FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > Verified User Message Filters
Verified User Message Filters
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I’m trying really hard to be polite when I say this… but why…. Seriously why… can we not block people who aren’t verified by meet? I totally understand that from a business perspective, many users would choose this, and it would reduce the money coming in from the types of user who never meet and just use this place to fantasize and pretend, as they would lose their ability to message lots of real users, but surely you could just charge for the feature? Please let us pay to stop this nonsense. " You can block unverified people feom messaging, but not separate meet and cam verification. There's no link between site supporter payments and site usage. Many who don't pay meet frequently and many that do never meet, so I'm not sure where you get the notion Such a filter would affect membership? | |||
"I’m trying really hard to be polite when I say this… but why…. Seriously why… can we not block people who aren’t verified by meet? I totally understand that from a business perspective, many users would choose this, and it would reduce the money coming in from the types of user who never meet and just use this place to fantasize and pretend, as they would lose their ability to message lots of real users, but surely you could just charge for the feature? Please let us pay to stop this nonsense. You can block unverified people feom messaging, but not separate meet and cam verification. There's no link between site supporter payments and site usage. Many who don't pay meet frequently and many that do never meet, so I'm not sure where you get the notion Such a filter would affect membership? " What I mean is, let’s say you’re someone who has a picture verification only, and you used to be able to message anyone who accepted messages from your gender. You could be the type who uses this place as a means to throw random sex messages out and see what comes back, and be into the sexy message ping pong, but never actually be looking to meet people. If 50% of paying users decide to only allow people with meets to message them, you can’t anymore, and you’re gonna find the site a lot less fun when half the people you might want to message don’t have to deal with you. There are absolutely people on here who get off on literally just sending random filth to people, and a fair few of them pay for the site so they can view videos, but might stop if the videos are the only thing they get from it anymore as their ability to waste peoples time is minimised. I don’t begrudge anyone being on the site for whatever purposes they choose… but I do find it a pain in the ass you can’t limit your exposure to them if their intentions don’t line up with yours. I suspect the site makes a not negligible amount of money from these people. It makes the site owners look like they’re using the ability to message | |||
| |||
| |||
"I’m trying really hard to be polite when I say this… but why…. Seriously why… can we not block people who aren’t verified by meet? I totally understand that from a business perspective, many users would choose this, and it would reduce the money coming in from the types of user who never meet and just use this place to fantasize and pretend, as they would lose their ability to message lots of real users, but surely you could just charge for the feature? Please let us pay to stop this nonsense. You can block unverified people feom messaging, but not separate meet and cam verification. There's no link between site supporter payments and site usage. Many who don't pay meet frequently and many that do never meet, so I'm not sure where you get the notion Such a filter would affect membership? What I mean is, let’s say you’re someone who has a picture verification only, and you used to be able to message anyone who accepted messages from your gender. You could be the type who uses this place as a means to throw random sex messages out and see what comes back, and be into the sexy message ping pong, but never actually be looking to meet people. If 50% of paying users decide to only allow people with meets to message them, you can’t anymore, and you’re gonna find the site a lot less fun when half the people you might want to message don’t have to deal with you. There are absolutely people on here who get off on literally just sending random filth to people, and a fair few of them pay for the site so they can view videos, but might stop if the videos are the only thing they get from it anymore as their ability to waste peoples time is minimised. I don’t begrudge anyone being on the site for whatever purposes they choose… but I do find it a pain in the ass you can’t limit your exposure to them if their intentions don’t line up with yours. I suspect the site makes a not negligible amount of money from these people. It makes the site owners look like they’re using the ability to message" I understand where you're coming from. But answer me this. When you joined you were unverified, as were we all. So you'd never have been able to contact anyone should your filter have been in place. It would result in the only people being able to send messages being those that had met other. Hardly fair on people who are genuinely looking to meet. Sure. A single female profile and to a certain extent a couples one, would have plenty of incoming mail, even as a pictureless, blank profile. But men? Nope. Effectively you're asking someone else to do the initial groundwork of contacting and meeting someone first, before you decide to engage with them yourself. Someone has to be someone's first meet and verification after all. | |||
"I’m trying really hard to be polite when I say this… but why…. Seriously why… can we not block people who aren’t verified by meet? I totally understand that from a business perspective, many users would choose this, and it would reduce the money coming in from the types of user who never meet and just use this place to fantasize and pretend, as they would lose their ability to message lots of real users, but surely you could just charge for the feature? Please let us pay to stop this nonsense. You can block unverified people feom messaging, but not separate meet and cam verification. There's no link between site supporter payments and site usage. Many who don't pay meet frequently and many that do never meet, so I'm not sure where you get the notion Such a filter would affect membership? What I mean is, let’s say you’re someone who has a picture verification only, and you used to be able to message anyone who accepted messages from your gender. You could be the type who uses this place as a means to throw random sex messages out and see what comes back, and be into the sexy message ping pong, but never actually be looking to meet people. If 50% of paying users decide to only allow people with meets to message them, you can’t anymore, and you’re gonna find the site a lot less fun when half the people you might want to message don’t have to deal with you. There are absolutely people on here who get off on literally just sending random filth to people, and a fair few of them pay for the site so they can view videos, but might stop if the videos are the only thing they get from it anymore as their ability to waste peoples time is minimised. I don’t begrudge anyone being on the site for whatever purposes they choose… but I do find it a pain in the ass you can’t limit your exposure to them if their intentions don’t line up with yours. I suspect the site makes a not negligible amount of money from these people. It makes the site owners look like they’re using the ability to message I understand where you're coming from. But answer me this. When you joined you were unverified, as were we all. So you'd never have been able to contact anyone should your filter have been in place. It would result in the only people being able to send messages being those that had met other. Hardly fair on people who are genuinely looking to meet. Sure. A single female profile and to a certain extent a couples one, would have plenty of incoming mail, even as a pictureless, blank profile. But men? Nope. Effectively you're asking someone else to do the initial groundwork of contacting and meeting someone first, before you decide to engage with them yourself. Someone has to be someone's first meet and verification after all. " Not at all… a verification shouldn’t be about “they rocked my world and ruined me for others” it’s “this profile is a real person who I’ve met for a while and they weren’t a total creep/weirdo/lunatic” You can do all of that via socials, and group events. Yes, the timid shy types might not feel super comfortable going to events like this, but those people also flake on one to one meets quite often. Another type that might avoid these are cheating partners after a bit of extra fun… so as not to be caught out. But in the grand scheme of things, I think more people would pay more to be on here if they didn’t feel they wasted their time constantly. I get that it’s somewhat of a balance, and the site can still be a space for people who are more concerned with seeing others engage in the lifestyle than do so themselves, but there should be a way to filter them out. Yes, if you’re a single male it is harder to find someone willing to throw caution to the winds, but it’s not impossible to attend a club or event at all to get your foot in the door. | |||
| |||
"I have a genuine question . How do men get meets ? when alot say they wont meet unless we have any meet verifications ? so how are we ment to get meet verifications if they wont meet to begin with ? " Group socials and/or clubs. *solved | |||
"I’m trying really hard to be polite when I say this… but why…. Seriously why… can we not block people who aren’t verified by meet? I totally understand that from a business perspective, many users would choose this, and it would reduce the money coming in from the types of user who never meet and just use this place to fantasize and pretend, as they would lose their ability to message lots of real users, but surely you could just charge for the feature? Please let us pay to stop this nonsense. You can block unverified people feom messaging, but not separate meet and cam verification. There's no link between site supporter payments and site usage. Many who don't pay meet frequently and many that do never meet, so I'm not sure where you get the notion Such a filter would affect membership? What I mean is, let’s say you’re someone who has a picture verification only, and you used to be able to message anyone who accepted messages from your gender. You could be the type who uses this place as a means to throw random sex messages out and see what comes back, and be into the sexy message ping pong, but never actually be looking to meet people. If 50% of paying users decide to only allow people with meets to message them, you can’t anymore, and you’re gonna find the site a lot less fun when half the people you might want to message don’t have to deal with you. There are absolutely people on here who get off on literally just sending random filth to people, and a fair few of them pay for the site so they can view videos, but might stop if the videos are the only thing they get from it anymore as their ability to waste peoples time is minimised. I don’t begrudge anyone being on the site for whatever purposes they choose… but I do find it a pain in the ass you can’t limit your exposure to them if their intentions don’t line up with yours. I suspect the site makes a not negligible amount of money from these people. It makes the site owners look like they’re using the ability to message I understand where you're coming from. But answer me this. When you joined you were unverified, as were we all. So you'd never have been able to contact anyone should your filter have been in place. It would result in the only people being able to send messages being those that had met other. Hardly fair on people who are genuinely looking to meet. Sure. A single female profile and to a certain extent a couples one, would have plenty of incoming mail, even as a pictureless, blank profile. But men? Nope. Effectively you're asking someone else to do the initial groundwork of contacting and meeting someone first, before you decide to engage with them yourself. Someone has to be someone's first meet and verification after all. Not at all… a verification shouldn’t be about “they rocked my world and ruined me for others” it’s “this profile is a real person who I’ve met for a while and they weren’t a total creep/weirdo/lunatic” You can do all of that via socials, and group events. Yes, the timid shy types might not feel super comfortable going to events like this, but those people also flake on one to one meets quite often. Another type that might avoid these are cheating partners after a bit of extra fun… so as not to be caught out. But in the grand scheme of things, I think more people would pay more to be on here if they didn’t feel they wasted their time constantly. I get that it’s somewhat of a balance, and the site can still be a space for people who are more concerned with seeing others engage in the lifestyle than do so themselves, but there should be a way to filter them out. Yes, if you’re a single male it is harder to find someone willing to throw caution to the winds, but it’s not impossible to attend a club or event at all to get your foot in the door. " agree with this And it's only difficult if a person themselves makes it, not everyone is going to be comfortable and need to look in the right direction and effort plays a part | |||
"I have a genuine question . How do men get meets ? when alot say they wont meet unless we have any meet verifications ? so how are we ment to get meet verifications if they wont meet to begin with ? " I’ve answered this above. There clubs and social meets all over the place… why does a guys first meet need to be some single lady or couple willing to risk meeting an absolute cretin? Visit a club, or attend a group social and attempt to engage in the lifestyle. I don’t get why people keep asking this when there are other ways to get a verification. | |||
| |||
"Id like to understand how so many fake profiles are able to get photo verified in the first place?" I can’t pretend to know how the pics are verified, or who in fact does definitely get conned. It’s why I don’t trust them at all. Also; even if they’re 100% legit as a photo veri they’ll never show… they can still just be timewasters. | |||
"I’m trying really hard to be polite when I say this… but why…. Seriously why… can we not block people who aren’t verified by meet? I totally understand that from a business perspective, many users would choose this, and it would reduce the money coming in from the types of user who never meet and just use this place to fantasize and pretend, as they would lose their ability to message lots of real users, but surely you could just charge for the feature? Please let us pay to stop this nonsense. You can block unverified people feom messaging, but not separate meet and cam verification. There's no link between site supporter payments and site usage. Many who don't pay meet frequently and many that do never meet, so I'm not sure where you get the notion Such a filter would affect membership? What I mean is, let’s say you’re someone who has a picture verification only, and you used to be able to message anyone who accepted messages from your gender. You could be the type who uses this place as a means to throw random sex messages out and see what comes back, and be into the sexy message ping pong, but never actually be looking to meet people. If 50% of paying users decide to only allow people with meets to message them, you can’t anymore, and you’re gonna find the site a lot less fun when half the people you might want to message don’t have to deal with you. There are absolutely people on here who get off on literally just sending random filth to people, and a fair few of them pay for the site so they can view videos, but might stop if the videos are the only thing they get from it anymore as their ability to waste peoples time is minimised. I don’t begrudge anyone being on the site for whatever purposes they choose… but I do find it a pain in the ass you can’t limit your exposure to them if their intentions don’t line up with yours. I suspect the site makes a not negligible amount of money from these people. It makes the site owners look like they’re using the ability to message I understand where you're coming from. But answer me this. When you joined you were unverified, as were we all. So you'd never have been able to contact anyone should your filter have been in place. It would result in the only people being able to send messages being those that had met other. Hardly fair on people who are genuinely looking to meet. Sure. A single female profile and to a certain extent a couples one, would have plenty of incoming mail, even as a pictureless, blank profile. But men? Nope. Effectively you're asking someone else to do the initial groundwork of contacting and meeting someone first, before you decide to engage with them yourself. Someone has to be someone's first meet and verification after all. " Nothing to do with being fair. People are allowed to pick and choose who they want to meet and have sex with if people don't want to meet anyone who isn't meet verified then they don't have to | |||
| |||
| |||
