviews.

There have been several ex-members with thousands of posts and 50+ reviews who were found out as dodgy types worthy of a ban.

[lewisjones23]

I wouldn’t ban WGs from reading and commenting on reviews.
Being able to question or offer “their side of the story” can sometimes be helpful, more than not it is just entertaining. But I would want them to be registered with their works number/profile so we know they are genuine.
I think some threads should be limited to contributing members only.
Guests being allowed access to 20pages/day is a bit generous IMO.

WGs being able to comment has brought about some of the biggest meltdowns going on the forum, plus let them spin themselves a web a lies to only then get caught up and exposed in it themselves

I used to love it when forum helpers could see the ‘ post reports ‘ to Admin - was hilarious to see it play out

[The Film Director]

Posting hollow, incomplete reviews and failing to flesh them out when questioned is contemptuous and self-serving. 

+1

[Fuzzyduck]

I used to love it when forum helpers could see the ‘ post reports ‘ to Admin - was hilarious to see it play out

Me too. Grab the popcorn and check out the drama. However it encouraged poor behaviours when helpers flocked there to throw oil on the flames. There was a certain very high poster, zero reviewer that did just that. It was for the good that the access was removed.

[lewisjones23]

Me too. Grab the popcorn and check out the drama. However it encouraged poor behaviours when helpers flocked there to throw oil on the flames. There was a certain very high poster, zero reviewer that did just that. It was for the good that the access was removed.

I was guilty of the same

Helped expose WG poor attitudes when they took the bait and let their mouths run away

[mrfishyfoo]

I was guilty of the same

Helped expose WG poor attitudes when they took the bait and let their mouths run away

....and me  albeit as you state the pro$$ie created drama was eye opening. 

[RedKettle]

I think some threads should be limited to contributing members only.
Guests being allowed access to 20pages/day is a bit generous IMO.

I know things in life move on but it is worth remembering that was not the ethos of OldAdmin who built and ran the site for many years, taking over from NIC who started it.  His view was that he wanted a resource that any punter could see and benefit from and he was not concerned about punters who did not contribute reviews, although he ruled with an iron fist for those who caused trouble.  Also he had a deep understanding of how internet forums work and knew that you need open access and to be accepting of lurkers for it to be really successful.  Given the success of UKP I would back that approach.....

[Moby Dick]

I know things in life move on but it is worth remembering that was not the ethos of OldAdminwho built and ran the site for many years, taking over from NIC who started it.  His view was that he wanted a resource that any punter could see and benefit from and he was not concerned about punters who did not contribute reviews, although he ruled with an iron fist for those who caused trouble.  Also he had a deep understanding of how internet forums work and knew that you need open access and to be accepting of lurkers for it to be really successful.  Given the success of UKP I would back that approach.....

I am a still a relatively new member but even in the past 2.5years I seem to recall oldadmin encouraging us to report lurkers and non contributors. If you hadn’t posted for so many days you would get the advertising and UKE banners.
I wasn’t aware of guests members until recently this is so more transparent with the members names across the top of each board and thread.

[RedKettle]

I am a still a relatively new member but even in the past 2.5years I seem to recall oldadmin encouraging us to report lurkers and non contributors. If you hadn’t posted for so many days you would get the advertising and UKE banners.
I wasn’t aware of guests members until recently this is so more transparent with the members names across the top of each board and thread.

He set out his views in (for him) a long post, I remember it because I was so impressed (and to be honest surprised) by what he said of his motivation.  Very generous and showed another side to him then the hard arsed admin he needed to be to keep the forum running. 

You are right that he would encourage more activity and tried various things.  He stopped some of them because it was encouraging pointless posts.

[Visionist]

My ratio is low because I'm not in the UK. I could post my reviews in the European thread but that would skew my post/review ratio even further, lol.

One of my reviews was a TOFTT who ended up a bit of a critical darling so there is that at least.

[Sparta Prada]

I’m not sure if there is a way of finding a list of guys with the most reviews on UKP but there’s a fair chance they also post more in general which brings their ratio down.

In the areas I mainly punt in (London and surrounding Home Counties) the guys who I can remember with a lot of reviews are The_Don (currently around 2.3% ratio) and smiths (1.2%). They both must be in the top 10 of reviewers and contributors, and both very highly respected.

Glad the OP realises now that his original point is flawed.

[Fuzzyduck]

In the areas I mainly punt in (London and surrounding Home Counties) the guys who I can remember with a lot of reviews are The_Don (currently around 2.3% ratio) and smiths (1.2%). They both must be in the top 10 of reviewers and contributors, and both very highly respected.

pumps has more reviews than either of those guys (currently 344) and his ratio is 4.3%. Shows us all up.

[Southendlothario]

Dont post many reviews myself, as a punt is something which very seldom happens. Doesnt dull an interest to have a read every now and then and chip in every so often

[dreamwrx]

Glad the OP realises now that his original point is flawed.

Believe me the whole thing was a bit tongue in cheek, and as you'll see above I very quickly pointed out the statistical flaws in my own theory 

Sorry got to go, I've heard there's a man in North Berwick who can get me some hand sanitisers.

[nugget4eva]

I'm another expat so can't really write many reviews, although I do provide feedback/advise when I can in the international section. Even if I could write proper reviews, 90% of my punts for the last year or so have been with the same person so it would be a bit weird if I reviewed her over and over again. So as far as I'm concerned, review/post ratio is a pretty useless metric.

I'm not the most active of members but I remember seeing one person here who only ever posted bitchy, negative reviews. When questioned about this, he said he prefers to keep the positive experiences to himself so that he doesn't have to share the good girls with as many people. This kind of cuntery pisses me off more than any number of lurkers and guests.

[Happylad]

As the "lad" with (then) 794 posts (mine is the only criteria which fits) mentioned by the OP in the first posting on this thread I have indeed taken a certain amount of `stick` on this Forum for not having posted more than 1 Review.

I was well into my 86th year when I first joined this Forum and past my 86th birthday when I actually posted my solitary Review.

I have to wonder just how many of my critics will be able to post any Review at all when THEY are over 86 years old.  If any there be I raise my hat in advance to them.

[ulstersubbie]

I have to wonder just how many of my critics will be able to post any Review at all when THEY are over 86 years old.  If any there be I raise my hat in advance to them.

Probably no one Happylad, besides there are some members much younger than you with no reviews, one review is better than none at all.