Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: How do you really get to the truth on feedback - on UK Punting or AdultWork??  (Read 3900 times)

Offline Natwest

I've had an email exchange today with a WG who is very convenient to where I work and was planning a visit. I did a search on here and the feedback strongly advised me not to see her. Being an honest type of guy, I sent her the link from here as to why I would not be going ahead with the booking. The outcome has really made me rather contemplative.

I am not going to put a link because I don't want to get drawn into a specific argument over Punter v WG but I must admit that I was expecting to get my head ripped off but received a very polite response. The original review was "Negative" and this was her reply after I sent her the link.

"Hi
Wow no I didn't know about this

I can pin point the exact client, he stunk and hence why I wouldn't kiss him nor let him go down on me and due to his drunk behaviour and do winging a bottle of wine in 30 minutes I asked him to leave

I can totally understand where your coming from and that's fine, but I wouldn't have the feed back I do if what he's saying was true.

One bad comment in 40

Thanks anyway

Xxxx"

She further emailed

"It's totally upset me and ruined my day, I can't believe someone would be so evil.
He was disgusting and clearly has a drink problem which is something I categorically dislike.

Thanks again for warning me, don't feel you have to say anything on my behalf, it makes me sick that a man can be so nasty and vile about a woman in this manner,

Anyway I'm going to stop there before I wind my self up further

Thanks again

X"

Now I know the AW feedback system is fundamentally flawed because it is in nobodys interest to give a negative comment.

But this did get me wondering that the basis of UK Punting is generally Punters are right and WG's are wrong. However,  most of us have never met and we have no idea who we are conversing with. How do we know we aren't supporting and agreeing with some pretty vile people?


Offline Tricky Dickie

I'm a bit confused. According to the SP this was the only bad comment in 40. Why did you feel you absolutely had to cancel based on that without contacting the SP first?

For what it's worth I normally consider how much feedback the SP has and how recent it is.

vt

  • Guest
As with all feedback you've got to be informed as to the reliability of the reviewer.

AW feedback is mostly useless as nobody wants to post anything negative because of prossie retaliation.

Pnet reviews tend toward the fluffy end of the spectrum for similar reasons. An establishment got one of my negatives taken down because she the girl had 'moved on or retired'...or probably sacked in her case! But it got a negative off their books. I reckon there are fake positives on there, but no way of proving it.

UKP reviews are generally more reliable and have no-holds-barred honesty, but we have had fake malicious reviews here and there are some that tend to fluffiness. When I write reviews I try to think of the best thing about the punt and the most disappointing thing and give some colour of what's in-between.

There are flaws in every system, UKP is the best because it allows for most anonymity, but my best info comes via PM from trusted members who punt in the same areas as me.

vt

  • Guest
To the OP...either you still want to see her despite that review...or you won't consider her because of it. I can't see what you hoped to achieve winding her up about it.

Offline smiths

I've had an email exchange today with a WG who is very convenient to where I work and was planning a visit. I did a search on here and the feedback strongly advised me not to see her. Being an honest type of guy, I sent her the link from here as to why I would not be going ahead with the booking. The outcome has really made me rather contemplative.

I am not going to put a link because I don't want to get drawn into a specific argument over Punter v WG but I must admit that I was expecting to get my head ripped off but received a very polite response. The original review was "Negative" and this was her reply after I sent her the link.

"Hi
Wow no I didn't know about this

I can pin point the exact client, he stunk and hence why I wouldn't kiss him nor let him go down on me and due to his drunk behaviour and do winging a bottle of wine in 30 minutes I asked him to leave

I can totally understand where your coming from and that's fine, but I wouldn't have the feed back I do if what he's saying was true.

One bad comment in 40

Thanks anyway

Xxxx"

She further emailed

"It's totally upset me and ruined my day, I can't believe someone would be so evil.
He was disgusting and clearly has a drink problem which is something I categorically dislike.

Thanks again for warning me, don't feel you have to say anything on my behalf, it makes me sick that a man can be so nasty and vile about a woman in this manner,

Anyway I'm going to stop there before I wind my self up further

Thanks again

X"

Now I know the AW feedback system is fundamentally flawed because it is in nobodys interest to give a negative comment.

But this did get me wondering that the basis of UK Punting is generally Punters are right and WG's are wrong. However,  most of us have never met and we have no idea who we are conversing with. How do we know we aren't supporting and agreeing with some pretty vile people?

I use my best judgement and for me its about the credibility as i see it of the punter. Some havent any credibility to me so i dont just blindly believe what they post.

fredpunter

  • Guest
The punter was smelly and drunk is a common excuse given for poor service. If he was so smelly and drunk why wait 30 mins before sending him away? She could have refused to see him at all.

Offline Natwest

I'm a bit confused. According to the SP this was the only bad comment in 40. Why did you feel you absolutely had to cancel based on that without contacting the SP first?

For what it's worth I normally consider how much feedback the SP has and how recent it is.

My instinct is that a "Negative" review on UKP outweighs the "Positive" reviews on AW. As I stated it is not in the punters interest on AW to give a negative review particularly if you have only just started. 

The point I make is that we have no idea whether reviewers themselves (which includes me) on UKP are credible or decent people. The way UKP works doesn't give a right of reply. Very few WG's are articulate enough to defend themselves and survive on here. So the reviews carry a lot of weight even though the reviewer might be an alcoholic, violent or have mental issues.


Offline Natwest

The punter was smelly and drunk is a common excuse given for poor service. If he was so smelly and drunk why wait 30 mins before sending him away? She could have refused to see him at all.

That's very true. But if he has turned up drunk she could reasonably argue that she took that booking expecting him to arrive in a fit state. Why should she lose the money when he is at fault and possibly she turned someone else down in favour of him?

This is my point. We have no idea who is telling the truth but we automatically side with the punter.

Offline Natwest

To the OP...either you still want to see her despite that review...or you won't consider her because of it. I can't see what you hoped to achieve winding her up about it.

I don't think there was an intention to wind her up. I said I wasn't going to take the booking because of it and gave her the link expecting that she would give me some verbal but she didn't and I think she gave a very reasonable response. Which then got me to thinking that her description of the punter was pretty horrible. But I don't know who is telling the truth - hence the thread.

Nimrod

  • Guest
How do you really get to the truth on feedback - on UK Punting or AW??

Ask Jimmy. Hasn't he fucked them all?  :D

Offline smiths

That's very true. But if he has turned up drunk she could reasonably argue that she took that booking expecting him to arrive in a fit state. Why should she lose the money when he is at fault and possibly she turned someone else down in favour of him?

This is my point. We have no idea who is telling the truth but we automatically side with the punter.

On your second paragraph, of course thats the case, thats why this is a punters site, NOT a WGs forum. A punting forum works on the assumption unless the owner/mods know otherwise that the punter is posting the truth.

Offline Natwest

On your second paragraph, of course thats the case, thats why this is a punters site, NOT a WGs forum. A punting forum works on the assumption unless the owner/mods know otherwise that the punter is posting the truth.

That's a very good point but this thread through nobody's fault took something like 6 months before the truth was uncovered.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=19164.0

I guess it could have caused the girl in question a fair bit of lost revenue. I don't have the funds to risk whether in this case the punter is an arsehole or the wg is a liar but i would hate to find out six months down the line he was an arsehole - not because I didn't punt but because it isn't fair on the girl as in the thread above.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 02:38:14 pm by Natwest »

fredpunter

  • Guest
That's very true. But if he has turned up drunk she could reasonably argue that she took that booking expecting him to arrive in a fit state. Why should she lose the money when he is at fault and possibly she turned someone else down in favour of him?

This is my point. We have no idea who is telling the truth but we automatically side with the punter.

I went to see a lass once who was good looking and promised the earth. I paid for 2 hours, and the first hour was ok-ish (i was very new to punting) though she avoided delivering some promised services, and asked extra for others. But then after an hour she said her shift was over but she would get another girl to do the second hour ....... apparently she only had the room till 9 and our booking had started at 8. I was gov smacked, particularly when girl 2 was shirt, fat, ugly and scowling like a pit bull. Her greeting to me was a snarled "I only do straight sex, nuffink else" , not even a hello it appeared.

I was not impressed and eventually got a token refund of some of my money and left. If you check my feedback on AW after I left an accurate description of what happened in her feedback, she responded by describing me as an impotent rapist who was a danger to women! Doubtless there are bad punters, but its very easy to invent some bullshit reason why they gave a crap service, and they very often do.

I repeat, if he was so fucking horrible that she didn't want to do her job with him, she should have said so at the start, not after she had taken his money.

Offline smiths

That's a very good point but this thread through nobody's fault took something like 6 months before the truth was uncovered.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=19164.0

I guess it could have caused the girl in question a fair bit of lost revenue. I don't have the funds to risk whether in this case the punter is an arsehole or the wg is a liar but i would hate to find out six months down the line he was an arsehole - not because I didn't punt but because it isn't fair on the girl as in the thread above.

Sadly there are some lying low lifes about. Be them rival WGs or pimps pretending to be punters, admin and all of us that care do our best to out such posters but it sometimes takes some time.

Offline Natwest

Sadly there are some lying low lifes about. Be them rival WGs or pimps pretending to be punters, admin and all of us that care do our best to out such posters but it sometimes takes some time.

I think that sums it up very well. There are decent punters and decent WG's And there are arsehole punters and arsehole WG's.

I read through the reviews of the punter who the WG called to question. Three of the reviews he had done all stated that they wouldn't DFK even though it was in their profile. This did give some circumstantial evidence to the alcoholic breath mentioned by the WG at the root of this thread. There was also quite a lot of refusal of other services mentioned on all three. I'm not sure I would like to raise that with the punter in question though. But I might look a lot closer in future.

Offline Natwest

I went to see a lass once who was good looking and promised the earth. I paid for 2 hours, and the first hour was ok-ish (i was very new to punting) though she avoided delivering some promised services, and asked extra for others. But then after an hour she said her shift was over but she would get another girl to do the second hour ....... apparently she only had the room till 9 and our booking had started at 8. I was gov smacked, particularly when girl 2 was shirt, fat, ugly and scowling like a pit bull. Her greeting to me was a snarled "I only do straight sex, nuffink else" , not even a hello it appeared.

I was not impressed and eventually got a token refund of some of my money and left. If you check my feedback on AW after I left an accurate description of what happened in her feedback, she responded by describing me as an impotent rapist who was a danger to women! Doubtless there are bad punters, but its very easy to invent some bullshit reason why they gave a crap service, and they very often do.

I repeat, if he was so fucking horrible that she didn't want to do her job with him, she should have said so at the start, not after she had taken his money.

I think the difference is that in your case, the WG/WG's were clearly in the wrong. You turned up fighting fit, cock in hand and ready to go.

In this case, if the WG is to be believed, the punter did not turn up in a fit state. In the same way that if you turn up drunk to get on an aeroplane you don't get a refund if you are refused to board, why should she refund the money when she could have taken a booking with someone else? When the punter arrives drunk its too late to get another punter. I don't blame her. It is her livelihood after all.

Offline Tricky Dickie

My instinct is that a "Negative" review on UKP outweighs the "Positive" reviews on AW. As I stated it is not in the punters interest on AW to give a negative review particularly if you have only just started. 

The point I make is that we have no idea whether reviewers themselves (which includes me) on UKP are credible or decent people. The way UKP works doesn't give a right of reply. Very few WG's are articulate enough to defend themselves and survive on here. So the reviews carry a lot of weight even though the reviewer might be an alcoholic, violent or have mental issues.
To me a negative review does't outweigh a positive review. I've met some very nice girls who have the odd negative review and I've always had a good time. Then again I'm clean, punctual, respectful and pay the agreed amount.

I think if I see a pattern in negative reviews then I'd be worried. And I'd not even consider a SP who doesn't make their reviews public. That said, when I haven't had a good time on AW (not often) I haven't left a negative review myself because that might affect my rating. What I do is just not review at all. My theory is that a lot of punters do the same thing. So a big gap in reviews, or no reviews for the past few months if i know the SP has been working would probably worry me more than a negative review.

Offline smiths

To me a negative review does't outweigh a positive review. I've met some very nice girls who have the odd negative review and I've always had a good time. Then again I'm clean, punctual, respectful and pay the agreed amount.

I think if I see a pattern in negative reviews then I'd be worried. And I'd not even consider a SP who doesn't make their reviews public. That said, when I haven't had a good time on AW (not often) I haven't left a negative review myself because that might affect my rating. What I do is just not review at all. My theory is that a lot of punters do the same thing. So a big gap in reviews, or no reviews for the past few months if i know the SP has been working would probably worry me more than a negative review.

And this worry about it affecting your rating on A/W no doubt has bad WGs and their pimps laughing their heads off at punters stupidity. You have allowed yourself along with other punters who think the same to let the WG dictate the terms of your punts. Thats REALLY bad news for other punters in my view.

I hope such punters consider doing reviews of such WGs on here though so at least punters on here know about these bad WGs.

Offline smiths

I think that sums it up very well. There are decent punters and decent WG's And there are arsehole punters and arsehole WG's.

I read through the reviews of the punter who the WG called to question. Three of the reviews he had done all stated that they wouldn't DFK even though it was in their profile. This did give some circumstantial evidence to the alcoholic breath mentioned by the WG at the root of this thread. There was also quite a lot of refusal of other services mentioned on all three. I'm not sure I would like to raise that with the punter in question though. But I might look a lot closer in future.

My point was they arent actually punters, they are other WGs or pimps trying to damage the business of rivals.

Offline Daffodil

The prostitute has a vested interest in making up bullshit, it's her income and a possible booking that we're talking about.

She can remember the exact punter? That's likely to be bollocks, but I can't really say as you've not given us the review. I don't know how much detail it goes into

Prostitutes lie. In this instance I would believe the review on UKP 100% without good reason not to.

And I don't like that the sense I get from your post is that you're trying to undermine reviews here  :thumbsdown:

Offline Natwest

My point was they arent actually punters, they are other WGs or pimps trying to damage the business of rivals.

Yes I agree that it is usually the case. But going back to my original point, there are reviews which are critical as in this case but if you look at other reviews by the same punter you see signs that whilst he is not setting out to ruin the WG, he is certainly turning up with stale or alcoholic breath as the WG that started all this pointed out.

Three refusal to DFK by three separate girls who all had this in their "Enjoys" would possibly make you think it is the reviewer with the problem, not the WG and therefore taking UKP reviews at face value whilst it is the best we have, it is still flawed.

Offline Daffodil

Yes I agree that it is usually the case. But going back to my original point, there are reviews which are critical as in this case but if you look at other reviews by the same punter you see signs that whilst he is not setting out to ruin the WG, he is certainly turning up with stale or alcoholic breath as the WG that started all this pointed out.

Three refusal to DFK by three separate girls who all had this in their "Enjoys" would possibly make you think it is the reviewer with the problem, not the WG and therefore taking UKP reviews at face value whilst it is the best we have, it is still flawed.

Name the reviewer or shut the fuck up  :hi:

Offline Natwest

The prostitute has a vested interest in making up bullshit, it's her income and a possible booking that we're talking about.

She can remember the exact punter? That's likely to be bollocks, but I can't really say as you've not given us the review. I don't know how much detail it goes into

Prostitutes lie. In this instance I would believe the review on UKP 100% without good reason not to.

And I don't like that the sense I get from your post is that you're trying to undermine reviews here  :thumbsdown:

Not at all. I have done reviews myself and I hope they have been honest and useful. Though nobody knows that, they trust it to be true.

Reviews on UKP have unfortunately sometimes turned out to be false - I provided a link earlier and I used that example because it took six months to uncover and the people (now banned) involved put a lot of effort into keeping it going.

I have also said in another post that in three reviews by this punter, there were refusals by the WG's to kiss which does add some weight to what the girl said of alcoholic breath. They can't have colluded to refuse.

Its human nature that a bad punt will always be blamed on the WG. I just raise the point that there are low life WG's and low life punters and if a low life punter puts in a bad review you cannot tell he is a low life punter.

There are thousands of members of this forum. It's inevitable that if you put them all in a huge room together, some of us would become lifelong friends and some we would cross the road to avoid.

yorkshire123

  • Guest
To the OP,
All i can add is that thank fuck we have the choice of deciding if a UKP review is true or not.
Reading some of the exploits of the guys who punted pre internet when the only due diligence you had on offer was word of mouth or past experience we should count ourselves lucky that we don't have to hunt through local back pages, phone boxes or street corners anymore.

You can do all of the cross referencing you want but that won't guarantee you a decent punt, remember this is women we are dealing with who happen to be one of the most unpredictable species known to roam this earth.

If you don't trust the review speak up when its written or go punt her yourself & then feedback. If the protection of the prossie is your main concern then maybe your in the wrong place, go join saafe or the womens institute.

Offline Natwest

To the OP,
All i can add is that thank fuck we have the choice of deciding if a UKP review is true or not.
Reading some of the exploits of the guys who punted pre internet when the only due diligence you had on offer was word of mouth or past experience we should count ourselves lucky that we don't have to hunt through local back pages, phone boxes or street corners anymore.

You can do all of the cross referencing you want but that won't guarantee you a decent punt, remember this is women we are dealing with who happen to be one of the most unpredictable species known to roam this earth.

If you don't trust the review speak up when its written or go punt her yourself & then feedback. If the protection of the prossie is your main concern then maybe your in the wrong place, go join saafe or the womens institute.

I think my main concern is the same as most people who read the reviews in conjunction with Adultwork. I don't have enough budget to have a bad punt. So I take UKP reviews as carrying the most weight.

It's not a question of protection, I think most of us like a sense of fair play in all aspects of life.

Dodo

  • Guest

Offline Daffodil

My guess is Daffodil  :yahoo:

You also want to pay prostitutes, who you've met once, to have a coffee with you. Have you not got friends?  :unknown:

yorkshire123

  • Guest
I think my main concern is the same as most people who read the reviews in conjunction with Adultwork. I don't have enough budget to have a bad punt. So I take UKP reviews as carrying the most weight.

It's not a question of protection, I think most of us like a sense of fair play in all aspects of life.

Maybe thats why i struggle to understand the issue fully? for me i don't punt with money i haven't already written off. Not saying i wouldn't be a bit pissed off but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it went a little bit south.

yorkshire123

  • Guest
My guess is Daffodil  :yahoo:

You really are turning into a little bit of a cock. May i suggest you toddle off back to your rub & tug thread & stop fucking about like a little kid before someone gives you a virtual arse kicking (thats friendly advice by the way not armchair modding) 

Curious6705

  • Guest
I can't help thinking the OP is behaving a little like johor299 ( https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=34089.msg480881#msg480881 ) except that instead of inveighing against a WG he's impugning the integrity of this forum and its members.

a10

  • Guest
I think my main concern is the same as most people who read the reviews in conjunction with Adultwork. I don't have enough budget to have a bad punt. So I take UKP reviews as carrying the most weight.

It's not a question of protection, I think most of us like a sense of fair play in all aspects of life.

If the UKP review has the "most weight", why did you email the WG about said review and then come on here disparaging UKP reviews?

When deciding to see a pro$$ie for the first time, I read the profile, I read the feedback and I check UKP. If all that tallies and it feels "right" I make a booking. If something amongst all that doesn't feel "right" then I don't see said WG. That works for me and me alone, others have their own methods (they must do, the amount that turn up on here complaining about getting bad service from EE skanks with zero feedback and no references)

Offline Natwest

If the UKP review has the "most weight", why did you email the WG about said review and then come on here disparaging UKP reviews?

When deciding to see a pro$$ie for the first time, I read the profile, I read the feedback and I check UKP. If all that tallies and it feels "right" I make a booking. If something amongst all that doesn't feel "right" then I don't see said WG. That works for me and me alone, others have their own methods (they must do, the amount that turn up on here complaining about getting bad service from EE skanks with zero feedback and no references)

I emailed the link to the review as the reason why I had changed my mind in giving her a booking. I assumed she would have seen it but that turned out not to be the case. As I have not changed my mind about going to see her you could argue that the review in question still carries more weight than her reply.
 

Toby

  • Guest
I emailed the link to the review as the reason why I had changed my mind in giving her a booking. I assumed she would have seen it but that turned out not to be the case. As I have not changed my mind about going to see her you could argue that the review in question still carries more weight than her reply.

I would have thought that if she was so upset about the review she would do her best to make sure your experience did not fit in with the review, especially as your forum name is now known to her, and there would be a chance of getting a positive review out of it. A negative review would be a compounding nail in the coffin, and reinforce that her AW reviews are bullshit.


potato

  • Guest
I would have thought that if she was so upset about the review she would do her best to make sure your experience did not fit in with the review, especially as your forum name is now known to her, and there would be a chance of getting a positive review out of it. A negative review would be a compounding nail in the coffin, and reinforce that her AW reviews are bullshit.

He would have to see her anonymously otherwise she may give him a much better service than her norm which means his subsequent review would not be representative either!

Toby

  • Guest
He would have to see her anonymously otherwise she may give him a much better service than her norm which means his subsequent review would not be representative either!

Very true, but my point was that he'd almost guaranteed himself a good service by posting about it on here, so there was less reason to not see her.


Edited to add: unless she realised that the review would be cast in doubt, so refuse to see him at all.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 06:21:42 pm by Toby »

Offline wristjob

But this did get me wondering that the basis of UK Punting is generally Punters are right and WG's are wrong. However,  most of us have never met and we have no idea who we are conversing with. How do we know we aren't supporting and agreeing with some pretty vile people?

My attitude here is yes, GENERALLY punters are right but not always. Each time a punter posts a review he shows more of his credibility and gives people more to cross reference it with other reviews and decide if he's an honest reviewer or not. Alastairs is a great example of that - just read Wanker of the Week if you need details.

When I read a review first thing I do is check who else the guy has reviewed and how those reviews were. Then it;s a case of what exactly was said, and as you aren't showing the original review I can't comment on that, but punters value different services differently so for some no FK might be a nono whereas others don't care.

Depending on the reviewer and details of the review it's unlikely a single review would be enough to put me off on its own.

The punter was smelly and drunk is a common excuse given for poor service. If he was so smelly and drunk why wait 30 mins before sending him away? She could have refused to see him at all.

Totally agree there. If he's too dirty/drunk to do a proper service then turn him away - who the hell wouldn't? If the prossy was drunk and smelly I would walk. It's one of those excuses that can cover off just about anything and there doesn't need to be any proof or anything.

Offline Tricky Dickie

And this worry about it affecting your rating on A/W no doubt has bad WGs and their pimps laughing their heads off at punters stupidity. You have allowed yourself along with other punters who think the same to let the WG dictate the terms of your punts. Thats REALLY bad news for other punters in my view.

I hope such punters consider doing reviews of such WGs on here though so at least punters on here know about these bad WGs.

Whoa. When did the attacks start? I don't see wanting to preserve my own rating as stupid. I also don't think the reviews process on AW is the biggest problem with that site. As has been pointed out, we've no way of knowing if a good review is genuine just as we've no way of knowing if there's a story behind a bad review. You're not likely to get the full story in 120 characters or whatever the limit is.

I agree that posting reviews on other sites is a good idea. Equally searching for an AW profile on google is also a good idea.

Offline smiths

Whoa. When did the attacks start? I don't see wanting to preserve my own rating as stupid. I also don't think the reviews process on AW is the biggest problem with that site. As has been pointed out, we've no way of knowing if a good review is genuine just as we've no way of knowing if there's a story behind a bad review. You're not likely to get the full story in 120 characters or whatever the limit is.

I agree that posting reviews on other sites is a good idea. Equally searching for an AW profile on google is also a good idea.

It wasnt an attack, i was posting my opinion, how you punt is up to you.

Offline Sedlmayer

To the OP,
All i can add is that thank fuck we have the choice of deciding if a UKP review is true or not.
Reading some of the exploits of the guys who punted pre internet when the only due diligence you had on offer was word of mouth or past experience we should count ourselves lucky that we don't have to hunt through local back pages, phone boxes or street corners anymore.

You can do all of the cross referencing you want but that won't guarantee you a decent punt, remember this is women we are dealing with who happen to be one of the most unpredictable species known to roam this earth.

If you don't trust the review speak up when its written or go punt her yourself & then feedback. If the protection of the prossie is your main concern then maybe your in the wrong place, go join saafe or the womens institute.


Great post, good points. 100% agree. There are no guarantees in this game - it's called "punting"......
And yes, prostitutes tell lies.

Offline Sedlmayer

I think my main concern is the same as most people who read the reviews in conjunction with Adultwork. I don't have enough budget to have a bad punt. So I take UKP reviews as carrying the most weight.

It's not a question of protection, I think most of us like a sense of fair play in all aspects of life.

Frankly, you're starting to annoy people. If you can't afford the chance of a bad or mediocre punt, and you believe in "fair play", then TBH punting's not the game for you.
Sorry, but that's how it is.

Offline smiths

To the OP,
All i can add is that thank fuck we have the choice of deciding if a UKP review is true or not.
Reading some of the exploits of the guys who punted pre internet when the only due diligence you had on offer was word of mouth or past experience we should count ourselves lucky that we don't have to hunt through local back pages, phone boxes or street corners anymore.

You can do all of the cross referencing you want but that won't guarantee you a decent punt, remember this is women we are dealing with who happen to be one of the most unpredictable species known to roam this earth.

If you don't trust the review speak up when its written or go punt her yourself & then feedback. If the protection of the prossie is your main concern then maybe your in the wrong place, go join saafe or the womens institute.

Good post, and i was one of those that punted for many years pre-net and i never knew what a WG looked like or how good she might be until i met her. I knew no other punters so i know how great it is now to have a forum like this. :thumbsup:

Offline Sedlmayer

I emailed the link to the review as the reason why I had changed my mind in giving her a booking. I assumed she would have seen it but that turned out not to be the case. As I have not changed my mind about going to see her you could argue that the review in question still carries more weight than her reply.

I don't really understand why you felt the need to do this - you're booking a girl, you see a bad review, you change your mind and cancel. End of, no?
You're undermining the best review system there is (given that, OK, nothing's perfect), and coming across as pretty fluffy/white knightish, IMHO.
Just move on......

Closet freak

  • Guest


I read through the reviews of the punter who the WG called to question. Three of the reviews he had done all stated that they wouldn't DFK even though it was in their profile. This did give some circumstantial evidence to the alcoholic breath mentioned by the WG at the root of this thread. There was also quite a lot of refusal of other services mentioned on all three. I'm not sure I would like to raise that with the punter in question though. But I might look a lot closer in future.


Report your concerns  to admin , then I'm sure if there s any credibility to your concerns  admin will take  the right course of action  :hi:
Or you could take daff's advice  :thumbsup: 

Offline Dani

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,603
  • Likes: 1
First off after reading this I would believe the person who wrote the review?  Why?  Simple, she said she didn't know a review had been written so how the hell could she know which client it was that left her it? 
The he was smelly and or drunk is the normal well relied upon excuse for a prossie giving a bad service. 

There is no way she would know who had written the review.  I had one a couple of weeks ago and I have no idea who the guy was and I only saw him the day before the review and I don't have a clue which client it was.  Unless it was the only client she had in that month she would not know which client wrote it.  Maybe she did have a drunk smelly client but who is to say it the one who wrote the review.  She wouldn't know same I don't know who wrote one of mine. 
Unless the client tells you he is writing a review you will never know who it is.  To just trot out the old excuse is a bit of poor form as drunk/smelly is so over used I am surprised she didn't also add he had an STI as that is the other normal excuse.  If he was that drunk and that smelly why on earth would she go through with the booking.  You can tell if someone is that smelly as soon as they walk in and you give them a kiss and she would have seen he was drunk too so should have declined the booking

Once you accept the booking and the money then you give the best you can, if you decide someone is too smelly to kiss then you don't take his money.  It is that simple.

I am sure you will have a great time now though as she now knows you will be writing a review if you do see her

Offline SamLP

So you can't afford to make mistakes but make a booking with a WG before you search for reviews on her. You then find a negative one, cancel the punt and explain you did it because of the review which you also link in the email. She sobs and gets upset, remembers the guy who was drunk but waited a half hour to kick him out. Now you're doubting reviews which can be dubbed as a warning to us gullible punters but you withhold the identity of the punter in question.

Offline Juankerr

Good post, and i was one of those that punted for many years pre-net and i never knew what a WG looked like or how good she might be until i met her. I knew no other punters so i know how great it is now to have a forum like this. :thumbsup:
I'm sure plenty of us remember the bad old day's of reading through the classified ad's in the back of the local rag and phoning up for description's and service's only to be left disappointed afterward's.
Most punt's I had back then were indeed 'punt's' , thank fuck for the internet!

Offline punk

I've had an email exchange today with a WG who is very convenient to where I work and was planning a visit. I did a search on here and the feedback strongly advised me not to see her. Being an honest type of guy, I sent her the link from here as to why I would not be going ahead with the booking. The outcome has really made me rather contemplative.

I am not going to put a link because I don't want to get drawn into a specific argument over Punter v WG but I must admit that I was expecting to get my head ripped off but received a very polite response. The original review was "Negative" and this was her reply after I sent her the link.

"Hi
Wow no I didn't know about this

I can pin point the exact client, he stunk and hence why I wouldn't kiss him nor let him go down on me and due to his drunk behaviour and do winging a bottle of wine in 30 minutes I asked him to leave

I can totally understand where your coming from and that's fine, but I wouldn't have the feed back I do if what he's saying was true.

One bad comment in 40

Thanks anyway

Xxxx"

She further emailed

"It's totally upset me and ruined my day, I can't believe someone would be so evil.
He was disgusting and clearly has a drink problem which is something I categorically dislike.

Thanks again for warning me, don't feel you have to say anything on my behalf, it makes me sick that a man can be so nasty and vile about a woman in this manner,

Anyway I'm going to stop there before I wind my self up further

Thanks again

X"

Now I know the AW feedback system is fundamentally flawed because it is in nobodys interest to give a negative comment.

But this did get me wondering that the basis of UK Punting is generally Punters are right and WG's are wrong. However,  most of us have never met and we have no idea who we are conversing with. How do we know we aren't supporting and agreeing with some pretty vile people?

is this a joke, you believe some one who fucks strangers for a living,for £££? All the above comments are what a prossie says usually, Its all the blokes fault,he was a drunk,cunt,rapist etc,take your pick.
i noticed that

1 she remember the client straight away, it was the drunk one.
2 He smelt
3 she never threw him out at the door/closed the door on him
4 on realising he was drunk giving his money back and asking him to leave.

Negative reviews are bad for a prossie it affects their £££ income.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 09:27:30 pm by punk »

Online Steely Dan

The 'plenty of fish' rule applies.  If I see a bad review on UKP (and I look *before* I book) I move on.  I may miss a gem, because the reviewer may be a lying prick.  But I don't care about being fair.  I care about having a good punt.  So I find one just the same *without* a bad review, & I book her.  Now if the fish run out, I may go back and look at the other options. But, so far, plenty of fish.

Dani, I still am not sure she could not figure out who it was though.  We dont know what the review said.  There may have been something in it that reminded her.  Arrived late, brought Chanel perfume, wore Man U tee shirt, whatever.  I am amazed at prossies who remember me because of a detail (like I sang a verse of Black Cow or wore my Aja Teeshirt).

Offline wristjob


Dani, I still am not sure she could not figure out who it was though.  We dont know what the review said.  There may have been something in it that reminded her.  Arrived late, brought Chanel perfume, wore Man U tee shirt, whatever.  I am amazed at prossies who remember me because of a detail (like I sang a verse of Black Cow or wore my Aja Teeshirt).

One of the first girls I ever reviewed instantly recognised me on my 2nd visit which was about a month after the 1st. Other girls haven't. If she does OWO/DFK 90% of the time then that guy might stand out - but still say she should have turned him away or shown him the shower.

Offline socks

For me the rule of thumbs are

1. Trust punters. That's the underlying ethos of this board. (If in doubt check other reviews they've done and follow any review/posting trails to build your confidence in their authenticity). Even punters you tend to disagree with or don't like. I think that no matter our motivation for punting or outlook on life, when posting about our purchases we all describe what we want to know in a reasonably common language!

2. Treat any contribution by WGs as liable to bias that isn't in the punters best interest. Even trusted ones

3. Don't trust putting down, first post wonders like this one I noticed this morning.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=30673.msg484406#msg484406

Never heard of the girl, never punted in Luton. On the East board so I noticed it and thought likely identity of poster runs in this order - pimp - other prossie - bored kid on holiday - punter

4. Don't bring up real examples that you're not prepared to give detail on, it raises suspicions.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 10:37:28 am by socks »