Having bareback on their list just implies it may be available to a customer.
In many cases, the WG has bareback listed but may not actually offer it. She may tick it just to attract punters (yes there are some who WANT bareback) and say it's not available if someone shows up asking for it. Or she may be randomly ticking everything in sight. Just try searching under 'pregnant' and sure enough you will find many WGs who have never been pregnant.
You could call this type of issue a 'false positive'.
You have no knowledge about what a WG who does not offer bareback does in her private life. Did she bareback Sergey just before you? And did he then say, don't waste your time having a shower, get back to work and smear my cum over this low life punter?
You could call this type of issue a 'false negative'.
If you see a WG who barebacks but have protected sex, are you in any significant risk? I'd say your chances of catching something are higher from unprotected oral sex which most of us enjoy.
I am not looking for barebackers but for the reasons above I think a list like this isn't that useful. Those who are paranoid can always check an aw profile before they decide to see the WG.
Thank you Gspotter for your post.
I've been thinking about it and I think that on your 1st point it could be added the case that with so many profiles swapped, the profile of a barebacker WG could in future be passed to a new WG that don't offer it, she'd remove bb from enjoys but would be unfairly branded a barebacker by the list I was planning to create.
The list idea clearly has a lot more flaws that I initially realised. Thank you for pointing it out.
I won't be wasting time and effort in something with such limited usefulness.