In considering this question I think it is interesting to consider the history and evolution of the internet and sex work and in particular in relation to internet forums/review sites.
I began punting in 2003 which was coincidentally the year AW surfaced and by 2005 had fairly widespread use, though was far from the dominant online platform it was to become. This included a feedback system which has existed throughout and which because of its ‘two way’ setup has become increasingly flawed.
However it was predated in 1999 by a national platform (which we cannot name) where users (described as enthusiasts) could submit feedback known as Field Reports (FRs) This site later included a forum for both service seekers and providers to participate. By 2004 this platform was widely accepted as the leading resource for punters and escorts alike.
The latter in particular could derive huge benefit from positive reports and so the majority had no objection to receiving them and would actively seek them. As we have discovered over time, online commercial feedback be it Amazon, Trustpilot etc has its flaws as well as positives and sex work was to be no different. This included touting from SP’s and ‘manipulation’ by punters and SP’s alike. Inevitably as a result and for a variety of other reasons the afore mentioned platform went into decline, before imploding somewhat and now a shadow of its former self.
In 2010 UKP was born on the ethos of being a forum for punters to post ‘honest’ reviews without any strong influence from providers and became hugely popular and successful in achieving that and became the number one review site.
It is important to remember though that while the ethos may be admirable, it is not immune to the failings that all review sites suffer from. In addition the reports published are from a very small percentage of the overall punter population.
Also in adopting this ethos it became a very hostile environment for what it termed ‘prossies’ and many decided the balance between the value of positive reviews was outweighed by this negative attitude and decided where possible, to seek out and avoid seeing UKP members and also in some circumstances punishing them by blacklisting on sites such as CE.
That said the some of the more 'savvy' professional ones still saw the value of positive feedback on UKP and put aside their dislike.
So we know the site has changed under the new ownership. I know Head1 considers reviews to still be paramount, but the forum has evolved and is considerably less hostile to both punters and SP’s, although the latter are very short in numbers in terms of active participation.
So, site ethos aside, currently it is probably still unwise to reveal any involvement, but many punters will still do so and some in order to abuse and manipulate the outcome of sessions, although this is impossible to quantify. You should assume that with all reports, there is a possibility the author mentioned he was a UKP member or the SP knew via other means.
Finally as others have touched on already you should concentrate on the quantity and overall positivity or otherwise of reviews and not the detail, much of which may be inaccurate ‘fantasy’ and a source of both bewilderment and amusement to the reviewed SPs
