Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: New profile feature coming to UKPunting  (Read 10874 times)

Offline blackburnian

OMFG was shorter to type!  :lol:

Just have a separate category  - for HP only  :yahoo:

BB

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,048
  • Likes: 0
This, basically. Using dress size numbers only works when used together with stature, and even then people could easily make mistakes with it.

Don't disagree in principle but disagree with the definitions and I'm sure this could be a subject of some debate. 

I have WG's who are slim but with what I can only describe as an hourglass figure - ie round hips, perky boobs, perky butt.  I've seen others who might well be described as "slim" but are neither stick insects nor have any curves - either of which is a complete turnoff to me.

Also "average" is not good - especially given the "average" dress size in the UK is actually a 16!! 

I would also like to see fit/toned on the list. 

Here's my straw man to be torn down or set alight as you see fit...

Stick insect
Slim (straight lines)
Slim (with curves in the right places)
Fit / toned
Voluptuous
Cuddly
BBW
OMFG

As a member of the "OMFG" (LOL! :sarcastic: ) category, you need more between BBW and OMFG. You also need a "Muscular" category (which is more than Fit/Toned).

Something like:

Skinny / Boney
Slim - straight lines
Slim - with curves in the right places
Fit / Toned
Muscular
Cuddly
BBW - Voluptuous
BBW - Large
BBW - Extra Large
SSBBW - Huge

And the ONLY reason I am suggesting all the BBWs is that these are standard marketing terms for larger women and therefore key search words. I love the "OMFG" but that's not what people will search for, either on here or on Google.

Offline Trevor12

With all the drop down menus I can see punters outside the big cities ending up with a grand total of zero possibilities. But I can also see how all of this would be useful for those in and around London and other areas. So providing the ability to not make a specific selection is available then all options are covered.

I agree with this, multiple selections would be a huge plus. One of the limitations of AW searching is it doesn't allow you to include multiple selctions under the same heading in the search criteria.

Offline knightofthegarter

I think hair colour would be a good one to include. I know that lots of wgs will change their hair colour, so cross referencing with AW would still be necessary for punters but I think it would be a useful addition. This is mainly because it is very difficult to actually search for hair colour on AW, their search works via the interview system, so it is very unreliable. Inclusion of hair colour on here could not be 100% accurate but would be a big improvement and punters could update it as time went on, so it would be much better than AW for that.


Offline Trevor12

Skinny / Boney
Slim - straight lines
Slim - with curves in the right places
Fit / Toned
Muscular
Cuddly
BBW - Voluptuous
BBW - Large
BBW - Extra Large
SSBBW - Huge

I think having too many options would probably be slightly confusing/counter productive. One person's Cuddly could be another person's Large BBW etc. I can't think of any helpful suggestions of my own at the moment though.

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,048
  • Likes: 0
I think having too many options would probably be slightly confusing/counter productive. One person's Cuddly could be another person's Large BBW etc. I can't think of any helpful suggestions of my own at the moment though.

I agree. But this can also go for the slim ladies. What one person sees as "slim with curves in all the right places" another would say she is "fat and flabby".

Body type is definitely needed though. It's very hard to tell what a person weighs or what their dress size is just by looking at them (or their pics).

Offline Trevor12

Body type is definitely needed though. It's very hard to tell what a person weighs or what their dress size is just by looking at them (or their pics).

I agree. Body type, although stil subjective, is likely to be more accurate than men guessing dress sizes.

I think we could benefit from having some sort of visual reference point, such as 'Closest body match: A,B,C,D or E?' with example reference pictures, but I don't know if this would be implementable or make things overly cluttered.

west8

  • Guest
That would exclude both me and Adam, and of course James.
As for encouraging more women to post here that has been done to death, and long standing members will be aware of the problems some of them have caused in the past.

Yes, neither you and Adam, nor I, nor James would qualify under the 25 reviews idea at present. But we're not far off.  ;)

I don't believe having less than 25 reviews makes anyone a 'less reliable reviewer', but I do believe anyone who devotes considerable time and resources to punting and reviewing 25 ladies is worthy of some minor accolade of sorts.

Moreover, I doubt any member here would ever get to 25 reviews without having been thoroughly scrutinised by the membership - and in particular by those punters who had met the 25 reviewed girls.

I'm guessing that at present probably less than 0.05% of the current forum membership would quality under the 25 reviews suggestion?


Offline Sedlmayer

Yes, neither you and Adam, nor I, nor James would qualify under the 25 reviews idea at present. But we're not far off;)

I don't believe having less than 25 reviews makes anyone a 'less reliable reviewer', but I do believe anyone who devotes considerable time and resources to punting and reviewing 25 ladies is worthy of some minor accolade of sorts.

Moreover, I doubt any member here would ever get to 25 reviews without having been thoroughly scrutinised by the membership - and in particular by those punters who had met the 25 reviewed girls.

I'm guessing that at present probably less than 0.05% of the current forum membership would quality under the 25 reviews suggestion?

Yes they are.....  Ranking members by review count is a non-starter. Nobody else is supporting it. A review is a review. I'm not going through all the reasons again just for your sake.

Nik has stated that there are no senior members of UKP, and I believe that this is definitely the wish of the majority if the members here. Your main reason for wanting review count to be a status marker is, as you say, that you think you will be there in the foreseeable future, and you desperately want to be part of that elite.

Why aren't you satisfied with your current elite status - that of Uberwanker, the guy who could win WOTW every week?  :unknown:

west8

  • Guest
Yes they are.....  Ranking members by review count is a non-starter. Nobody else is supporting it. A review is a review. I'm not going through all the reasons again just for your sake.

Nik has stated that there are no senior members of UKP, and I believe that this is definitely the wish of the majority if the members here. Your main reason for wanting review count to be a status marker is, as you say, that you think you will be there in the foreseeable future, and you desperately want to be part of that elite.

Why aren't you satisfied with your current elite status - that of Uberwanker, the guy who could win WOTW every week?  :unknown:

Only in your internet centric world could a status marker on a forum count as being 'part of an elite'.

I am no rush to increase my review count and likely won't be doing so for the foreseeable future.

But don't let that puncture your hollow argument.

Offline Sedlmayer

Only in your internet centric world could a status marker on a forum count as being 'part of an elite'.

I am no rush to increase my review count and likely won't be doing so for the foreseeable future.

But don't let that puncture your hollow argument.

I stand by what I have said, "Your main reason for wanting review count to be a status marker is, as you say, that you think you will be there in the foreseeable future, and you desperately want to be part of that elite."

Offline Ali Katt

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,961
  • Likes: 13
  • Reviews: 28
Two points - I fucking hate forum achievements, trusted reviewer\member has its place on sellers site. Forum's that have post 100 times to unlock this and that are fucking shit, I posted once on a well known dance music upload site as you needed 250 uploads to get the good stuff. Kudos points are also fucking stupid, you can look on PN and see that doesn't work.

2nd point - dress sizes, anything over a size 12 is fat IMHO. Average is unappealing who wants to fuck an average woman - no-one when money is involved? Size 16 might average in the UK, that's fucking disgraceful and no-one should be proud of it unless they have dropped down from a size 28.

west8

  • Guest
So according to west8 if you don't have 25 reviews you are not trusted ------------- what a dickhead.   :crazy:

No, we don't need more women posting on here, they normally end up being a pain in the arse.    :hi:

Come on jimmy, don't play up to your dopey cab driver internet persona.

I wrote nothing of the sort. I actually wrote: 'a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge.'

Many internet forums for all manner of hobbies and leisure pursuits have similar accolades, so why should punting be any different?

It would not signify that a reviewer of 25+ carried any more status that a first-time reviewer. But it would be a simple way for the forum to recognise the time, expense and contribution of those members who made it to a certain number.

That said, perhaps 50+ reviews would be an ever better delineator.


west8

  • Guest
If a WG I had reviewed did not want to see me again as a result of my honestly written review then I would not be bothered about seeing her again. It would obviously have been a positive review if I was trying to see her again, anyway!

You have to ask yourself for whose benefit you are posting a review. For the girl or for other punters...?

Re-read what I wrote.

No girl has ever 'not wanted to see me again as a result of my honestly written review.' Quite the contrary. Several have expressed their appreciation in a polite AW message.


Quote from: west8
if I write -anything- else about them on the forum

They were referring to any information about their personal lives, etc. The prime example being inadvertently writing that a certain girl was originally from a certain county.

Said girl politely requested that Admin edit a particular review to remove that (in her mind) identifying comment.

Naturally, Admin obliged and modified the review accordingly. After all, it's easy to forget at times that a WG is only a WG during her working hours.

Offline Ali Katt

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,961
  • Likes: 13
  • Reviews: 28
Come on jimmy, don't play up to your dopey cab driver internet persona.

I wrote nothing of the sort. I actually wrote: 'a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge.'

Many internet forums for all manner of hobbies and leisure pursuits have similar accolades, so why should punting be any different?

It would not signify that a reviewer of 25+ carried any more status that a first-time reviewer. But it would be a simple way for the forum to recognise the time, expense and contribution of those members who made it to a certain number.

That said, perhaps 50+ reviews would be an ever better delineator.
Because in practice it doesn't work. With some hobbyist website it serves a purpose as you can contribute content e.g. CD cover scans. Anyone could write 25 crap reviews, have a look at the reviews on PN I've not read a single useful one this year. It also encourages grudges as it may mean the verified reviewers are given special treatment. Fake reviews and first time users who are wind up merchants usually get called out straight away, I think the system works as it is.

James999

  • Guest
Something like:
Skinny / Boney
Slim - straight lines
Slim - with curves in the right places
Fit / Toned
Muscular
Cuddly
BBW - Voluptuous
BBW - Large
BBW - Extra Large
SSBBW - Huge

Get real the market for Fat birds is miniscule so no need to over categorise them,  Cuddly = Fat as do all the BBW shit,

Petite,
Slim,
Average,
Fat


is all you need  :hi:

Offline Lilywhite

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 573
  • Likes: 9

That said, perhaps 50+ reviews would be an ever better delineator.

So let's say one guy see's 3 girls over 20 years around 50 times, and reviews them, then suddenly he posts a negative about a new girl and it's less relevant than everyone else's reviews because of the number of different girls he's seen? Won't work.

west8

  • Guest
Because in practice it doesn't work. With some hobbyist website it serves a purpose as you can contribute content e.g. CD cover scans. Anyone could write 25 crap reviews, have a look at the reviews on PN I've not read a single useful one this year. It also encourages grudges as it may mean the verified reviewers are given special treatment. Fake reviews and first time users who are wind up merchants usually get called out straight away, I think the system works as it is.

Agreed vis-a-vis PN. I gave up wasting time wading through the sycophantic threads and fake reviews of massage parlours.

But the reason I believe this site is different is two-fold:

i.) Reviews are rigorously scrutinised by both the staff and the wider membership here on UKP. That is why this site is so authoritative.
ii.) Given the considerable number of active members and reviewers, inaccuracies and falsehoods would quickly be exposed. That's easy to see when browsing older threads littered with the online corpses of purged members.


west8

  • Guest
So let's say one guy see's 3 girls over 20 years around 50 times, and reviews them, then suddenly he posts a negative about a new girl and it's less relevant than everyone else's reviews because of the number of different girls he's seen? Won't work.

Bad example. The 25 or 50+ reviews would need to be of 25 or 50+ different girls.

Isn't there something in the forum rulebook about a member only reviewing a certain girl once?

James999

  • Guest
I wrote nothing of the sort. I actually wrote: 'a ‘Verified’ or ‘Trusted’ Reviewer badge.'

The only badge you will get is your snake badge, you've been repeatedly proven as a lying snake  :thumbsdown:

Hidden Image/Members Only

Offline Ali Katt

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,961
  • Likes: 13
  • Reviews: 28
Agreed vis-a-vis PN. I gave up wasting time wading through the sycophantic threads and fake reviews of massage parlours.

But the reason I believe this site is different is two-fold:

i.) Reviews are rigorously scrutinised by both the staff and the wider membership here on UKP. That is why this site is so authoritative.
ii.) Given the considerable number of active members and reviewers, inaccuracies and falsehoods would quickly be exposed. That's easy to see when browsing older threads littered with the online corpses of purged members.
I think it's a case of if it ain't broke. We don't need badges or forum rep or anything else. They actually detract from forums.

Offline Lilywhite

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 573
  • Likes: 9
Bad example. The 25 or 50+ reviews would need to be of 25 or 50+ different girls.

Isn't there something in the forum rulebook about a member only reviewing a certain girl once?

Yes, I understood that... What I was saying is what if a man doesn't WANT to see 50+ girls, but still wants his reviews to be trusted.

west8

  • Guest
The only badge you will get is your snake badge, you've been repeatedly proven as a lying snake  :thumbsdown:


Wrote the guy who spends his every waking moment on a punting forum (or reading the Daily Mail), but has contributed 0 reviews.

1.) Impotence;
2.) Laziness;
3.) Other.

Whichever way you look at it, your integrity as a bonafide punter is lower than any other member of the forum.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 08:52:21 pm by west8 »

west8

  • Guest
Yes, I understood that... What I was saying is what if a man doesn't WANT to see 50+ girls, but still wants his reviews to be trusted.

I am sure my approach is akin to that of the vast majority of the membership, namely that each and every review should be trusted if and until proven false or inaccurate.

Offline Sedlmayer

I think it's a case of if it ain't broke. We don't need badges or forum rep or anything else. They actually detract from forums.

+100% dead on.

James999

  • Guest
Whichever way you look at it, your integrity as a bonafide punter is lower than any other member of the forum.

So say YOU who has been repeatedly been shown to be a liar, you are so desperate to gain credibility and throw shit at others in an attempt to do so, I couldn't give a fuck if you think I punt or not, the difference is I'm not a lying cunt like you are  :hi:

west8

  • Guest
So say YOU who has been repeatedly been shown to be a liar, you are so desperate to gain credibility and throw shit at others in an attempt to do so, I couldn't give a fuck if you think I punt or not, the difference is I'm not a lying cunt like you are  :hi:

If you are indeed a bondfide punter, why spend your considerable efforts writing nonsense in an attempt to advance your limited, populist and rather narrow political agenda?

Instead, why not contribute by writing even brief reviews of all the ladies you have seduced across the British Isles, Europe, The Americas, Asia and beyond?

Come on, humour us James.

What is the real reason you contribute precisely zero factual punting-related comment to this forum?

James999

  • Guest
Come on, humour us James.

It's not us, it's YOU, and if you think I'm jumping to your tune  :lol:

You have repeatedly been caught out lying and as stated above I couldn't give a fuck what you think  :music:

Now stop hijacking the thread with your agenda  :thumbsdown:

If you have any more issues PM me or contact Admin.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 09:07:09 pm by James999 »

Delta

  • Guest
In an idle moment I was pondering these proposed enhancements.

I'm sure there are exceptions but currently most posts / reviews on here are by those who have visited, tried to book or booked but been let down not anyone associated with the girl.  Because there is no risk of any negative feedback received in response potentially jeopardising future bookings the comments, while of course subjective, are fundamentally accurate. I'm sure after a poor visit or cancellation many simply do not leave feedback on AW so others fall into the same trap as they only see all or mostly positive feedback. Hence while the aim is to link to the girls AW profiles there must not be similar links to client profiles.

Another aspect to be considered is pimps and girls creating accounts here to create fictional glowing reviews and posts. This would spoil the site.

west8

  • Guest
It's not us, it's YOU, and if you think I'm jumping to your tune  :lol:

You have repeatedly been caught out lying and as stated above I couldn't give a fuck what you think  :music:

Now stop hijacking Admons thread with your agenda  :thumbsdown:

There is one difference between us James.

I don't run when questioned by other members. Instead, I do my best to set their minds at rest by answering said questions as transparently as possible.

Perhaps that is why most regard my reviews with either indifference or appreciation.

I will therefore ask one last time: why do you decline to write about punting matters on a punting forum?

We both know you won't answer because the truth is a sad one indeed. So scuttle off back to dailymail.co.uk.

west8

  • Guest
Another aspect to be considered is pimps and girls creating accounts here to create fictional glowing reviews and posts. This would spoil the site.

That already happens. But unlike the 'other' site, the staff here are tireless in keeping the forum clean of such detritus.

I foresee no increased danger to the integrity of the forum from pimps pitiful attempts to promote their wares.

James999

  • Guest
There is one difference between us James.

Yes I don't lie you do  :hi:

Now see above my edited post you quoted, not playing to your agenda  :sarcastic:

Offline Ali Katt

  • Board Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,961
  • Likes: 13
  • Reviews: 28
In an idle moment I was pondering these proposed enhancements.

I'm sure there are exceptions but currently most posts / reviews on here are by those who have visited, tried to book or booked but been let down not anyone associated with the girl.  Because there is no risk of any negative feedback received in response potentially jeopardising future bookings the comments, while of course subjective, are fundamentally accurate. I'm sure after a poor visit or cancellation many simply do not leave feedback on AW so others fall into the same trap as they only see all or mostly positive feedback. Hence while the aim is to link to the girls AW profiles there must not be similar links to client profiles.

Another aspect to be considered is pimps and girls creating accounts here to create fictional glowing reviews and posts. This would spoil the site.

This has happened before and Admin usually spots it quickly. It could happen on any punting site really.

Offline smiths

I think it's a case of if it ain't broke. We don't need badges or forum rep or anything else. They actually detract from forums.

I agree, its fine as it is on that. With admins developments as outlined on this thread it will be even better. :thumbsup:

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,048
  • Likes: 0
Get real the market for Fat birds is miniscule so no need to over categorise them,  Cuddly = Fat as do all the BBW shit,

Petite,
Slim,
Average,
Fat


is all you need  :hi:

You don't know the market like wot I do.  :hi:

"Fat" is too broad a term. It covers anyone from size 10 with a bit of junk in their trunk, to size 50 who has eaten the whole trunk. "Fat" is also not a primary search term when it comes to looking for an escort via search engines. BBW is the industry term for a fat lady, SSBBW is for a massively fat lady. Likewise, "Slim" is too broad a term. It doesn't take into account the very skinny ladies (who can't be called "petite" if they're 5'8 in their bare feet), or the "curves in all the right places" slim, or the "muscular" slim...

Anyway, it's all about SEO - and I'm sure Admin knows a lot more than you or I about that.


Offline Mr Farkyhars

Petite,
Slim,
Average,
Fat


is all you need  :hi:

They might be all you need. But there are other people on this forum.

Something like:

Skinny / Boney
Slim - straight lines
Slim - with curves in the right places
Fit / Toned
Muscular
Cuddly
BBW - Voluptuous
BBW - Large
BBW - Extra Large
SSBBW - Huge

And the ONLY reason I am suggesting all the BBWs is that these are standard marketing terms for larger women and therefore key search words. I love the "OMFG" but that's not what people will search for, either on here or on Google.

I thought the idea was to distinguish using terms punters would use, not using terms WGs would use (for whatever reason). :hi:
« Last Edit: December 18, 2014, 02:19:03 am by Mr Farkyhars »

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,048
  • Likes: 0
I thought the idea was to distinguish using terms punters would use, not using terms WGs would use (for whatever reason). :hi:

BBW *is* one of the search terms that punters use. It's a HUGE (no pun intended!) market.

Fat, Phat, Big, Large, Huge, Massive, Voluptuous, Overweight, Obese...none of these feature anywhere close to BBW in the amount of successful hit/click through rates.

Again though, only Admin knows what works for his specific SEO regarding UKP.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2014, 02:32:30 am by CatBBW »

Offline Mr Farkyhars

BBW *is* one of the search terms that punters use. It's a HUGE (no pun intended!) market.

Fat, Phat, Big, Large, Huge, Massive, Voluptuous, Overweight, Obese...none of these feature anywhere close to BBW in the amount of successful hit/click through rates.


It may be a "huge market", and I think Quesadilla used the term in this thread before either of us. But is it only used as much as you say because WGs use it as a catch-all term for 'larger than average' and hence punters must follow this usage when searching escort directories like AW? I say yes - and hence, on a punting forum, we punters wouldn't need the subdivisions of the term that you introduced :hi:

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,048
  • Likes: 0
But is it only used as much as you say because WGs use it as a catch-all term for 'larger than average' and hence punters must follow this usage when searching escort directories like AW? I say yes - and hence, on a punting forum, we punters wouldn't need the subdivisions of the term that you introduced :hi:

I say no - because it's not just used on escort directories, but in mainstream porn, and it's a (very successful) marketing term within the Adult industry.  AW is RUBBISH with regard to "BBW/SSBBW" - their standard search sizes dumps anyone over size 14 in the same results together.

Fair enough if you personally don't agree with my subdivisions, but discarding the industry standard "BBW" and "SSBBW" terms would be silly, IMHO.

Offline mh

Only in your internet centric world could a status marker on a forum count as being 'part of an elite'.

... I do believe anyone who devotes considerable time and resources to punting and reviewing 25 ladies is worthy of some minor accolade of sorts.

 :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash:

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSStrike one for West8 (well more like multiple baker's dozens by now...).

James999

  • Guest
You don't know the market like wot I do. 

You don't even escort and when you did you had 2 feedbacks in 5 years, and you will only know the market from the guys that contact you, how many brothels have you been into  and line ups have you seen, they are a true reflection of the market.

Offline CBPaul

I think it's a case of if it ain't broke. We don't need badges or forum rep or anything else. They actually detract from forums.

Summed up perfectly.

Offline CBPaul

Yes they are.....  Ranking members by review count is a non-starter. Nobody else is supporting it. A review is a review. I'm not going through all the reasons again just for your sake.

Nik has stated that there are no senior members of UKP, and I believe that this is definitely the wish of the majority if the members here. Your main reason for wanting review count to be a status marker is, as you say, that you think you will be there in the foreseeable future, and you desperately want to be part of that elite.

Why aren't you satisfied with your current elite status - that of Uberwanker, the guy who could win WOTW every week?  :unknown:


Bang on.

It was also made perfectly clear when the review count was introduced that it wouldn't become a source of competition - None of the I'm more worthy because I have more reviews to my name crap.

Accolades for contributions will be cherished and coveted by some - their pursuit will inevitably have a negative effect on the quality of reviews IMO.

1. A punter who sees 2 or 3 regulars will never achieve the accolade even though his reviews may be top quality.
2. A punter who has few punts but provides top quality reviews will take longer to achieve his accolade than one who punts often but leave poor quality reviews of little use to others.   

A fundamentally floored system that is totally unnecessary IMO.

Offline Sedlmayer


Bang on.

It was also made perfectly clear when the review count was introduced that it wouldn't become a source of competition - None of the I'm more worthy because I have more reviews to my name crap.

Accolades for contributions will be cherished and coveted by some - their pursuit will inevitably have a negative effect on the quality of reviews IMO.

1. A punter who sees 2 or 3 regulars will never achieve the accolade even though his reviews may be top quality.
2. A punter who has few punts but provides top quality reviews will take longer to achieve his accolade than one who punts often but leave poor quality reviews of little use to others.
   

A fundamentally floored system that is totally unnecessary IMO.

Very well put - spot on.

Offline blackburnian

I think it's a case of if it ain't broke. We don't need badges or forum rep or anything else. They actually detract from forums.

This is spot on .

The two things that really matter are YOUR opinion of the reviewer and others opinion of you as poster/reviewer/member.

A review from someone who is new with a high post count that feels the need to post an opinion in any thread and is constantly bickering or posting bs would carry little weight for me , an established member with a lower number of far more useful or informative posts would  get my attention far more .

Numbers of posts/reviews don't count , quality does.

BB

Offline Jimmyredcab



Nik has stated that there are no senior members of UKP.

That may well be true but who would you trust the most, someone who has been a member for 12 months or someone who has been a member for 12 hours.       :unknown: :unknown:

Offline Jimmyredcab



Numbers of posts/reviews don't count , quality does.

BB

Agree totally, I no longer read the reviews from certain members because they will shag anything with a pulse.    :thumbsdown:

Offline smiths


Bang on.

It was also made perfectly clear when the review count was introduced that it wouldn't become a source of competition - None of the I'm more worthy because I have more reviews to my name crap.

Accolades for contributions will be cherished and coveted by some - their pursuit will inevitably have a negative effect on the quality of reviews IMO.

1. A punter who sees 2 or 3 regulars will never achieve the accolade even though his reviews may be top quality.
2. A punter who has few punts but provides top quality reviews will take longer to achieve his accolade than one who punts often but leave poor quality reviews of little use to others.   

A fundamentally floored system that is totally unnecessary IMO.

Good post. :thumbsup:

kenw1

  • Guest
Right now the 'profile' pages only contain reviews for each girl.
Example: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=serviceprovider;id=227

These profile pages will be extended to add things like - hourly rates, location, phone number, nationality, age group.


I use public transport so distance from the rail station would be very helpful.

Offline Sedlmayer

I use public transport so distance from the rail station would be very helpful.

Yes, absolutely - nearest station and how far from that station, can be perfectly simple, ie 10 minutes walk from Fulham Broadway tube.