Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: Posting postive reviews can lead to negative results for the poster, so...?  (Read 2241 times)

Offline Curious

Problem:   Review a girl very positively (particularly a new young English girl) and she is likely to become less available, put up her prices and lose her good attitude.

Previous discussion:  This has come up in lots of threads, is acknowledged as a problem, but seen as inevitable, the site still works, most members aren't that calculating, not posting is legitimate, some choose to deal with it by swapping names by pm etc etc.

Question: Is it possible to reduce this dis-incentive, and maybe encourage helpfulness/deter bad behaviour for the general good?  This is of course a punter specific version of the question of how to encourage positive contribution and deter trolling and other anti social behaviour on any internet forum.

To kick off with a straw man:  Every member gets one vote a day, plus or minus, for another member.  Only members see reviews; of those members with a score of up to (pick a number) 5 greater than their own: Democractic, transparent, can be tuned.

To avoid wasting too much time tromping on the straw man I know it probably wouldn't work from a programming point of view and that there may be unanticipated gaming possibilities; it's just a starting point to see how other people think about the question.

Offline rpg

Problem:   Review a girl very positively (particularly a new young English girl) and she is likely to become less available, put up her prices and lose her good attitude.

Previous discussion:  This has come up in lots of threads, is acknowledged as a problem, but seen as inevitable, the site still works, most members aren't that calculating, not posting is legitimate, some choose to deal with it by swapping names by pm etc etc.

Question: Is it possible to reduce this dis-incentive, and maybe encourage helpfulness/deter bad behaviour for the general good?  This is of course a punter specific version of the question of how to encourage positive contribution and deter trolling and other anti social behaviour on any internet forum.

To kick off with a straw man:  Every member gets one vote a day, plus or minus, for another member.  Only members see reviews; of those members with a score of up to (pick a number) 5 greater than their own: Democractic, transparent, can be tuned.

To avoid wasting too much time tromping on the straw man I know it probably wouldn't work from a programming point of view and that there may be unanticipated gaming possibilities; it's just a starting point to see how other people think about the question.

It may be me but WTF!!

Offline Taggart

Problem:   Review a girl very positively (particularly a new young English girl) and she is likely to become less available, put up her prices and lose her good attitude.



I think this can happen for many girls. And yes, they jack up their prices which become unrealistic for the area they work in. But on the flip side those that do become greedy and increase fees, will often find their gross take declines.

I've said before many girls have no idea when it comes to marketing themselves (long winded profiles and crap pics) and further, they do not realise that in these cash-stretched times, there is a fine line on pricing.  There are a number I've dropped from my hot list as their prices have gone from £120/hr to £160 or £170, and I wont pay it.

Offline AnthG

Problem:   Review a girl very positively (particularly a new young English girl) and she is likely to become less available, put up her prices and lose her good attitude.

You are thinking about this too much. Here for example is a flip to your argument.

You do not review a girl you had a great time with. You want to see her again. And because there is so much competition in the region she does not get the bookings she was expecting on starting this job and thus quits the business.

If you are talking about Adultwork I do not know about anyone else but I treat as a PG scammer anyone with less than around 5 Positive score reviews. So if nobody reviews her, equals everyone thinking that so hardly any bookings.

A similar sort of thing exists with agencies. The Newcastle agencies usually have around 40 girls on their books at any one time. All you have is a photo and some stats. That is one hell of a competition to need to stand out from the crowed from with no way to do it unless you get reviews. Hence hardly any bookings so girl quits.

But in tone with the thread

Another Problem: Review a girl very positively, and she see's it but thinks its not up to her standard and she thinks she deserved an even better review.

Result: Next time you see said girl, she acts with an attitude problem, wants to argue with you about your positive review and generally acts like a crazy psycho throughout the booking. And yes this has happened to me. And I do think this scenario is much more worth worrying over given that prostitutes are quite often narcissistic and psycho.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 04:13:34 PM by AnthG »

Offline Curious

It may be me but WTF!!

 :lol:
Oh come on, answer the question RPG. Yes or no?

Offline rpg

:lol:
Oh come on, answer the question RPG. Yes or no?

 :D I'll go for no.


Offline smiths


I think this can happen for many girls. And yes, they jack up their prices which become unrealistic for the area they work in. But on the flip side those that do become greedy and increase fees, will often find their gross take declines.

I've said before many girls have no idea when it comes to marketing themselves (long winded profiles and crap pics) and further, they do not realise that in these cash-stretched times, there is a fine line on pricing.  There are a number I've dropped from my hot list as their prices have gone from £120/hr to £160 or £170, and I wont pay it.

In my experiences the increase is a temporary thing often as they cash in while they can, what i call punting forum darlings. Seductive Scarlet is a classic example, she got a number of good FRs on auto-censored after Jimmy punted with her including one from me then put her prices up and became much harder to book for sometime.

Offline smiths

Problem:   Review a girl very positively (particularly a new young English girl) and she is likely to become less available, put up her prices and lose her good attitude.

Previous discussion:  This has come up in lots of threads, is acknowledged as a problem, but seen as inevitable, the site still works, most members aren't that calculating, not posting is legitimate, some choose to deal with it by swapping names by pm etc etc.

Question: Is it possible to reduce this dis-incentive, and maybe encourage helpfulness/deter bad behaviour for the general good?  This is of course a punter specific version of the question of how to encourage positive contribution and deter trolling and other anti social behaviour on any internet forum.

To kick off with a straw man:  Every member gets one vote a day, plus or minus, for another member.  Only members see reviews; of those members with a score of up to (pick a number) 5 greater than their own: Democractic, transparent, can be tuned.

To avoid wasting too much time tromping on the straw man I know it probably wouldn't work from a programming point of view and that there may be unanticipated gaming possibilities; it's just a starting point to see how other people think about the question.

I prefer things as they are, but of course only Adam can decide on any changes.

IMO its up to punters whether they wish to do reviews, share by PM or in person or not at all.

Offline SirPhilipXX

Problem:   Review a girl very positively (particularly a new young English girl) and she is likely to become less available, put up her prices and lose her good attitude.

Solution:

DON'T give her positive AW feedback or rating.

DO give her a positive review on UKP.

That way she will not be swamped with messages on AW, but she will get a few more good bookings from those genuine, reliable punters who subscribe to this site.
After all, we are the good guys, right?  :)

Offline smiths

You are thinking about this too much. Here for example is a flip to your argument.

You do not review a girl you had a great time with. You want to see her again. And because there is so much competition in the region she does not get the bookings she was expecting on starting this job and thus quits the business.

If you are talking about Adultwork I do not know about anyone else but I treat as a PG scammer anyone with less than around 5 Positive score reviews. So if nobody reviews her, equals everyone thinking that so hardly any bookings.

A similar sort of thing exists with agencies. The Newcastle agencies usually have around 40 girls on their books at any one time. All you have is a photo and some stats. That is one hell of a competition to need to stand out from the crowed from with no way to do it unless you get reviews. Hence hardly any bookings so girl quits.

But in tone with the thread

Another Problem: Review a girl very positively, and she see's it but thinks its not up to her standard and she thinks she deserved an even better review.

Result: Next time you see said girl, she acts with an attitude problem, wants to argue with you about your positive review and generally acts like a crazy psycho throughout the booking. And yes this has happened to me. And I do think this scenario is much more worth worrying over given that prostitutes are quite often narcissistic and psycho.

I have NEVER had the attitude problem you mention even when i did punt with WGs who knew i did a positive FR on them.

I view A/W totally differently to you, i dont believe a word of feedback unless i know, trust and/or respect the punter who has given it and consequently have punted with MANY excellent WGs that had little or none. I would of missed out on some great punts if i excluded such WGs. Just working off their phones was the reason they had little or no FB.

I do agree about WGs who get no FB might get too few bookings and decide to quit or move elsewhere, a shame but always more fish in the sea is my view.

I would say post a positive review but don't give too much details. Just mention the services she offers, how well she performs these services, positives/negatives and a brief summary. If you find a local excellent VFM regular who you see a few times a week, you might want to keep it quiet or PM other local members.

We need to help each other out. It's not down to us if the prossie becomes shit and jaded. That is down to her mentality, decision-making, attitude and level of greed. Any prossie that fucks 5-7 guys a day will become jaded and mechanical eventually. I personally find I have a good service being the first client on Sunday/day off or seeing a prossie the first week she returns to work in the UK.

Keep writing reports, just mention the basics and keep it brief.

Offline Curious

I'm interested in this only in relation to UKP, not AW.
 
The thing that made me ask was a post by JRC in the troll thread 'Selfish so no review' about not sharing details of a good punt, where he wrote:
Quote
I have never advocated doing no reviews, what I said was if I found a real gem I would keep her to myself, why on earth should I give that information to hundreds of non-members and lurkers who never contribute, I know for a fact that some other members have the same policy.

It's a good point - why should he help lots of people who never contribute, and (implicitly) possibly see the girl put prices up afterwards as was his experience with Lisa?

Or to put it another way, how could things be arranged so it would be worth someone's while to share the 'gems'?
 
One way would be for reviews to be visible only to members - excluding the non-members who by definition don't contribute - and another would be that members who contribute gems (of girls, advice or information) would get the benefit in return of being able to see more reviews, particularly those of other people who contributed as much, and the 'gems' might become jaded a little more slowly as a result.

Non-members, lurkers and trolls would lose out, but it doesn't seem unfair to deny free riders (a part of) their free ride.

Offline vorian

Interesting question and much better put than on some recent threads. I can see your point. Logically any increase in demand for a product or service will result in an increase in demand, or price equilibrium will force the price up. Unless there is an increase in supply of that good or service. Very hard to say how price sensitive the WG service is but I would put punting prices in the inelastic section along the lines of tobacco, alcohol and fuel. Hence price can go up without affecting demand as much as some products where alternative services are available in a free market.

I would say for WG the entry barriers are very low, it’s not hard to set yourself up as a WG, set up costs are very low, no qualifications are needed and no legal requirements.

So we come to problem one, punting does not exist in a free market, no protection for consumers under the sale of goods act, no set standard of service, no mis-selling rules, no legal recourse at all for a poor service. Also we have the problem of a near monopoly in advertising which creates abuse and a corrupted system (AW need I say more).

As these problems have no chance of being fixed in the near future then we have other punters and blind luck to rely on.

Assuming that an increase of positive reviews directly increases demand for a WG and hence an increase in price due to the above factors, and at this point I would like to say other factors should be taken into account.

If I see negative review from a respected UKP member then I would not see the WG. If I see a positive review that’s only step one, I would still take many other factors into account for example location, price, services on offer, size, race, hair colour and many, many, many other things. So a positive review helps a punter to help another punter to know a WG is not a negative but doesn’t guarantee a substantial increase in demand. We all have different requirements its about matching those requirement to a WG and hopefully to a WG who provides a good service.

For the moment let us assume that all factors are equal and see if I can run the math. I will keep it simple, and  can of course be up scaled and I will have to make many assumptions due to the lack of data available.

Let’s have a bit of fun and look at the fictional country of Puntdonia. There are three WGs in this country.

Good (Gives good service, top WG) 100% value for money
Ok    (Hmm ok average service)         50% VFM
Bad   (Awful/liar/Crap service)            0% VFM

Lets assume they are triplets (and yes I’m waiting for the jokes) and look exactly the same, offer the same type of likes, same price each £100 

Year One

Punter One (John) spends £100 once a month £1200pa.

Puntdonia has no UKP and no reliable reviews poor John just has AW, SAAFE and prossynet to help him choose.

So John has been lucky in his first year and with his blind bookings seen Good 6 times, Ok 3 times and Bad 3 times.

Thus £100 x 6 = £600 (100%VFM)  £50 x 3 = £300 (50%VFM) £0 x 3 = £0 (0%VFM)

So out of the £1200 John spent £750 was VFM or  62.5% VFM

SO YEAR ONE 62.5% VFM


Year Two

Puntdonia now has UKP and well done gentlemen you are putting on good and bad reviews. So this year John has more reliable information and makes a more informed choice. However  the downside is because of the reviews Good is more busy and put her prices up, Ok is no more busy price the same price and bad as she is quieter put her price down.

Good £100 to £125
Ok    £100 to £100
Bad  £100 to £75

This year John thanks to UKP reviews still punts once a month but makes better choices. So this year he sees Good 8 times Ok still 3 and bad only once.

Thus £125 x 8  = £1000 (100%VFM)  £50 x 3 = £150 (50%VFM) £0 x 1 = £0 (0%VFM).

Now he has increased his overall spent per annum to £1375 but at this point we are still talking about VFM.

So out of the £1375 John spent £1150 was VFM or  83.6% VFM

SO YEAR TWO 83.6% VFM


Year Three

Puntdonia now has UKP well established  and hundreds of reviews come in a day, When John books he can now almost guarantee a good level of service. Again due to getting even busier Good is now £150 but Ok has now gone down in price to £75 and Bad is £50 (she is thinking about giving up and now can only guarantee punters who only read Prossynet)

Good £125 to £150
Ok    £100 to £75
Bad  £100 to £50

This year John thanks to UKP reviews still punts once a month but makes even better choices. So this year he sees Good 10 times Ok still 2 and bad not all all.

Thus £150 x 10  = £1500 (100%VFM)  £37.5 x 2 = £75 (50%VFM) £0 x 0 = £0 (0%VFM).

Now he has increased his overall spent per annum to £1650 but again at this point we are still talking about VFM.

So out of the £1650 John spent £1575 was VFM or  95.4% VFM

SO YEAR THREE 95.4% VFM

Conclusion

As you can see John is punting the same amount of time but has increased his VFM from 62.5% to 95.4% over three years. Due to reviews helping him make better choices and yes Good has increased her prices from £100 to £150 due to her having so many more bookings thanks to good UKP reviews.

Now this is only a bit of fun but I hoped to somewhat illustrate the point I wanted to make that the more honest reviews we have on UKP the better VFM all punters get even if it does result in higher prices for the good WG’s.

I’m sure there are many flaws in my example which I look forward to discussing with you all. I will try to address a few problems I can see now.

As bad WG stops working due to a lack of work and Ok goes part time for the same reason VFM will cap at at 100%. Overall however following my model Good price will keep going up and John’s will have to spend more money each year to have the same amount of bookings.

Yes however in Puntdonia we now have a standard level of service and a fair and equal market place, so price equilibrium now works and prices will stabilise and not increase forever there will be a upper level at which new service providers will enter the market and stabilise prices but now the overall market will have a much higher base level of service.

Does this work if I have a regular and I don’t have a free choice as much as some? True if your regular is more and more busy her prices may go up and you do not benefit as much others may. However you still have a choice to see other WG’s and I have heard example of good regulars, keeping her regular punters on a fixed price anyway.

I suppose the point I make is reviews benefit us all in the long term and can change the overall standard of service. One thing I have learnt myself recently is how reviews can be subjective. Perhaps a topic for a future thread would be should we have some sort of standardised review system, simple but effective as at the moment we all write reviews very differently. Which in turn can cause confusion
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Online James999

Don't bother with positive reviews then, it's not a punters job to promote pro$$ies, perhaps exchange her details with like minded punters who also provide you with info  :hi:

If you get ripped off or bad service then by all means publish the details to warn others  :angelgirl:

Offline vorian

Totally agree with you James regarding poor reviews we should all do them as a warning to other punters. You are quite right that it is not a customers job to promote WG's.

However the market place for punting is not fair and even and lacks the many basic legal protections of modern society. If I have a broken boiler and call someone to fix it, if they provide me with a overall good service and do what they say they will do. I see no reason not to post a review on a web-site telling other potential customers of the good service. Part of modern internet culture is the use of direct and indirect feedback. I would always check tripadvisor before booking a hotel or look at customer reviews before buying a product from Amazon. I see no difference when it comes to buying a service from a WG.

Sometimes people make it too personal it is a business transaction like any other, only one without the legal protection one would expect when making a normal purchase hence that makes reviewing of WG by honest people even more important.

I do not feel I am promoting the plumber when I write a good review for him, what I feel I am doing is helping the next customer make a more informed choice and if that plumber is more busy he will expand his business or more plumbers who give the same level of service will enter the market place. The bad plumbers who give a poor service service to their customers will have less and less work and eventually give up the job as they will have more poor reviews than good ones. There should be no difference in why we give good or bad reviews as they both achieve the same goal in the long term.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline smiths

Don't bother with positive reviews then, it's not a punters job to promote pro$$ies, perhaps exchange her details with like minded punters who also provide you with info  :hi:

If you get ripped off or bad service then by all means publish the details to warn others  :angelgirl:

Indeed. Grow a pair if your one of those punters too scared to do a negative review on a WG on A/W in case she gives you negative feedback so do it on here instead not giving the date of the punt just that it was recent.

Whatever dont let bad WGs off the hook, they are no doubt laughing their tits off at punters being too scared to give them negative FB. :hi:

Offline adindas

Punters do not need to be told or to be given incentive to write a negative review. There is already natural incentive to publish negative review, e.g personal vendetta .....

Offline Zeusthedoc

agreed -

I am definitely guilty of, more specifically newcomers, but people in general jumping on threads to add their 2 pence worth.

don't get me wrong....if it is useful, it's welcome....

half the shit i say might not be helpful - but i would like to think that I'm an honest person...

I've just learned to take pretty much everything (unless from a pre-ordained, or well-known source) with a fistful of salt....
doesn't do much good for your blood-pressure though!


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)