Not all guests are "leeches" - remember that they CANNOT join at the moment and therefore cannot contribute anything. Its not their fault that they cannot join.
And remember some of those guest numbers will be members who just want to have a look and haven't signed on - generally i only sign in when i want to comment. Nowdays, I always look first as a "guest". (maybe just being lazy and not signing in as I don't "have to")
Makes me chuckle (even if just to myself) that so many guys seem to get hot under the collar over such an issue. Surely if Admin thought it was a major issue, HE would take some action. It is after all, HIS site. (Maybe I am alone in this opinion?)
The trigger is not the number of guests it's the number of active punter members who do not contribute despite benefiting from the site.
"HIS" site is nothing without contributors, contributors have every right to express their frustration at being exploited by selfish people who have the means to indulge their hobby without this resource. What would people say to those found using food banks but who have more than enough money to feed themselves adequately?
Membership is simple to register for and hardly overtly compromises privacy or identity. The fact that hundreds of good souls on this board have successfully participated and almost none have had any cause to report attempts to compromise their identity demonstrates that used sensibly this resource is worth supporting NOT just abusing. Individuals make the decision as to how much they disclose but the minimums required for sufficiently informed decision making do little to reveal any punter's id. There is NO requirement to state exact date and time of encounters nor the chronologically correct turn of events nor the exact details of how each participant "felt" nor exactly what they said at any point. Sure it might be a little more exposing if you want to reveal that you were shorted on time or given extra or even foibles like "She doesn't like beards/stubble", but you can indicate whilst still being vague enough that, if it is a consistent behaviour, the SP won't know who is commenting.
Extreme events like arguing, theft or fighting are a tough call to choose to reveal so major props to those that feel compelled to share.
Just as important is the timeliness of contribution. Popping up occasionally on a thread or review and dropping a "Yeah, I saw her too and she was shit" is worthless, moreso contemptible if you saw her before the experience that's being discussed and your earlier reporting could've prevented the grief. Timely, current reviews about active SPs tracks their offering and that is the most important collective outcome from this site to benefit and protect all users.
The "I saw her too and she was as great as he said so it wasn't worth reporting" excuse is only valid if you're reporting about encounters very close in time and you know you're a similar bloke to the reviewer and all those who will visit her. An SP may be great with some types but not others, she may not be exclusionary but she may be discriminatory about services and behaviour to different types. YMMV is expected but we'd like to know how level the playing field is. You may've had a great time because you didn't care that she didn't like your big dick crippling her but that's a whole different thing to a punter who had a great time because she wasn't uncomfortable with anything he did.
