Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: New profile feature coming to UKPunting  (Read 10873 times)

OldAdmin

  • Guest
Right now the 'profile' pages only contain reviews for each girl.
Example: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=227

These profile pages will be extended to add things like - hourly rates, location, phone number, nationality, age group.

The phone number, location and hourly rates will be taken from their A/W pages or website.
The nationality and age group will be provided by the punter when a review is submitted (drop-down menu).

Then to the main feature - search profiles by location / distance.

It'll be possible to make this kind of search - all girls within 10 miles of London Euston who charge less than £120 per hour and are British and younger than 30.

The results will be ranked by most reviewed girl (or nearest by distance) and only include girls who are working (not 'retired' or deleted AW profile).

Any suggestions / opinions?

cockneybstrd

  • Guest
Sounds good


Though I can see Nationality causing a few issues !

OldAdmin

  • Guest
Also the advantage of this over the current review section is that if a girl re-locates, then her profile / reviews will be visible sooner to punters in her new area.

Offline mh

Who needs AW?!  :D

This will be a useful feature, for sure, I just hope the server(s) can handle the search load...

Offline superchamp

Do the one thing AW doesn't do - exclude by nationality - and you've got a winner.

Offline Zalaroon

Yeah... And tick Romanian by default

Offline Trevor12

Maybe a punter-verified 'enjoys' list which includes fingering.

Offline Mr Br1ghts1de

Sounds good and potentially better than AW.
AW's search criteria can be too restrictive at times, e.g. in terms of girls sizes and age bands.
Look forward to seeing.

Offline monstar

Great idea. :thumbsup:

My initial thoughts:
Will the age drop down answer be based on our best guess?

Will there be a 'no answer' selection? For example the girl clearly isn't "Spanish" as stated but I would not want to guess an answer either.

My suggestion may be too much work but could you include an optional (to keep review writing as accessible as possible) tickbox list for us to complete when submitting a review, this allows us to produce a more accurate 'likes list' for each girl? Possibly including more detailed options, for example kissing - lips only, kissing - deep French, OWO - deep throat. Would this also allow searches or filtering by services similar to the AW search?

Cheers, looking forward to the update.  :hi:

Offline Sedlmayer

Not sure I've got my head round this fully yet - obviously it will be much clearer once it's up and running.
However, sounds like this is going to be a massively useful new tool which will enhance the site greatly.
Well fucking done, Admin  :drinks: :thumbsup: ;)

Quesadilla

  • Guest
Great idea. :thumbsup:

<snip>

My suggestion may be too much work but could you include an optional (to keep review writing as accessible as possible) tickbox list for us to complete when submitting a review, this allows us to produce a more accurate 'likes list' for each girl? Possibly including more detailed options, for example kissing - lips only, kissing - deep French, OWO - deep throat. Would this also allow searches or filtering by services similar to the AW search?

Cheers, looking forward to the update.  :hi:

+1 to the punter validated likes list although agree it could be a lot of work.

Offline threechilliman

+1 to the punter validated likes list although agree it could be a lot of work.

Yeah, a comparative likes list. What they state v what you got. ukp to challenge aw? Let's get it on....

tcm

Offline smiths

Great idea. :thumbsup:

My initial thoughts:
Will the age drop down answer be based on our best guess?

Will there be a 'no answer' selection? For example the girl clearly isn't "Spanish" as stated but I would not want to guess an answer either.

My suggestion may be too much work but could you include an optional (to keep review writing as accessible as possible) tickbox list for us to complete when submitting a review, this allows us to produce a more accurate 'likes list' for each girl? Possibly including more detailed options, for example kissing - lips only, kissing - deep French, OWO - deep throat. Would this also allow searches or filtering by services similar to the AW search?

Cheers, looking forward to the update.  :hi:

I wouldnt call it a likes list, to me its an offers list. I wouldnt know what a WG actually likes as most are complete strangers to me.

Agree about nationality, i only speak English so only have what the WG tells me to go on if she is foreign in most cases. But i just say she said she was whatever nationality in my reviews, thats obviously not a guarantee she is.

Same with age but admin has said age group i see so i assume that allows for saying early-20s or late-20s etc which will be my best guess but could be wrong as some women age better than others of course.

Offline smiths

Right now the 'profile' pages only contain reviews for each girl.
Example: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=227

These profile pages will be extended to add things like - hourly rates, location, phone number, nationality, age group.

The phone number, location and hourly rates will be taken from their A/W pages or website.
The nationality and age group will be provided by the punter when a review is submitted (drop-down menu).

Then to the main feature - search profiles by location / distance.

It'll be possible to make this kind of search - all girls within 10 miles of London Euston who charge less than £120 per hour and are British and younger than 30.

The results will be ranked by most reviewed girl (or nearest by distance) and only include girls who are working (not 'retired' or deleted AW profile).

Any suggestions / opinions?

Linking an A/W WGs reviews in to her other reviews as you have done this year has been very handy to me, this sounds like another good idea. :thumbsup:

OldAdmin

  • Guest
I'll do all the suggestions above about 'services done' when posting review and excluding nationalities in search.

To start off, only girls who have reviews on UKP will have profiles made for them.
The only info I will take from the girls profiles (or website) is their location and rates and phone number.
The rest of the info is all provided by punters who've seen the girl in real life (services done, age group, nationality, etc).
That should make our profile system as reliable / accurate as possible.

OldAdmin

  • Guest
Regarding creating an AdultWork rival, i.e. allowing girls to create profiles, upload pics and post tours or discounts, etc.
That is not planned for now but possible to happen in 2015.
But it must be 100% free for both the girls and punters, no private gallery nonsense.
If anyone is in favour or not then speak up.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
Regarding creating an AdultWork rival, i.e. allowing girls to create profiles, upload pics and post tours or discounts, etc.
That is not planned for now but possible to happen in 2015.
But it must be 100% free for both the girl and punter, no private gallery nonsense.
If anyone is in favour or not then speak up.
I think this is a great idea - AW is crap and we have no control over searchability - a properly searchable database here could be much better.  The challenge I had in my mind was the sheer amount of data to be setup as there's no easy way to extract it from AW; but if we let WG's create their own pages here that would definitely be a head start. 



west8

  • Guest
That should make our profile system as reliable / accurate as possible.

That is the sole reason why this site could evolve into an 'Adultwork killer'.

But I foresee problems. More after my Coco-Pops.  :cool:

Offline akauya

Looking forward seeing the new features - thanks Admin  :hi:

Offline Mr Farkyhars


west8

  • Guest
Since joining this fine forum, I have often thought that one thing is missing: the girls.

It seems there are a handful of survivors, but most have been culled or feel too intimidated to post, either due to their lacklustre written English or the (unjustly in my view) misogynistic reputation that the membership here have in the minds of a great many WGs.

But wouldn’t a sub forum for ‘rated/respected/reviewed’ girls be beneficial to us punters and the WGs alike? If the proposal is to provide reviewed girls with a ‘voice’ in the form of a free profile and the massive oxygen of (also free) publicity that this site consistently affords them, perhaps the girls would like the opportunity to respond to reviews – and to occasionally participate in a Q&A with prospective punters – if only once a week or monthly. I think many new punters would find this appealing and it would give a clearer idea of a girls personality and attitude.


Specifically on the proposal to move further:

Adultwork is clunky, cumbersome, barely navigable and reminds me of the game ‘Tea Shop’ I used to play on BBC Micro when at Secondary School. It’s also populated by more scammers than genuine, service-minded WGs.

UKP on the other hand is streamlined with a clearly delineated navigation ‘tree’ and is already a veritable treasure trove of useful information. Plus of the course the more often than not invaluable reviews.

However …

I would also propose an ‘upgrade’ of sorts to membership levels.

eg. Any member who has written more than 25 reviews should be given a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge. Let me explain why …

If the girls are to have any degree of trust in the forum as a means of self-promotion, they will have one concern: the authenticity of reviews and the integrity of the reviewers. But there are a few girls who don’t grasp PR quite as well as Dee, Platinum Cindy and MissKDD.

I know this as two girls I have reviewed have specifically told me on subsequent visits that if I write -anything- else about them on the forum, I will be ‘persona non grata’ in their eyes. Their reasons for this are not important, but they are valid (in my opinion) so I have agreed to their requests.
So, whilst a significant majority of the reviewed ladies will be delighted to have an alternative to Adultwork, there are a few who are possibly too sensitive to see the potential upside of a listing on UKP.

But we all know that any WG we meet is invariably a ‘closet’ UKP reader, so why not encourage those who have, say, 5+ positive reviews to join and actively participate on the forum. Heck, UKP could then replace Adultwork, SAAFE and PN in one fell swoop…

Offline Silver Birch

But we all know that any WG we meet is invariably a ‘closet’ UKP reader, so why not encourage those who have, say, 5+ positive reviews to join and actively participate on the forum. Heck, UKP could then replace Adultwork, SAAFE and PN in one fell swoop…

Given the flakiness of many previous wgs on here and the aggressive nature of some punters, I'm not sure the punter first ethos of UKP can be maintained if wgs are invited to respond and retaliate to comments written about them.  :bomb:

yorkshire123

  • Guest

eg. Any member who has written more than 25 reviews should be given a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge. Let me explain why …


How does the number of reviews signify anything?
You could be a prolific review writer & still be a cunt or even telling porkies.
Personally I wouldn't want any advertising at all as I believe that the site would lose some of its putting the punter first ethos & the fan boys would have a field day.

Admin - sorry to disrupt your thread as I'm sure you didn't want to turn into a debating circle. Its your site & I'm sure you know what's the best way forward.

west8

  • Guest
How does the number of reviews signify anything?
You could be a prolific review writer & still be a cunt or even telling porkies.

How does it not signify anything?

The great thing about the membership here is that the forum is virtually self-policing. Reviews are read and questioned and discussed.

I don't think anyone who has 25 reviews would have made it that far without a LOT of scrutiny from other members.

Offline Vivago

Admin - sorry to disrupt your thread as I'm sure you didn't want to turn into a debating circle. Its your site & I'm sure you know what's the best way forward.

What's the view like from up 'Admin's' arse? :rolleyes:  I'm sure that debate is welcome particularly when it appertains to major changes to the forum structure.

Personally i think that as a punting site, allowing shitloads of flaky prossies on here would muddy the waters somewhat and devalue the site.  But improvements to the review and ratings system can only be welcomed.

Whether a system that restricts full access to reviews to those members who had contributed to those reviews is implementable, is debatable. But if it were, it would certainly encourage the submission of reviews and cut down on the number of non-contributing lurkers who use the forum without giving anything in return.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 02:31:29 am by Vivago »
Banned reason: For taking the piss after being advised
Banned by: Head1

OldAdmin

  • Guest
For age-group, would this be best:
18-19
20s
30s
40s
50+

Or would cutting it down to something like 5 years be better:
18-25
26-30
31-35
etc.

OldAdmin

  • Guest
Also should body-type be added? If so, what selections in the drop down menu? Or dress-size instead of body-type?
What about height?

I wouldn't like to over-complicate it and add too many options. I like easy review posting.

west8

  • Guest
18-21
22-30
31-40
41-50
51-60

Dress size

Bust size

Height

Offline shagbambi

Sounds very good, the geographic search feature in particular. The only possible problem that I can foresee is the services received. We often see on review threads some punters receiving better service for what ever reason or opting for a lower service level (OW or OWO springs to mind). I think this may cause some issues and make the database seem poor as we are trying to quantify too much. The thread under the review tends to highlight the hit and miss nature of punting.

As for WG's on the site I think it would neuter the feel of the site. It is currently so unPC that it is fantastic.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 04:47:58 am by shagbambi »

Offline NIK

Since joining this fine forum, I have often thought that one thing is missing: the girls.

It seems there are a handful of survivors, but most have been culled or feel too intimidated to post, either due to their lacklustre written English or the (unjustly in my view) misogynistic reputation that the membership here have in the minds of a great many WGs.

But wouldn’t a sub forum for ‘rated/respected/reviewed’ girls be beneficial to us punters and the WGs alike? If the proposal is to provide reviewed girls with a ‘voice’ in the form of a free profile and the massive oxygen of (also free) publicity that this site consistently affords them, perhaps the girls would like the opportunity to respond to reviews – and to occasionally participate in a Q&A with prospective punters – if only once a week or monthly. I think many new punters would find this appealing and it would give a clearer idea of a girls personality and attitude.


Specifically on the proposal to move further:

Adultwork is clunky, cumbersome, barely navigable and reminds me of the game ‘Tea Shop’ I used to play on BBC Micro when at Secondary School. It’s also populated by more scammers than genuine, service-minded WGs.

UKP on the other hand is streamlined with a clearly delineated navigation ‘tree’ and is already a veritable treasure trove of useful information. Plus of the course the more often than not invaluable reviews.

However …

I would also propose an ‘upgrade’ of sorts to membership levels.

eg. Any member who has written more than 25 reviews should be given a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge. Let me explain why …

If the girls are to have any degree of trust in the forum as a means of self-promotion, they will have one concern: the authenticity of reviews and the integrity of the reviewers. But there are a few girls who don’t grasp PR quite as well as Dee, Platinum Cindy and MissKDD.

I know this as two girls I have reviewed have specifically told me on subsequent visits that if I write -anything- else about them on the forum, I will be ‘persona non grata’ in their eyes. Their reasons for this are not important, but they are valid (in my opinion) so I have agreed to their requests.
So, whilst a significant majority of the reviewed ladies will be delighted to have an alternative to Adultwork, there are a few who are possibly too sensitive to see the potential upside of a listing on UKP.

But we all know that any WG we meet is invariably a ‘closet’ UKP reader, so why not encourage those who have, say, 5+ positive reviews to join and actively participate on the forum. Heck, UKP could then replace Adultwork, SAAFE and PN in one fell swoop…

That would exclude both me and Adam, and of course James.
As for encouraging more women to post here that has been done to death, and long standing members will be aware of the problems some of them have caused in the past.

Offline monstar

Also should body-type be added? If so, what selections in the drop down menu? Or dress-size instead of body-type?
What about height?

I wouldn't like to over-complicate it and add too many options. I like easy review posting.

I have no clue about dress size and it may end up being subjective for each reviewer and therefore not much use?

Agreed, keep it simple and slowly build up if the demand is there. Location and a wide ranged age group sounds like a great start to test.

Offline MancSean

I have no clue about dress size and it may end up being subjective for each reviewer and therefore not much use?
 

Agreed, keep it simple and slowly build up if the demand is there. Location and a wide ranged age group sounds like a great start to test.
dress size can be made easy
Stick insect
Slim
Average
Chubby
Fat
Grossly overweight

Jason

  • Guest
So the idea is a profile system without the advertising part and with most details specified by the punters instead of the service providers. Such a profile system actually exists on paid reviewed websites such as Captain and TER but of course they don't have many reviewers in UK. On Captain there is the ‘Add an Escort’ and ‘Add an Agency’ options which are filled up by the first reviewer. In the following snapshot I merge Captain and UKP to give an idea of how in my opinion a fairly original and ideal profile would look like (data of the profiles are unrelated/fictional):

External Link/Members Only

Below is a summary of what it will be good to be included in the profiles:
(i) Type of service provider: Independent, Agency, Parlour
(ii) Contact : (i) Website urls (AW link, personal website link or agency or parlour link), Phone, Email (if any)
(iii) State of the profile based on the url: Active/Deleted/Abandoned
(iv) General Details (ethnicity, nationality, age group, height, build, bust)
(v) Location (region, city and first part of postcode e.g. London W2)
(vi) Services: Perhaps all listed in the profile but reviewers doing a thumbs up or thumbs down if provided (see image link above)
(vii) Rates, extras
(viii) A url to an profile in image form (imgur hosted)
(ix) Reviews at the end with the date posted, author, rating BUT also duration, and selection of solo or moresome (FFM etc)
(x)As many punters don’t post proper reviews but short feedback when they post on review threads to have an option whether the reply to be a general reply/question or feedback comment with a rating. If feedback response is selected then the post to be viewed under a short feedback section (see image link).

Furthermore:
(a) linking reviews of old and new profiles of a certain prossie. For example Sexy 19 Nicole with sweet&kinky Nicole with the new one she will create in the future.
(b) Search for outcall only profiles (option in a profile to be outcall only)
(c) As for the age groups: A. 18-20, B. 21-24, C. 25-29, D. 30-34, E:35-39, F: 40-44, G:45-49, F: 50 or older

As for the AW rival. I don't think it is the way to go Adam. I think we can co-exist but not compete. Best to restrict into profiles created by punters submitting reviews … this is the best way of having verified profiles. Going the AW fully verified way with non-reviewed profiles just becomes too tedious plus we will have touting, profile swapping etc. Also main problem with all escort directories is the dedication to the profiles by the WGs who create them as most of the time the profiles are abandoned or are out of date.

Flunt

  • Guest
Firstly, an apology to admin for putting a downer on your efforts but I have to ask the question why?

As a regular punter and one who has time and money to trek around the country wherever my dick takes me I can use AW for the basic search and any pro$$ie that takes my fancy I can then search here for her AW number. If she's well reviewed and positive then all's good, if not I can ask the question. I have no idea how difficult the proposed searches are to implement but I imagine that if I found someone through searching here I would then visit her AW page or website for more information, photos, price changes...

 :bomb:

yorkshire123

  • Guest
What's the view like from up 'Admin's' arse? :rolleyes:  I'm sure that debate is welcome particularly when it appertains to major changes to the forum structure.

Obviously not as nice as the view your looking at right now, sun drenched sandy beaches, blue water & petite beauties as far as the eye can see.
All from the comfort of your very own holiday villa.
Sorry tin hut  ;)

Offline Third Man

Also should body-type be added? If so, what selections in the drop down menu? Or dress-size instead of body-type?
What about height?

I wouldn't like to over-complicate it and add too many options. I like easy review posting.
for me height and approx dress size are vital. some guys say they have no idea of dress size, but surely its not hard to see the difference between 6 or 12 so have a rough guess!

Offline GreyDave

 :hi:
Yorky and west 8 have good points re reveiwers, I have only a few reveiws but seen many of the girls reveiwed here I dont think my vanilla time with them would add anthing so I often agree with a reveiwer with  some of the girls I have seen, I look to see how many guys have seen them but like me leave no reveiw but  a + one plus often the profile disapears.
I look forward to the changes we are lucky ....This is a great site  :hi: :hi:

Offline Sedlmayer

I have no clue about dress size and it may end up being subjective for each reviewer and therefore not much use?

Agreed, keep it simple and slowly build up if the demand is there. Location and a wide ranged age group sounds like a great start to test.

Absolutely agree with this.

Offline CBPaul

The idea of prossie profiles is great but in danger of becoming overcomplicated. Anything that makes searching for reviewed prossies on UKP easier gets my vote and since I now punt with more touring prossies, being able to search within my punting range will make life a lot easier.

Nationality would work providing there is a not sure option rather than having to make a best guess but I think this would mainly be for those looking to avoid all Romanians or only punt with English prossies.

Age, break it into mid ranges please Admin, 20-25 26-30 etc, the difference between early and late twenties makes a world of difference IMO.

If these are being linked to reviews then most of the other stuff should be in the review - e.g. does she match her profile for size, services availed etc. If the original idea is about making finding prossies easier then over-complicating it, especially with subjective stuff will make it more hassle than it is worth and lead to more finger pointing when one punter says size 10 and another says size 12.

I can't say I agree with allowing prossies on to create their own profiles. Yes we all know AW has many failings but UKP is a punters forum and is very successful at being just that. When I first joined I liked the idea of prossie contributions but have come to realise that only the very few survive beyond a short time and the rest get banned for being a pain in the arse. It wouldn't be long before threads are filled with the standard cop-outs of he was smelly, disrespectful, never turned up, pushed for bb etc etc and descend into a waste of space.   

Offline smiths

For age-group, would this be best:
18-19
20s
30s
40s
50+

Or would cutting it down to something like 5 years be better:
18-25
26-30
31-35
etc.

Your second option looks good to me.

Offline Jimmyredcab

That would exclude both me and Adam, and of course James.
As for encouraging more women to post here that has been done to death, and long standing members will be aware of the problems some of them have caused in the past.

So according to west8 if you don't have 25 reviews you are not trusted ------------- what a dickhead.   :crazy:

No, we don't need more women posting on here, they normally end up being a pain in the arse.    :hi:

Offline akauya

Your second option looks good to me.

I agree - 5 year blocks looks more reasonable.

As for dress sizes, the majority of punters get it wrong, I certainly do. Some of the prossies I've seen have been described as size 10 when I thought they were size 12. I'm sure if I described a prossie as size 10 some other punter would describe her as size 12. 

I use a rough guide based on Mrs A, who is a size 10 and my fuck buddy a who is a size 8 but I would struggle to define past size 12 (for those who are interested in bigger ladies).

I know some punters would see any prossie over size 12 as a BBW which is wrong in my opinion.

It's all very subjective and I can't see an easy answer to that.

Offline smiths

Regarding creating an AdultWork rival, i.e. allowing girls to create profiles, upload pics and post tours or discounts, etc.
That is not planned for now but possible to happen in 2015.
But it must be 100% free for both the girls and punters, no private gallery nonsense.
If anyone is in favour or not then speak up.

A smart WG deciding to have a profile on here that she merely updates when things change and with new pics every few months could help punters.

As you know with some profiles it isnt the actual WG that runs the profile its her pimp so the danger is it brings bad pimps onto the site to sell their product, and as the site gets ever more popular with punters so bad pimps and WGs will see it as a place to be. Obviously we already have them on here touting and pretending to be genuine punters and you deal with them as and when.

I personally now see no advantage to having WGs posting on here, to me they add zero as they post what they think punters want to hear in my view. Or they come on whining about getting a bad review or even a good review on ocassion. But i do understand some would join pretending to be punters if they couldnt as WGs.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
For age-group, would this be best:
18-19
20s
30s
40s
50+

Or would cutting it down to something like 5 years be better:
18-25
26-30
31-35
etc.
Personally I would prefer a separate search group for 18/19 and then 20-24 / 25-29 / 30s / 40s etc.

For dress sizes maybe have a key "<6 (stick insect)", "8 (slim)", "10 (curvy), "12 (voluptuous)", "14 (bbw)" etc. But that said a size 12 at 5'0 would be more bbw than voluptuous and for a tall girl at 5'9 a 12 could be pretty slim.

By far the most annoying thing about AW for me is the lack of a multi-select on searches. So for age I might want to select 18-19 and 20-24. For dress size I would want to select 8, 10 and 12. On AW it's usually either/or.


Offline Sedlmayer

So according to west8 if you don't have 25 reviews you are not trusted ------------- what a dickhead.   :crazy:

No, we don't need more women posting on here, they normally end up being a pain in the arse.    :hi:

Completely agree - quality not quantity is what counts.
Besides, number of reviews posted is not necessarily something that the punter can control anyway - suppose he's on a limited budget, lives in a punting desert or just chooses to punt with a small group of regulars (or even just one)?

Review count as a status marker was one of Infowanker's great ideas - if you get him and Wank8 both proposing the same thing you know for certain it's bollocks.

Offline smiths

I agree - 5 year blocks looks more reasonable.

As for dress sizes, the majority of punters get it wrong, I certainly do. Some of the prossies I've seen have been described as size 10 when I thought they were size 12. I'm sure if I described a prossie as size 10 some other punter would describe her as size 12. 

I use a rough guide based on Mrs A, who is a size 10 and my fuck buddy a who is a size 8 but I would struggle to define past size 12 (for those who are interested in bigger ladies).

I know some punters would see any prossie over size 12 as a BBW which is wrong in my opinion.

It's all very subjective and I can't see an easy answer to that.

5 year blocks gives a bit of leeway for punters rather than WGs as i see it. I really cant say that a WG is say 20 but i could say she is 18-25 in my view.

 I agree regarding dress size, i often say a size 10-12 ish because of this, its not an exact science. Its also the case even for women in some clothes they are a 10 but in others a 12.

Offline smiths

Completely agree - quality not quantity is what counts.
Besides, number of reviews posted is not necessarily something that the punter can control anyway - suppose he's on a limited budget, lives in a punting desert or just chooses to punt with a small group of regulars (or even just one)?

Review count as a status marker was one of Infowanker's great ideas - if you get him and Wank8 both proposing the same thing you know for certain it's bollocks.

I also agree, divide and rule is a very unhealthy thing in my view, punters are all equal on here and i would like it to stay like that.

Offline mh

I know this as two girls I have reviewed have specifically told me on subsequent visits that if I write -anything- else about them on the forum, I will be ‘persona non grata’ in their eyes. Their reasons for this are not important, but they are valid (in my opinion) so I have agreed to their requests.

If a WG I had reviewed did not want to see me again as a result of my honestly written review then I would not be bothered about seeing her again. It would obviously have been a positive review if I was trying to see her again, anyway!

You have to ask yourself for whose benefit you are posting a review. For the girl or for other punters...?

Offline akauya

Since joining this fine forum, I have often thought that one thing is missing: the girls.

I can think of a couple of reasons why it would not be a good idea to have prossies the way you're suggesting. There would be endless flirty threads between prossies and fanboys... cringing to say the least. That would also lead to veiled touting which would mean a immediate ban for the prossie and/or the fanboys.

Then we have some prossies who, despite having generally good reviews, overreact and go apeshit when they get a negative review or comment. We have seen so many of those it's just ridiculous.

I don't think that's right for this board. I, for one, think that we have a good balance at the moment. Prossies have SAAFE and PN. UKP is a punters forum and I would like it to remain that way.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
Before we totally rule out a "verified reviewer" or "trusted reviewer" what about this - on other sites I've seen a system where members vote on whether a post or member is helpful.
So members who have seen a reviewed girl can vote on whether a particular review tallies with their experience. A net positive of 5 or more votes of confidence could make a review trusted.
If you could then track per user not just how many reviews but how many trusted reviews that would give people a better indication of the reliability of their future reviews.
Even one trusted review makes it easier to decide if a new review might be worth relying on.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 10:38:34 am by Quesadilla »