Are leeches on here offended by the term 'leech'?

[sparkus]

Just wondering, does anyone actually sit there pilfering all the intel ahead of their punts and thinking 'So harsh! I just don't have the time! Why don't they understand?'

Or is the so-called "leech" merely just an occasional occurrence of the three posts in five years UKP member review question dropper we all call out? (and who usually gets triggered by this accusation)

Women in massage shops frequently complain they're ran off their feet, well they're not being reviewed on here.

[standardpostage]

I don't think they will be offended.
Because they most probably have a genuine reason for not contributing.
EG Fear of being caught out, worried in case this website gets hacked, joining this forum but not punting, not being confident in writing reviews, embarrassment in paying for sex etc.
Not sticking up for them, I'm just guessing.

[willie loman]

my view is that people who post enjoy doing so on the whole, so lets not get on our high horse over non contributors.

[stevedave]

I can't wait for all the leeches to come out of the shadows to defend themselves 

[Straightsix]

In order to receive a worthy answer you would need to consider whether 'leeches' operate/function (the definition another thread) as we do. I have learnt that there are members on this forum who suffer (I presume) from lifelong developmental disabilities because interactions are not as expected. Are we discriminating if we judge?
Maybe some people enjoy reading reviews and strangling their cock all day? Maybe these guys do not punt at all? Maybe they are introverted misanthropes? Maybe they are incapable of defending themselves?
Just saying fellas, we are all strange in our own little ways.

Apart from me who's totally vanilla. 🤭

[LLPunting]

It would be great if the stats page included "No. of different posters" per day and per week and "No. of different users logged in per week".  It would also be very enlightening to see how many (or the %age of) paying subs are logging in and how many are posting, there must be a good few thousand paying members now.
Finally understanding just how many people UKP "speaks" for would be a great clearing of the air and perhaps put paid to the seemingly disproportionate contempt that it may be held in by those SPs who choose to be offended by it.

There seem to be a few hundred active contributors, likely still less than a thousand if you include infrequent posters (that still post meaningfully more than once in weeks), which means that there could be thousands of leeches given the sign-up rate and number of daily logins, especially now that new membership costs money.  It certainly feels like a minority are contributing, perhaps even a smallish one.  What makes it more noticeable is the uptick in difficulty booking favourably reviewed SPs after the news drops, it can't just be the actives all bundling in because the reviews don't then surface (unless many of the actives are actually withholding alot of their activity).

There are thousands upon thousands of SPs open for business everyday and thousands will be visited, yet on UKP's most active days we might see a couple of dozen new reviews, only a fraction of which will be "TOFTTs".  Some reports in recent years suggest 10-12% of UK men under 74 have seen a sex-worker and the count is rising as more are open to admitting it and more perhaps are open to paying for sex.

Sure the vast majority of us don't punt everyday or even every week but as a collective beyond just contributors we must be tapping more than a few handfuls of SPs a week?!  1300+ punters checking in each day, are we really a little club watching just a select cadre of prolific swordsmen knobbing SPs?

So perhaps UKP is just a tiny fraction of the punting community only seeing a (select) portion of the SPs available but I'm inclined to believe that alot of the membership who are logging in (silent leeches or something inbetween) may well be seeing SPs and keeping those outcomes to themselves and I can only hope in vain they discover a conscience and a sense of community.

[Straightsix]

So perhaps UKP is just a tiny fraction of the punting community only seeing a (select) portion of the SPs available

For real!👍

[LLPunting]

my view is that people who post enjoy doing so on the whole, so lets not get on our high horse over non contributors.

The site is billed as a contributor's forum for the open exchange of information by (active) punters.  It's not ostensibly a content publisher feeding fiction for the passive consumer.  That being the case then there's every justification to have a go at the people who are clearly only taking for their selfish benefit and possibly making the market worse by their behaviours.

[LLPunting]

I don't think they will be offended.
Because they most probably have a genuine reason for not contributing.
EG Fear of being caught out, worried in case this website gets hacked, joining this forum but not punting, not being confident in writing reviews, embarrassment in paying for sex etc.
Not sticking up for them, I'm just guessing.

It's an anonymous website, all you need is an anonymous email address that you can be bothered to remember the (hopefully non-trivial) password for and otherwise be discrete about your browsing history.

It's as simple as open a private browser session, go to ukpunting.com, type in username, type in memorised password, (do not let browser remember it) and then indulge as much as you have private time for.
Managing a punting phone is barely more complex: get any old handset, get PAYG SIM, top up minimum amount to minimise loss if you have to toss it, make your enquiries, delete call and messaging histories if you really need to be that discrete.

[willie loman]

The site is billed as a contributor's forum for the open exchange of information by (active) punters.  It's not ostensibly a content publisher feeding fiction for the passive consumer.  That being the case then there's every justification to have a go at the people who are clearly only taking for their selfish benefit and possibly making the market worse by their behaviours.

that was indeed the mission statement, but the reality is somewhat different, its people who like posting about this and that , who do most of the posting. i dont actually see the point about calling out people who dont contribute, there are in fact enough reviews , for the average punter to make an informed choice.

[LLPunting]

that was indeed the mission statement, but the reality is somewhat different, its people who like posting about this and that , who do most of the posting. i dont actually see the point about calling out people who dont contribute, there are in fact enough reviews , for the average punter to make an informed choice.

There are only reviews of a small proportion of the SPs working, many repeats for "popular" girls, so when you say "enough" what is your criteria for that determination?
And an informed choice about what exactly?  "Oh there's a tasty bird, not the one I found or fancy, but apparently she's probably a safe punt."

[RAJEC]

Just wondering, does anyone actually sit there pilfering all the intel ahead of their punts and thinking 'So harsh! I just don't have the time! Why don't they understand?'

Or is the so-called "leech" merely just an occasional occurrence of the three posts in five years UKP member review question dropper we all call out? (and who usually gets triggered by this accusation)

Women in massage shops frequently complain they're ran off their feet, well they're not being reviewed on here.

Does a cunt know they’re a cunt?

[willie loman]

There are only reviews of a small proportion of the SPs working, many repeats for "popular" girls, so when you say "enough" what is your criteria for that determination?
And an informed choice about what exactly?  "Oh there's a tasty bird, not the one I found or fancy, but apparently she's probably a safe punt."

i would say the average punter would be happy with a choice of 3, on any given day in edinburgh i reckon that there are around 20 girls available in saunas and flats who have a number of reviews.

[bedhedred]

If you download torrent files there are seeders and leeches. I thought that was the origin of the term.

I think privacy, laziness and fear of identifying themselves are disincentives to dropping reviews.

[Colston36]

Does it really matter? Some people like to write; others don't. Some are good at it; others aren't. At least one writes so pretentiously it makes me mutter curses to myself. I get enough information on here. Much more would take up too much of my time.

[willie loman]

Does it really matter? Some people like to write; others don't. Some are good at it; others aren't. At least one writes so pretentiously it makes me mutter curses to myself. I get enough information on here. Much more would take up too much of my time.

+1

[contentguy]

Perhaps we should have a Leech List?

I’d nominate as a first, Mario.Luigi69
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=318382

Said he left the site in March but keeps taking a look here.

[RAJEC]

Perhaps we should have a Leech List?

I’d nominate as a first, Mario.Luigi69
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=318382

Said he left the site in March but keeps taking a look here.

A leech table!

With a leech-erboard!

And a leach cup, to see who lasts the longest on here!

[contentguy]

A leech table!

With a leech-erboard!

And a leach cup, to see who lasts the longest on here!

It’s an idea, but protagonists such as Luigi who seem to log in every day I look at them (which hasn’t been for ages) still get access to our reviews, despite saying they won’t contribute because of privacy.

He’s a first order twat, prepared to contribute on AW but not on here.

[sparkus]

Perhaps we should have a Leech List?

I’d nominate as a first, Mario.Luigi69
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=318382

Said he left the site in March but keeps taking a look here.

Woodwork, meet woodworm: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=320917.0

[stampjones]

I think old admin posted about this when he owned the site about how on the internet only some low percentage posted on forums in general while most just read. He said he was cool with that and got a kick out of helping people out so in his view leeches were welcome. (Things have changed a bit with the newer rules.)

I kind of agree with that and I definitely like helping fellow punters where I can. The ones that I really cant stand though are the ones who contribute nothing but do post to ask questions.

Back to non-contributors. Fair enough if you dont want to register or have a history of your posts, attributable to you but those excuses go out the window if you post. If you can ask questions you can provide information and I think that your question count should be way lower than your “provider” count. Sorry Sparkus - turned into more of a rant than an answer 

[Punterperson1971]

I can't wait for all the leeches to come out of the shadows to defend themselves 

I was going to say something similar

[Punterperson1971]

A leech table!

With a leech-erboard!

And a leach cup, to see who lasts the longest on here!

We could have knockout stages or head to head lack of contributions wins

[cotton]

Does it really matter? Some people like to write; others don't. Some are good at it; others aren't. At least one writes so pretentiously it makes me mutter curses to myself. I get enough information on here. Much more would take up too much of my time.

name and shame 

Aside from that id say first off if you have paid for membership then in one sense you have defacto contributed to the site.
+ I can see the point LL makes that it can be said that leeches contribute nothing and by leeching info off others also make the well reviewed girls harder to book for everyone , so its a double negative.
Id offset that against the credibility the site gains from acting as a widereaching force to benefit all punters and the rights of punters to punt safely , succesfully, legally and uninterfered with, but i can defo see the arguement for actively encouraging non-contributors to contribute.

[Punterperson1971]

@dillanbright
It’s laughable when they claim Covid as an excuse or in his case(above)waiting for booster jab but been a member since October 2017 so what’s his excuse for first 3 years.

[Captainhowdy666]

Just makes no sense whatsoever to be on a punting forum and not even punt.
Would be the equivalent of me joining a knitting forum.

[Marmalade]

Leeches can be welcome or not. Let’s not get politically correct over a term.

[Mr Sinister]

I think old admin posted about this when he owned the site about how on the internet only some low percentage posted on forums in general while most just read. He said he was cool with that and got a kick out of helping people out so in his view leeches were welcome. (Things have changed a bit with the newer rules.)

I kind of agree with that and I definitely like helping fellow punters where I can. The ones that I really cant stand though are the ones who contribute nothing but do post to ask questions.

Back to non-contributors. Fair enough if you dont want to register or have a history of your posts, attributable to you but those excuses go out the window if you post. If you can ask questions you can provide information and I think that your question count should be way lower than your “provider” count. Sorry Sparkus - turned into more of a rant than an answer 

I believe it's this, I lurk on many forums but don't post in them, I have forums that I enjoy posting in week to week so at times do not want to join any more. Lurking/leeching can have a negative effect if someone is taking information from here but acting reckless on the outside world, see it on other forums all the time.


Also people who constantly come here to ask about a girl when having only 4 posts and 0 reviews like just toftt  and report back simple.

[tynetunnel]

Just makes no sense whatsoever to be on a punting forum and not even punt.
Would be the equivalent of me joining a knitting forum.

Oh come on Captainhowdy666, don’t be shy! Come and join us: External Link/Members Only 

[bedhedred]

Gruffydd
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=9656

No way you've been a member since 2013 with no reviews! Go find out!

[sparkus]

Just makes no sense whatsoever to be on a punting forum and not even punt.
Would be the equivalent of me joining a knitting forum.

I may not stand the sight of kids or have a womb but why shouldn't I be on not allowed?!

[Fugly]

why shouldn't I be on not allowed?!

I am.  My alter ego messes with their heads as much as possible, especially when it comes to the skin trade; fucking harpies that they are.....

[Fence Post]

I think one problem is the "initiation ritual" many long standing contributors put newbie reviewers through.
Not everyone is comfortable discribing a meet in graphic detail. At the end of the day, we basically need to know if a SP is worth seeing. Even if a 1st time contributor simply confirms a girl's photos and discription are accurate and in a safe location, we are all better off and more knowledgeable. Passing comments about how good a girl was the last time you saw her also devalue the worth of a review if a Newbie reports a lackluster performance. I sometimes wonder how a SP in her 20 or 30's can 'turn it on' for a fat, bolding late 50 yo and give as good a service as she would for a hunky 30 yo stud in the prime of his life. It's all about building confidence with these Newbies, several major contributors are good with encouragement and are able to tease extra information out of more nervous contributors. Indeed, several have pm'd me in the past with helpfull advice - I thank you sirs - this help has been invaluable.

[Punterperson1971]

I think one problem is the "initiation ritual" many long standing contributors put newbie reviewers through.
Not everyone is comfortable discribing a meet in graphic detail. At the end of the day, we basically need to know if a SP is worth seeing. Even if a 1st time contributor simply confirms a girl's photos and discription are accurate and in a safe location, we are all better off and more knowledgeable. Passing comments about how good a girl was the last time you saw her also devalue the worth of a review if a Newbie reports a lackluster performance. I sometimes wonder how a SP in her 20 or 30's can 'turn it on' for a fat, bolding late 50 yo and give as good a service as she would for a hunky 30 yo stud in the prime of his life. It's all about building confidence with these Newbies, several major contributors are good with encouragement and are able to tease extra information out of more nervous contributors. Indeed, several have pm'd me in the past with helpfull advice - I thank you sirs - this help has been invaluable.

It’s not just the ones who signed up end of December beginning of 2021 it’s the ones who’ve laid dormant for a few years till they pipe up with a comment like”oh I saw her the other week”things like that is annoying when a lot of us are contributing in one way or another

[Fence Post]

Point taken PP'71,
I fully agree with that sentiment, the EE girls running a convayor can't be seeing all non UKP clients. How many out there, seeing 6-10 guys a day, 6 days a week but never have a review on here? Surely there are some dormant members involved. As I mentioned, a brief discription is all it takes to break the ice.

[sparkus]

And, like clockwork: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=139562.msg3346779#msg3346779

[Iceman90]

The ones who comment on reviews saying they’ve seen the girl without reviewing her themselves piss me off the most. Sometimes they reveal some potentially important information only after the punter TOFTT and wastes money.

[tynetunnel]

And, like clockwork: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=139562.msg3346779#msg3346779

Unreal! Just unreal!

[yandex]

that was indeed the mission statement, but the reality is somewhat different, its people who like posting about this and that , who do most of the posting. i dont actually see the point about calling out people who dont contribute, there are in fact enough reviews , for the average punter to make an informed choice.

Agree, and

Does it really matter? Some people like to write; others don't. Some are good at it; others aren't. At least one writes so pretentiously it makes me mutter curses to myself. I get enough information on here. Much more would take up too much of my time.

Agree.

I'm always intrigued by people who complain about this, what exactly do they classify as leeching?

For example, I'm a very infrequent punter so I hardly have a huge number of reviews but I always make sure I review every punt. Does 1 or 2 punts a year and therefore 1 or 2 reviews a year make me a leech? I always do my due diligence on here first so I am getting out far more than I contribute.

Does a post vs review count have any bearing? There are lots of forum members with huge post counts and relatively few reviews, although to be fair, they do seem to be slowly being weeded out so maybe that will be a thing of the past.

Do forum members who deliberately don't post details of 'good' or regular WGs classify as leeches?

[sparkus]

For example, I'm a very infrequent punter so I hardly have a huge number of reviews but I always make sure I review every punt. Does 1 or 2 punts a year and therefore 1 or 2 reviews a year make me a leech? I always do my due diligence on here first so I am getting out far more than I contribute.

No.

People who read and act on intel but either never contribute or only ever ask questions are indeed not only leeches but legion.

[Laudanum]

I must admit I'd been a member of the site for a year before my first post (which was a review). I had read so many posts condemning people for posting if they hadn't reviewed, it kind of intimidated me.

There was one guy in particular (now banned) who had Donald Trump as his avatar, who indulged in this.

Needless to say I will always review anyone I see (haven't seen anyone recently due to ED, Covid and MH issues).

It is possible that some people feel similar, although to just ask questions and never post otherwise is, rightly, frowned upon.

[Marmalade]

I must admit I'd been a member of the site for a year before my first post (which was a review). I had read so many posts condemning people for posting if they hadn't reviewed, it kind of intimidated me.

There was one guy in particular (now banned) who had Donald Trump as his avatar, who indulged in this.

Needless to say I will always review anyone I see (haven't seen anyone recently due to ED, Covid and MH issues).

It is possible that some people feel similar, although to just ask questions and never post otherwise is, rightly, frowned upon.

If you’re feeling a lack of attention in the form of people not ‘condemning’ you any more I’m sure we could be persuaded to give it another shot.

Only one review in four years??!!

There. Feel better now?

[sparkus]

I must admit I'd been a member of the site for a year before my first post (which was a review). I had read so many posts condemning people for posting if they hadn't reviewed, it kind of intimidated me.

There was one guy in particular (now banned) who had Donald Trump as his avatar, who indulged in this.

Needless to say I will always review anyone I see (haven't seen anyone recently due to ED, Covid and MH issues).

It is possible that some people feel similar, although to just ask questions and never post otherwise is, rightly, frowned upon.

A lot of first time reviewers state 'First review but long time lurker' etc.  OK, fair enough, all got to start somewhere.

What really boils my piss is "First time reviewer, go easy on me"

[Marmalade]

A lot of first time reviewers state 'First review but long time lurker' etc.  OK, fair enough, all got to start somewhere.

Funny how no-one says, ‘First review but long time leech'.

Once they start reviewing they’re no longer leeching, so they were ‘lurkers’ after all.

No point in getting rid of the term leech though when many never review. It’s simply factual.

It’s like calling fat people ‘a few extra pounds’ and blind people ‘visually challenged’. If you’re a fat blind fucker might as well deal with it. Even easier for leeches: just choose not to be.

 

[Punterperson1971]

Funny how no-one says, ‘First review but long time leech'.

Once they start reviewing they’re no longer leeching, so they were ‘lurkers’ after all.

No point in getting rid of the term leech though when many never review. It’s simply factual.

It’s like calling fat people ‘a few extra pounds’ and blind people ‘visually challenged’. If you’re a fat blind fucker might as well deal with it. Even easier for leeches: just choose not to be.

 

If your fat and blind and a leech and your on here you are definitely fucked 

[SamOmar]

I must admit I'd been a member of the site for a year before my first post (which was a review). I had read so many posts condemning people for posting if they hadn't reviewed, it kind of intimidated me.

There was one guy in particular (now banned) who had Donald Trump as his avatar, who indulged in this.

Needless to say I will always review anyone I see (haven't seen anyone recently due to ED, Covid and MH issues).

It is possible that some people feel similar, although to just ask questions and never post otherwise is, rightly, frowned upon.

Don't be intimidated , however you listed reasons for not punting, then why appear on the forum? If I was taking an extended break (6 months - 3 years) from punting I will simply log out and return once I have chosen a lady, read her reviews before posting my experience.

[char45]

Personally I see leeches as the contributors of the future, I've been in groups which have very committed members but not a pool of leeches and when the members lose interest the group dies, if there were lots of leeches at least there is a chance some will step up.

Also what's the solution? If leeches were forced to review the site would be flooded with nonsense reviews. Even worse if it was just based on making posts then we would have even more posts rehashing the same topics.

I'd prefer leeches to make useful contributions but I don't particularly mind them not doing so.

[daviemac]

Personally I see leeches as the contributors of the future, I've been in groups which have very committed members but not a pool of leeches and when the members lose interest the group dies, if there were lots of leeches at least there is a chance some will step up.

Also what's the solution? If leeches were forced to review the site would be flooded with nonsense reviews. Even worse if it was just based on making posts then we would have even more posts rehashing the same topics.

I'd prefer leeches to make useful contributions but I don't particularly mind them not doing so.

OldAdmin tried it, the rule was you had to post withing a certain timeframe or be banned, it didn't work, the place was flooded with one word posts just to keep their membership.

[sparkus]

Personally I see leeches as the contributors of the future, I've been in groups which have very committed members but not a pool of leeches and when the members lose interest the group dies, if there were lots of leeches at least there is a chance some will step up.

Also what's the solution? If leeches were forced to review the site would be flooded with nonsense reviews. Even worse if it was just based on making posts then we would have even more posts rehashing the same topics.

I'd prefer leeches to make useful contributions but I don't particularly mind them not doing so.

Even if that contribution is just to ask questions of other members for their own convenience of not having a shite punt?

I'd be interested to crunch the numbers of regular reviewers/intel posters versus the number active non-contributors as a ratio...

[sparkus]

We need some kind of marketing/awareness campaign for this.

'Real punters don't leech'
'Log on a punter, log off a leech'