Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

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


Author Topic: New profile feature coming to UKPunting  (Read 8236 times)

Offline a10

If the girls are to have any degree of trust in the forum as a means of self-promotion, they will have one concern: the authenticity of reviews and the integrity of the reviewers. But there are a few girls who don’t grasp PR quite as well as Dee, Platinum Cindy and MissKDD.

So the whole Platinum Cindy's boyfriend/pimp posting as her to slag off rival girls and challenge unliked reviews just passed you buy? Or is that your idea of good PR, savvy WGs?  :crazy:

I know this as two girls I have reviewed have specifically told me on subsequent visits that if I write -anything- else about them on the forum, I will be ‘persona non grata’ in their eyes. Their reasons for this are not important, but they are valid (in my opinion) so I have agreed to their requests.
So you've just identified yourself as an unreliable reviewer, easily blackmailed into modifying what you write to suit a WG! So much for 'trusted' reviewer 'status'  :dash:

*****
Personally I think leave the profiles and service lists to AW, we can use UKP as we always have - an independant cross-checker. I do like the rates summary and contact number though.

Offline Sedlmayer

Before we totally rule out a "verified reviewer" or "trusted reviewer" what about this - on other sites I've seen a system where members vote on whether a post or member is helpful.
So members who have seen a reviewed girl can vote on whether a particular review tallies with their experience. A net positive of 5 or more votes of confidence could make a review trusted.
If you could then track per user not just how many reviews but how many trusted reviews that would give people a better indication of the reliability of their future reviews.
Even one trusted review makes it easier to decide if a new review might be worth relying on.

Open to abuse through personal issues, spite etc.

A review's a review - judge it through your own common sense and other things that particular punter has posted. I'm sure that you can sniff out iffy reviews.

Online smiths

Open to abuse through personal issues, spite etc.

A review's a review - judge it through your own common sense and other things that particular punter has posted. I'm sure that you can sniff out iffy reviews.

Agree again.

Offline hendrix

The increased search features all sound good. I don't think having girls on here advertising is a good idea, I can only see that leading to conflicts. Even if I'm not actively punting I'd still like to read and contribute information where I have it and I don't think it'll be as useful a forum if it's full of arguments,especially on negative reviews where girls have usually had meltdowns and fan boys who actually might have had good info in general got themselves banned.

Also, more reviews = more trust is simply bollocks. Experienced punters here have a "nose" for what sounds like the truth and what doesn't. I think that works well and should continue to do so.

Offline webpunter


Offline Quesadilla

Firstly, an apology to admin for putting a downer on your efforts but I have to ask the question why?

As a regular punter and one who has time and money to trek around the country wherever my dick takes me I can use AW for the basic search and any pro$$ie that takes my fancy I can then search here for her AW number. If she's well reviewed and positive then all's good, if not I can ask the question. I have no idea how difficult the proposed searches are to implement but I imagine that if I found someone through searching here I would then visit her AW page or website for more information, photos, price changes...

 :bomb:

From my perspective - trawling through AW is very time-consuming given that ultimately 9 times out of 10 all I do when I find a girl I like is copy/paste her ID and do a search here. If she doesn't show up I've just wasted my time.  Very occasionally I might put someone not reviewed here in my TOFTT list but so far haven't really bothered as there are just too many well UKP reviewed ladies to get through.

Starting at AW I probably go through 5, sometimes more girls before finding one to add to the HL.  So it would be much less time consuming if I could just search all the positively reviewed girls here to start with by location/attributes - and only then - as you rightly say - visit AW for their profile and pics.  The fact that she's got positive reviews here and already meets my area/age/height/dress size criteria is a fair indication for me that I'll add her to my HL so starting at this end will massively cut out the legwork IMHO.
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline CBPaul

The total number of reviews a poster has is in no way related to the quality and reliability of them and will lead to some members abusing the system to obtain the cherished trusted status.

Other forums have grades of membership based on number of posts - they also have a lot of trusted members who have made hundreds of pointless, irrelevant posts.

At some point we have to read a review and decide if it is reliable and if any subjective elements are applicable to our own preferences. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own punting. Some things really are being over thought. 

Offline Sedlmayer

The total number of reviews a poster has is in no way related to the quality and reliability of them and will lead to some members abusing the system to obtain the cherished trusted status.

Other forums have grades of membership based on number of posts - they also have a lot of trusted members who have made hundreds of pointless, irrelevant posts.

At some point we have to read a review and decide if it is reliable and if any subjective elements are applicable to our own preferences. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own punting. Some things really are being over thought.

100% agreed - especially the highlighted points. Excellent post.


Offline Quesadilla

Open to abuse through personal issues, spite etc.

A review's a review - judge it through your own common sense and other things that particular punter has posted. I'm sure that you can sniff out iffy reviews.
OK, I can see how it would be open to abuse if you let people vote a review down as well as up - some might for example automatically vote someone's reviews unreliable as they think the reviewer is fluffy or they have a pathetic vendetta going.

So here's a thought then - what if you only allow members to agree with a review?  There are many members and lurkers who simply will not post a review, but occasionally stick a comment in the review thread saying "oh yeah, I saw her, she was good!" which today gets totally lost.  A simple "+1" option on each review would allow a better picture and allow the "shy" to contribute without writing their own review.

If people disagree it's up to them to post a negative review themselves and / or resort to the existing time-honoured method of abusing the reviewer in the thread itself.

Just thinking out loud really.  Thoughts?
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline Sedlmayer

OK, I can see how it would be open to abuse if you let people vote a review down as well as up - some might for example automatically vote someone's reviews unreliable as they think the reviewer is fluffy or they have a pathetic vendetta going.

So here's a thought then - what if you only allow members to agree with a review?  There are many members and lurkers who simply will not post a review, but occasionally stick a comment in the review thread saying "oh yeah, I saw her, she was good!" which today gets totally lost.  A simple "+1" option on each review would allow a better picture and allow the "shy" to contribute without writing their own review.

If people disagree it's up to them to post a negative review themselves and / or resort to the existing time-honoured method of abusing the reviewer in the thread itself.

Just thinking out loud really.  Thoughts?

Sorry - what's the point of all this? Let's all just write reviews as and when, and others can evaluate them, and build up a picture both of the girl, and of the reviewer.

Offline shagbambi

The review system is great as is.  After a while you know which reviewers have similar tastes to you and you keep an eye out for their reviews. Grading and status etc. is  time consuming and a waste of time and not an indicator of much, as such systems get gamed.

Offline Quesadilla

Sorry - what's the point of all this? Let's all just write reviews as and when, and others can evaluate them, and build up a picture both of the girl, and of the reviewer.
Yes but we don't all write reviews do we? Many lurk, don't review and either occasionally chime in during a review thread or don't even do that.  An anonymous +1 from someone who's also seen the same girl would help build up a picture.  No amount of persuading will make some punters review, I just wonder if this might help them contribute without the pressure of a review?

Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline Sedlmayer

Yes but we don't all write reviews do we? Many lurk, don't review and either occasionally chime in during a review thread or don't even do that.  An anonymous +1 from someone who's also seen the same girl would help build up a picture.  No amount of persuading will make some punters review, I just wonder if this might help them contribute without the pressure of a review?

Sorry, I'm still not seeing the point here - a load of anonymous +1's will add what, precisely?
(I'm not trying to pick a fight here - I just don't see it).

Offline SamLP

OK, I can see how it would be open to abuse if you let people vote a review down as well as up - some might for example automatically vote someone's reviews unreliable as they think the reviewer is fluffy or they have a pathetic vendetta going.

So here's a thought then - what if you only allow members to agree with a review?  There are many members and lurkers who simply will not post a review, but occasionally stick a comment in the review thread saying "oh yeah, I saw her, she was good!" which today gets totally lost.  A simple "+1" option on each review would allow a better picture and allow the "shy" to contribute without writing their own review.

If people disagree it's up to them to post a negative review themselves and / or resort to the existing time-honoured method of abusing the reviewer in the thread itself.

Just thinking out loud really.  Thoughts?

I understand you pushing this point and we've had a previous discussion about it. However, as other members have mentioned it can be open to abuse and may not be used with the best of intentions. It can also be used by touts to increase +1's. In a way there's no other forum like UKP which has been very useful for punters. You can't force people to write a review but some of the suggestions may reduce the integrity of UKP. Maybe these forthcoming changes will encourage more reviews. Some girls are smart and there are many girls who read UKP secretly. For them this is also a good insight into a punters POV and if it helps them to improve their service then it's good all around. No matter how much some girls hate the honest aspect of UKP, they cannot ignore it as it grows in popularity. Eventually those who think it's ok muck punters about will think twice and buck up their service if more punters decide to write their experiences both good & bad. We've seen how a good WG can suddenly rise in popularity because of a good review and is inundated with bookings to the extent a punter needs to book weeks in advance to arrange a punt. I like the simple approach the admin is taking. One step at a time.

Online smiths

I understand you pushing this point and we've had a previous discussion about it. However, as other members have mentioned it can be open to abuse and may not be used with the best of intentions. It can also be used by touts to increase +1's. In a way there's no other forum like UKP which has been very useful for punters. You can't force people to write a review but some of the suggestions may reduce the integrity of UKP. Maybe these forthcoming changes will encourage more reviews. Some girls are smart and there are many girls who read UKP secretly. For them this is also a good insight into a punters POV and if it helps them to improve their service then it's good all around. No matter how much some girls hate the honest aspect of UKP, they cannot ignore it as it grows in popularity. Eventually those who think it's ok muck punters about will think twice and buck up their service if more punters decide to write their experiences both good & bad. We've seen how a good WG can suddenly rise in popularity because of a good review and is inundated with bookings to the extent a punter needs to book weeks in advance to arrange a punt. I like the simple approach the admin is taking. One step at a time.

Yep, in my view it would be a touts dream. Far better to judge the punter on how credible you think he is.

Offline CBPaul

Sorry, I'm still not seeing the point here - a load of anonymous +1's will add what, precisely?
(I'm not trying to pick a fight here - I just don't see it).

You're not the only one not seeing the point. As others have said it would be a touts dream.

If it's about encouraging lurkers to contribute more then it's a hiding to nothing.

Offline Stealthy

The total number of reviews a poster has is in no way related to the quality and reliability of them and will lead to some members abusing the system to obtain the cherished trusted status.

Other forums have grades of membership based on number of posts - they also have a lot of trusted members who have made hundreds of pointless, irrelevant posts.

At some point we have to read a review and decide if it is reliable and if any subjective elements are applicable to our own preferences. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own punting. Some things really are being over thought.

100% Agreed!

Offline Quesadilla

I understand you pushing this point and we've had a previous discussion about it. However, as other members have mentioned it can be open to abuse and may not be used with the best of intentions. It can also be used by touts to increase +1's. In a way there's no other forum like UKP which has been very useful for punters. You can't force people to write a review but some of the suggestions may reduce the integrity of UKP. Maybe these forthcoming changes will encourage more reviews. Some girls are smart and there are many girls who read UKP secretly. For them this is also a good insight into a punters POV and if it helps them to improve their service then it's good all around. No matter how much some girls hate the honest aspect of UKP, they cannot ignore it as it grows in popularity. Eventually those who think it's ok muck punters about will think twice and buck up their service if more punters decide to write their experiences both good & bad. We've seen how a good WG can suddenly rise in popularity because of a good review and is inundated with bookings to the extent a punter needs to book weeks in advance to arrange a punt. I like the simple approach the admin is taking. One step at a time.

Fair point - had not envisaged the obvious of some less honest WG's and their pimps +1'ing threads. Suggestion duly removed.  :hi:
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline Qwerty

I can think of a couple of reasons why it would not be a good idea to have prossies the way you're suggesting. There would be endless flirty threads between prossies and fanboys... cringing to say the least. That would also lead to veiled touting which would mean a immediate ban for the prossie and/or the fanboys.

Then we have some prossies who, despite having generally good reviews, overreact and go apeshit when they get a negative review or comment. We have seen so many of those it's just ridiculous.

I don't think that's right for this board. I, for one, think that we have a good balance at the moment. Prossies have SAAFE and PN. UKP is a punters forum and I would like it to remain that way.

I'd have thought that if and when an "AW rival" as Admin describes get's added to UKP, it would have to have different access rules to the main UKP site - WGs who tout or BS might still be amazing shags. So they could still be banned from here, but maintain listings in the subsection.

Offline Jimmyredcab

The total number of reviews a poster has is in no way related to the quality and reliability of them and will lead to some members abusing the system to obtain the cherished trusted status.


You are spot on.    :drinks:
I read one review where he had only spoken to the girl on the phone, because he could not understand her he gave a negative review ------------------------- that loophole has now been closed, you have to at least have booked the girl.

Offline cunnyhunt

However …

I would also propose an ‘upgrade’ of sorts to membership levels.

eg. Any member who has written more than 25 reviews should be given a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge. Let me explain why …

If the girls are to have any degree of trust in the forum as a means of self-promotion, they will have one concern: the authenticity of reviews and the integrity of the reviewers. But there are a few girls who don’t grasp PR quite as well as Dee, Platinum Cindy and MissKDD.

I know this as two girls I have reviewed have specifically told me on subsequent visits that if I write -anything- else about them on the forum, I will be ‘persona non grata’ in their eyes. Their reasons for this are not important, but they are valid (in my opinion) so I have agreed to their requests

The yellow highlighted is a reason why your red highlighted suggestion would not work.

You are admitting to being an unreliable reviewer and helping pro$$ies not punters.


I am normally one to embrace progress but I have to say UKP in its current format serves my purpose 100%. I find a pro$$ie I like on AW, check here for any reviews, or click a link to one that catches my eye in this forum. The addition of links to the pro$$ie's reviews has given me access to all I need, and quickly.

I do occasionally like read posts from wgs but mostly what they write is of no benefit (or interest) to the punter, and would not like to see a massive increase of pro$$ie presence here.

The strength of UKP is that punters can post honestly, without the fear of a pro$$ie backlash, and long may this continue.


If changes are made in a bid to rival AW, then this forum will become a different beast altogether.

Offline Jimmyredcab


The strength of UKP is that punters can post honestly, without the fear of a pro$$ie backlash, and long may this continue.[/b]


Not something that I would lose sleep over.

If a pro$$ie gave a shit service I would not be afraid to say so.     :hi:

Offline Quesadilla

I am normally one to embrace progress but I have to say UKP in its current format serves my purpose 100%. I find a pro$$ie I like on AW, check here for any reviews, or click a link to one that catches my eye in this forum. The addition of links to the pro$$ie's reviews has given me access to all I need, and quickly.

I do occasionally like read posts from wgs but mostly what they write is of no benefit (or interest) to the punter, and would not like to see a massive increase of pro$$ie presence here.

The strength of UKP is that punters can post honestly, without the fear of a pro$$ie backlash, and long may this continue.


If changes are made in a bid to rival AW, then this forum will become a different beast altogether.
AW is a for-profit site, designed to make maximum money out of both punters and WG's - can't see UKP ever changing from it's core mission of being all about the punter. 

The combination of AW and UKP is indeed as good as it gets today and I have had a stonking success rate this year thanks heavily to UKP's reviews.  But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better for the punter. 

How long do you spend searching AW for WG's only to find no reviews or negative reviews here?  All that time is wasted and I suspect you have better things to do than spend hours searching AW then correlating here?  If you could search here on positive reviews that meet your criteria wouldn't that be easier / quicker?

Also the search facility on AW is a blunt tool at best and one which we have zero control over.  If we have input into the key search capabilities that will also make the whole process much quicker.

Providing the tools that punters need is exactly what UKP is all about IMHO and this would definitely be progress. 

Hats off to Admin for continuing to come up with ideas like this!  :hi:
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline CBPaul

I am normally one to embrace progress but I have to say UKP in its current format serves my purpose 100%. I find a pro$$ie I like on AW, check here for any reviews, or click a link to one that catches my eye in this forum. The addition of links to the pro$$ie's reviews has given me access to all I need, and quickly.

I do occasionally like read posts from wgs but mostly what they write is of no benefit (or interest) to the punter, and would not like to see a massive increase of pro$$ie presence here.

The strength of UKP is that punters can post honestly, without the fear of a pro$$ie backlash, and long may this continue.


If changes are made in a bid to rival AW, then this forum will become a different beast altogether.

The stuff in red, totally agree with  :thumbsup: Easy access to the information I need as a punter is exactly what I want. It's then up to me to make the choice of whether to punt or not.

The 'prossie backlash' wouldn't put me off leaving an honest report but it would create more threads that descend into irrelevance. The vast majority of pimps, touts, trolls and others out to discredit are sniffed out pretty quickly, prossies coming and defending themselves, often laughably badly, although entertaining at times would become a major detraction.


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)