 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"https://www.fabswingers.com/my/filters
Your filters can block what you want , that way they can't mail you and you could look for people who meet your own criteria"
Thank you for your reply, but I'm not talking about blocking people or filtering out specific groups of people.
I'm suggesting that an existing feature be updated to allow more informed decision making on a profile by profile basis.
I'm referring to the profile joined date and updating it to be a little more accurate, that's all, nothing more or less and certainly nothing that warrants an abusive reply such as the one a few posts above yours.
Currently anyone who joined over twelve months ago just shows as 'joined over a year ago.' Whilst technically true, it would be good to have a more accurate timeframe.
Currently someone might have 'joined over a year ago' and might not be user or photo verified. If they joined late 2019 onwards, that's completely understandable and I'd personally be happy to give someone a chance knowing when they joined and what's been happening. The problem is that the counter stops at one year.
It would be useful to be able to see a more accurate timeframe for when a person joined.
If they joined five or even ten years ago, you can't see that if they don't have public pics or verifications (and even then only the date they were added will show, which might be later than when they actually joined).
Chances are high that if they've been on the site three, six or even ten years and they don't have either photo or user verifications, they're here to pleasure themselves whilst talking about meeting, with no intention of actually meeting - that's perfectly fine, but people who message in response to meet listings and status updates which seek a physical meet are not going to preface their message with 'do you mind if we just talk about meeting whilst I pleasure myself and then I'll just promptly go offline when I'm done and you can keep looking?'
As the guy above is probably aware (though if I was as narrow minded as he was and assumed that he only started using the site for the first time when he created this profile, seven weeks ago, then I might assume that he isn't aware of this fact), verifications don't have to be displayed, it's nothing to do with ego or a catalogue of verifications, it can be set so that only the green circle with a white tick is showing and the verification summary can be kept private, including the number of meets and the sex of the person leaving the verification. I think you'll find that a large number of people will only meet verified people, so this feature update request isn't even as severe as that blanket filter.
I think blanket filtering all unverified members is a little harsh and I wouldn't decide on a meet based solely on that, but it would be a consideration along with multiple other factors.
I've met guys who have been on the site for days who were genuine and then I've been lured to postcodes and ghosted by people with thirteen verifications who joined somewhere between one and ten years ago (it's impossible to tell).
Verifications mean very little on their own, but when taken into consideration with other factors such as if they're photo verified (photo verification does NOT require a face pic, it CAN be from the shoulders down), when they joined, if they're a site supporter, if they have public pics, how much outside of a personal age or distance range they are, if they're 'straight' but messaging me (a man) etc, you can build up a bigger picture and make a more informed decision.
So I wouldn't blanket block everyone in that group from getting in touch. Someone who just joined might very well be genuine and might not have had ample opportunity to meet or even get verified etc.
However someone who has been on the site for many years and has not even photo verified their torso or been verified by another user is, in my extensive personal experience, very unlikely to meet and is here simply to chat or cyber, which is fine of course, until they start leading people on so that they can have their fun.
I'm simply asking that the 'joined' date be updated to be reflective of the actual date of joining, to help people to weigh up the odds of whether or not someone is genuine about meeting or not.
As naming and shaming isn't allowed, you look at the different components as a checklist and decide based on the overall outcome.
To the gentleman above who mentions building up a reputation etc. This isn't something that really applies in many instances, only club and social scenes. On a more 1-2-1 basis it's not as appropriate.
Personally, I would never kiss and tell. I would never discuss a meet with one person with a third party. Even if I do have a bad experience with someone, I don't name and shame, not even in private messages to other members. I report them if they stood me up and leave it at that.
The only instances where I've publicly revealed details of a meet were when I've been asked to leave a verification and where they've said I can display theirs if I wanted to. Otherwise I would leave it at the bare minimum (just the green circle and white tick) as standard.
I've always operated like that and I've met a lot of 'straight' guys whose identities will go to the grave with me. I've always operated with that level of discretion. That's why the joining date can be a useful tool in the absence of any other form of verification.
The guy above attacks me for wanting this simple bit of information to be up to date (it's an existing feature, my suggestion was just to make it accurate) so that I can make an informed decision based on the individual, but people seem to be happier to just blanket filter the entire group. Surely it's better to judge each person based on their individual profile rather than what group they fall into (verified or unverified).
I've never once suggested discriminating against people based purely on their date of joining, I'm talking about weighing up the multiple different elements of a profile to make an informed decision and that decision should ultimately be mine.
As only I can decide who I want to meet, it seems ridiculous that hypocrites are replying to my suggestion on a feedback forum, calling me entitled for making a request for a very basic, noninvasive improvement to the site to improve the user experience, telling me that I'm entitled and implying I am trying to dictate how the site is used, WHILST said hypocrite is simultaneously telling me how he thinks I should be using the site and berating me for making a suggestion on a feedback forum, for an existing feature to be made accurate and that would be of no harm whatsoever.
If they 'joined over a year ago' and joined since November 2019 you could say to yourself 'ok, they joined just before everything went south, so it's understandable they're not verified' and decide to give them a chance.
However, if they joined six years ago, it still states 'joined over a year ago' so you don't have an accurate reflection of how long they've been on here. The longer they've been here and remained unverified, the higher the chance that they're a time waster. This won't always be the case, but it's a very good indicator, especially when considering everything else.
That information would be useful in trying to work out if someone is genuine or not, in combination with other factors, AGAIN I'm not suggesting that this be a sole deciding factor.
If you have a profile that isn't verified in any way at all, that is messaging you and telling you to come to a certain postcode. You have no idea if they're going to stand you up or not and it's a risk. Seeing 'joined over a year ago' isn't helpful in this context and since people shouldn't have been meeting for the majority of the last year, it's even less useful.
However, if the information was more accurate and it showed the years and months correctly, you can make a more informed decision on whether to risk it or not.
Having been using these sites since 2008, I've encountered many people who joined 'over a year ago' before Covid-19 and who message in response to a status or meet listing, have no form of verification and clearly just want to talk dirty over the fantasy of meeting, whilst never following through.
If they haven't verified in one way or another in five years, it's clear they're only into chat and cyber.
To be clear and avoid further misunderstandings and subsequent abuse, I'm not saying that people can't or shouldn't use the site to chat or cyber. I'm talking about when, for example, I post a meet listing and a status for a meet, and someone messages me and isn't photo or user verified, has been on the site for who knows how many years (that's the point, it doesn't show) and they waste your time leading you on only to ghost you when it comes to giving the address, because they've already climaxed. Sometimes it's easy to spot these people, sometimes they're very convincing that they want to meet and then, an hour later, when you finally get down to requesting the the address, they go offline.
I don't see how having an accurate 'joined' date can be a bad thing, or warrant the horrid response above.
The feature is already there, I'm merely suggesting it be made accurate, i.e. if they joined three years ago, state 'joined three years ago' rather than 'joined over a year ago.'
I wouldn't personally meet someone who had been on the site for more than one year pre-Covid (so more than two when your consider Covid and lockdowns) and who had neither photo nor user verifications.
All I'm asking is for the joining date to be updated to enable a more informed decision on whether to meet people on an individual basis, based on their profile rather than blanket filtering everyone.
I'm really not sure why the suggestion promoted such a disgusting response.
If the feature is there but it's going to be completely inaccurate, what's the point in having it? The newbie filter only applies to people who joined what 48 or 72 hours prior? What relevance is it therefore to state they joined 'over a year ago?' Why display that if it's not intended to be used as a factor for deciding if someone is genuine or not? Why have the feature if it's not going to be kept accurate? |
