FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > Fab profiles
Fab profiles
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"When will fab start taking fake profiles/users seriously and actively make it harder for them to use the site? The problem seems to be rampant at the minute " What do you mean fake? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion." People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. " Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"When will fab start taking fake profiles/users seriously and actively make it harder for them to use the site? The problem seems to be rampant at the minute " I don't find that's a problem with fake profiles in our neck of the wood. Bar a few couples profiles that are blatantly just a man. Everyone seems absolutely closed off, or not my type. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. " I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"When will fab start taking fake profiles/users seriously and actively make it harder for them to use the site? The problem seems to be rampant at the minute I don't find that's a problem with fake profiles in our neck of the wood. Bar a few couples profiles that are blatantly just a man. Everyone seems absolutely closed off, or not my type. " lol | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice" One person’s “nice” is another’s idea of an absolute disaster. V x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. " Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........" I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. " I'm serious about meeting but I would leave if it became expensive to be here. In my opinion it wouldn't be worth the money to stay. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........" If they expensive sites are so good why are you here? Wouldn't everyone be using them and not bother with free sites? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"When will fab start taking fake profiles/users seriously and actively make it harder for them to use the site? The problem seems to be rampant at the minute I don't find that's a problem with fake profiles in our neck of the wood. Bar a few couples profiles that are blatantly just a man. Everyone seems absolutely closed off, or not my type. lol "What are you lolling at  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? " Some of us think this site is great and some of us think it could do with a lot of improvement. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ If they expensive sites are so good why are you here? Wouldn't everyone be using them and not bother with free sites?" Why are you here? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? Some of us think this site is great and some of us think it could do with a lot of improvement." So don't presume making it expensive will make it better. There is a choice, people can choose if they want to pay and get their desired results  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. " fab is a free to use site, that is its unique feature. You mention that one or two people from fab use the expensive site, I think that illustrates that despite the drawbacks that you experience the majority prefer fab. There are a range of sites available from free through to mid range and up to very expensive this gives people the choice to go with not only what suits their pocket but also the way they choose to meet people and play. Fab also has a comprehensive reporting system and gives the tools to prevent people from being able to message them and speaking to them like pieces of meat in mail filters, the report and block buttons | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? Some of us think this site is great and some of us think it could do with a lot of improvement. So don't presume making it expensive will make it better. There is a choice, people can choose if they want to pay and get their desired results "I shall presume what I like, just like you have the freedom to presume what you want | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? Some of us think this site is great and some of us think it could do with a lot of improvement. So don't presume making it expensive will make it better. There is a choice, people can choose if they want to pay and get their desired results
I shall presume what I like, just like you have the freedom to presume what you want"I wasn't the one that suggested changing the whole ethos of a free site. If this site doesn't suit you and the expensive ones are as good as you claim, go pay  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Fab works pretty well for me. People are flaky on many other sites too. You'll always get fakes/liars/let downs. You just become better at sussing them out after a while. My idea of a time waster may not be someone else's. Thank fuck for the block button and notes feature. I've been on other sites in the past and paid expensive monthly subscriptions. I STILL encountered time wasters and fakes (a slightly lower volume and a lot less users) My profile states exactly what I'm after and sometimes I'm lucky enough to receive a message from a guy who's just my cup of tea "  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Charging wouldn't solve the problem. There are plenty of people desperate enough and strange enough.. with money and time to waste. Time wasters come in all shapes and (wallet) sizes. " Absolutely | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I use this site because of the free option, I have used other sites were you have to pay just to send a message, found them to have just as many time wasters to be honest. I wouldn't pay to use a site now, if this site became pay only I'd delete my profile ." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Charging wouldn't solve the problem. There are plenty of people desperate enough and strange enough.. with money and time to waste. Time wasters come in all shapes and (wallet) sizes. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? Some of us think this site is great and some of us think it could do with a lot of improvement. So don't presume making it expensive will make it better. There is a choice, people can choose if they want to pay and get their desired results
I shall presume what I like, just like you have the freedom to presume what you want
I wasn't the one that suggested changing the whole ethos of a free site. If this site doesn't suit you and the expensive ones are as good as you claim, go pay "If my suggestion doesn’t suit you, it’s your problem and you are free to ignore me | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice"
Almost similar suggestion has been actually posted in the site feedback section. But it got brushed off.
https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/feedback/875612 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. People are free to join the expensive ones if they feel it would suit them better. This site suits many people just as it is. Maybe that’s why you have every Tom dick and Harry emailing couples and women and speaking to them like they are pieces of meat. If Fabswingers was very expensive, maybe, just maybe, it would be only the people who are serious about socialising and meeting people who would stay as members. I don't have a problem with the site, I don't feel I am treated like a piece of meet. This site is free and suits me. If people feel they would find more suitable people on an expensive site, then join that site. Don't presume we all want the same. Just because you are treated with respect it doesn’t mean to say that everyone in this site is treated with respect; yet you do presume it........ I do not presume others are not treated differently. I said 'I' as in speaking for myself. If you do not like this free site, use another, there is a choice. Do not take choice away for myself and others who find this site great. If the expensive sites are so good, why are you moaning about being on this one ? Some of us think this site is great and some of us think it could do with a lot of improvement. So don't presume making it expensive will make it better. There is a choice, people can choose if they want to pay and get their desired results
I shall presume what I like, just like you have the freedom to presume what you want
I wasn't the one that suggested changing the whole ethos of a free site. If this site doesn't suit you and the expensive ones are as good as you claim, go pay
If my suggestion doesn’t suit you, it’s your problem and you are free to ignore me "It is not my problem, I do not have a priblem. This is a forum. You posted that you felt the site should be changed from free to expensive. I and many others disagreed. As is the nature of the forum, I reply to agree or disagree with certain posts and challenges to mine. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m not talking about charge versus no charge, I’m talking when will they actually start trying to root out the fake profiles and users A “couple” in our local area is using numerous pictures that after a quick reverse image search shows they are from about 4/5 pornstars profile is reported and nothing happens it’s still up and running, why can’t they simply say anyone who joins the site has to upload a face pic that only site admin will see that includes a randomly generated set of letters or numbers " When you report them do you provide links to where you've found them elsewhere? I find that helps. Admin also have to be able to be sure the pics are "borrowed" and not just that the profile owners have posted them elsewhere - which can happen. Sadly there are profiles that regularly use borrowed pics and all you can do is keep reporting them. The face pic suggestion is already in existence but not mandatory - however it wouldn't cut down on people using borrowed pics - if they upload ones without a face shown there'd be nothing to compare against. While it's annoying that people do it - they're easily spotted a lot of the time and therefore shouldn't really detract from your enjoyment of the site. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I know the face pic is already in existence but should be mandatory Reported with links and still nothing, borrowed? More like stolen copyrighted work Also if people are paying site supporter they should feel like they are getting something for there money to actually make it worth it " Like I said though - they're usually easily spotted either with reverse image or a little common sense due diligence so whilst it's annoying that they get away with it, it shouldn't have any real impact on your experience of the site. And you do get various things for paying for site support extra pics on profile, being able to see who looked at you, being able to see message strings etc - not sure what else you'd like to see for your fiver a month? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"? What qualifies someone as a "fake site user", apart from your opinion of them OP. If you dissatisfied with fab the way it is there is an obvious choice which dispenses with the need for judgemental rants. "The normal qualifier is that it’s a single man pretending to be a women or a couple
What’s judgmental about asking the site owners to run the site in a way that supports actual swingers not people looking for a quick wank? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Fakes aren’t the problem, it’s the time wasters that spoil it. You’ll soon work that one out " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice" We arranged to meet you two, but you never showed up. E | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I for one do not agree with mandatory face pics, simply because I don't want to do it, I know alot of others who agree. Why not just block the fakes and carry on with your life? I never understand why people continually go back to the same profiles reporting etc when they could just block them and find people who aren't fakes. Fab gives you tools, use them. " So they get taken of the site and hopefully help the people that aren’t so great at spotting them, aren’t we all supposed to be part of a community and look out for each other? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I for one do not agree with mandatory face pics, simply because I don't want to do it, I know alot of others who agree. Why not just block the fakes and carry on with your life? I never understand why people continually go back to the same profiles reporting etc when they could just block them and find people who aren't fakes. Fab gives you tools, use them. So they get taken of the site and hopefully help the people that aren’t so great at spotting them, aren’t we all supposed to be part of a community and look out for each other? " Yes but you do have to take some responsibility for your own experience on fab. The site owners have given you tools to use, just report them, block, then forget about them. Honestly, there's no point stressing over people that don't really matter to you at all. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I for one do not agree with mandatory face pics, simply because I don't want to do it, I know alot of others who agree. Why not just block the fakes and carry on with your life? I never understand why people continually go back to the same profiles reporting etc when they could just block them and find people who aren't fakes. Fab gives you tools, use them. So they get taken of the site and hopefully help the people that aren’t so great at spotting them, aren’t we all supposed to be part of a community and look out for each other? " Damn right we have to stick together, be a proper community and spread the word. We have it on good authority you're both fakes. Of course, it might be just malicious gossip by someone you turned down. Who's to know eh?  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m not talking about charge versus no charge, I’m talking when will they actually start trying to root out the fake profiles and users A “couple” in our local area is using numerous pictures that after a quick reverse image search shows they are from about 4/5 pornstars profile is reported and nothing happens it’s still up and running, why can’t they simply say anyone who joins the site has to upload a face pic that only site admin will see that includes a randomly generated set of letters or numbers When you report them do you provide links to where you've found them elsewhere? I find that helps. Admin also have to be able to be sure the pics are "borrowed" and not just that the profile owners have posted them elsewhere - which can happen. Sadly there are profiles that regularly use borrowed pics and all you can do is keep reporting them. The face pic suggestion is already in existence but not mandatory - however it wouldn't cut down on people using borrowed pics - if they upload ones without a face shown there'd be nothing to compare against. While it's annoying that people do it - they're easily spotted a lot of the time and therefore shouldn't really detract from your enjoyment of the site." This. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I for one do not agree with mandatory face pics, simply because I don't want to do it, I know alot of others who agree. Why not just block the fakes and carry on with your life? I never understand why people continually go back to the same profiles reporting etc when they could just block them and find people who aren't fakes. Fab gives you tools, use them. So they get taken of the site and hopefully help the people that aren’t so great at spotting them, aren’t we all supposed to be part of a community and look out for each other? Damn right we have to stick together, be a proper community and spread the word. We have it on good authority you're both fakes. Of course, it might be just malicious gossip by someone you turned down. Who's to know eh? "Great point yawn | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion." And them you would also lose all the genuine swingers such as myself because we can't afford extortionate site fees. Even timewasters can have money. It may cut out a few but the site would lose a hell of a lot more people because of it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I for one do not agree with mandatory face pics, simply because I don't want to do it, I know alot of others who agree. Why not just block the fakes and carry on with your life? I never understand why people continually go back to the same profiles reporting etc when they could just block them and find people who aren't fakes. Fab gives you tools, use them. So they get taken of the site and hopefully help the people that aren’t so great at spotting them, aren’t we all supposed to be part of a community and look out for each other? Damn right we have to stick together, be a proper community and spread the word. We have it on good authority you're both fakes. Of course, it might be just malicious gossip by someone you turned down. Who's to know eh?
Great point yawn "It's a good point tho. How would you stop people reporting profiles maliciously? I have plenty of friends who will back me to say you are a fake....pooff you are gone. The site gives you the tools to come to the conclusion whether a profile is genuine or not. The site is not here to babysit you, be responsible for your own choices and if the site is not for you, find another one and leave. It works for the majority of the time. Yes, there are fakes. Yes, there are time wasters, but there are on other sites. Charging high fees will get rid of a few fakes and alot of genuine profiles like us. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice We arranged to meet you two, but you never showed up. E" 1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message 2: You are outside of our stated age filters 3: You live at the opposite end of the country. All 3 of those things are easy for an automated system to detect as abuse of process and preclude the review from being accepted. I presume this post was meant to be playing devils advocate about how such a system could be abused and not just outright lying for the sake of causing trouble... As for the people asking about the definition of a timewaster, it can have multiple forms. One such type that is seen extremely often for single males and couples who engage with single females is the profile that messages you, exchanges messages for many days, adds you to a chat program like Kik or Snapchat or WhatsApp, arranges a meet, puts you to the expense of whatever arrangements you agreed to set up, continues to message enthusiastically up until a day or two before the meet, then just stops. No cancellation, no explanation, you're just left wondering what the hell happened as they are a verified user and they literally never gave you a word of reason to suspect anything was amiss. And by this point you've booked hotels or bought things you planned to bring, whatever. An expensive waste of time. The definition of a time waster. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I know the face pic is already in existence but should be mandatory Reported with links and still nothing, borrowed? More like stolen copyrighted work Also if people are paying site supporter they should feel like they are getting something for there money to actually make it worth it " It’s hardly loads. I think I get a fiver’s worth of value for money. V x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I for one do not agree with mandatory face pics, simply because I don't want to do it, I know alot of others who agree. Why not just block the fakes and carry on with your life? I never understand why people continually go back to the same profiles reporting etc when they could just block them and find people who aren't fakes. Fab gives you tools, use them. So they get taken of the site and hopefully help the people that aren’t so great at spotting them, aren’t we all supposed to be part of a community and look out for each other? Damn right we have to stick together, be a proper community and spread the word. We have it on good authority you're both fakes. Of course, it might be just malicious gossip by someone you turned down. Who's to know eh?
Great point yawn
It's a good point tho. How would you stop people reporting profiles maliciously? I have plenty of friends who will back me to say you are a fake....pooff you are gone.
The site gives you the tools to come to the conclusion whether a profile is genuine or not. The site is not here to babysit you, be responsible for your own choices and if the site is not for you, find another one and leave. It works for the majority of the time. Yes, there are fakes. Yes, there are time wasters, but there are on other sites. Charging high fees will get rid of a few fakes and alot of genuine profiles like us."I see this a lot though. People don't carry out due diligence. They don't follow the veri trail. They don't take enough time to build rapport and trust. They don't use the tools the site gives them, then expect the site to put right their poor choices. M | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m not talking about charge versus no charge, I’m talking when will they actually start trying to root out the fake profiles and users A “couple” in our local area is using numerous pictures that after a quick reverse image search shows they are from about 4/5 pornstars profile is reported and nothing happens it’s still up and running, why can’t they simply say anyone who joins the site has to upload a face pic that only site admin will see that includes a randomly generated set of letters or numbers " That wouldn't stop people using fake pics There are lots of ways that Admin deal with reports, people don't always get chucked off straight away , I will paste onto the next post what they say they do with reports. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. " Did anyone suggest otherwise? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. Did anyone suggest otherwise?" Your point 3 above. I understand your point 1 and two about messages on fab, but distance isn't neccesarily a factor. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice We arranged to meet you two, but you never showed up. E 1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message 2: You are outside of our stated age filters 3: You live at the opposite end of the country. All 3 of those things are easy for an automated system to detect as abuse of process and preclude the review from being accepted. I presume this post was meant to be playing devils advocate about how such a system could be abused and not just outright lying for the sake of causing trouble... As for the people asking about the definition of a timewaster, it can have multiple forms. One such type that is seen extremely often for single males and couples who engage with single females is the profile that messages you, exchanges messages for many days, adds you to a chat program like Kik or Snapchat or WhatsApp, arranges a meet, puts you to the expense of whatever arrangements you agreed to set up, continues to message enthusiastically up until a day or two before the meet, then just stops. No cancellation, no explanation, you're just left wondering what the hell happened as they are a verified user and they literally never gave you a word of reason to suspect anything was amiss. And by this point you've booked hotels or bought things you planned to bring, whatever. An expensive waste of time. The definition of a time waster. " I think you'll find they were indeed playing devil's advocate to highlight a flaw in your suggestion and whilst your 3 points may hold *some* validity, they are also equally flawed: "1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message" - but they met you at a club as it was closing and you agreed to meet - no messages needed "2: You are outside of our stated age filters" - people meet people outside of their stated age filters all the time - they're a guideline more than anything, and if, per point 1, you'd "met" in a club you wouldn't necessarily know their age. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." - as has already been pointed out that isn't necessarily a reason not to have arranged to meet them - perhaps they have relatives in your area. And yes I *am* playing devil's advocate but it's easy to see how a system like the one you suggested *could* be subject to abuse. Simple fact of the matter is with a little due diligence and a common sense approach, it's easy to tell how genuine someone is in their intentions - trouble is a lot of people don't employ those things, and the tools the site provides, and get caught up in the excitement of "I've got interest in a meet" endgame, without actually taking their time to ensure as far as possible that that meet is actually genuine. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice We arranged to meet you two, but you never showed up. E 1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message 2: You are outside of our stated age filters 3: You live at the opposite end of the country. All 3 of those things are easy for an automated system to detect as abuse of process and preclude the review from being accepted. I presume this post was meant to be playing devils advocate about how such a system could be abused and not just outright lying for the sake of causing trouble... As for the people asking about the definition of a timewaster, it can have multiple forms. One such type that is seen extremely often for single males and couples who engage with single females is the profile that messages you, exchanges messages for many days, adds you to a chat program like Kik or Snapchat or WhatsApp, arranges a meet, puts you to the expense of whatever arrangements you agreed to set up, continues to message enthusiastically up until a day or two before the meet, then just stops. No cancellation, no explanation, you're just left wondering what the hell happened as they are a verified user and they literally never gave you a word of reason to suspect anything was amiss. And by this point you've booked hotels or bought things you planned to bring, whatever. An expensive waste of time. The definition of a time waster. I think you'll find they were indeed playing devil's advocate to highlight a flaw in your suggestion and whilst your 3 points may hold *some* validity, they are also equally flawed: "1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message" - but they met you at a club as it was closing and you agreed to meet - no messages needed "2: You are outside of our stated age filters" - people meet people outside of their stated age filters all the time - they're a guideline more than anything, and if, per point 1, you'd "met" in a club you wouldn't necessarily know their age. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." - as has already been pointed out that isn't necessarily a reason not to have arranged to meet them - perhaps they have relatives in your area. And yes I *am* playing devil's advocate but it's easy to see how a system like the one you suggested *could* be subject to abuse. Simple fact of the matter is with a little due diligence and a common sense approach, it's easy to tell how genuine someone is in their intentions - trouble is a lot of people don't employ those things, and the tools the site provides, and get caught up in the excitement of "I've got interest in a meet" endgame, without actually taking their time to ensure as far as possible that that meet is actually genuine." You beat me to it. Preach. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. Did anyone suggest otherwise?" No one else did but your own point 3 did lol. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The site shouldn't have to verify if people are timewasters or fakes, block and move on, it's so easy." In a nutshell - this | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. Did anyone suggest otherwise? No one else did but your own point 3 did lol. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." " I'll reply to this as it's the latest post to make this fallacious reasoning but it equally applies to the rest: 1: This post wasn't about fake profiles, it was about other manners of anti-social behaviour on fab. In fact if you go back to my original post you will find that I dismiss fake profiles as actually being the source of the problem. So no, my point 3 does not suggest, as the poster said "that being geographically distant immediately makes someone a fake profile". In fact such a statement would be flat out moronic as clearly all profiles are geographically distant from someone. The point about geography is about determining the likelihood that an allegation of timewasting is true. Geographical distance is one possible metric, to be used with others already collected by Fab, to judge whether a report is accurate; as it is less likely that a meet would be agreed over such distances. There is however a better solution anyway (see below) 2: To take Gemini's point, whether someone messes you about following a meeting in person is irrelevant. That is behaviour off the site and matters not a jot to whether or not we should attempt to reduce such behaviour on this site. I agree that people may still misbehave in person, my point was not concerned with that. My point was concerned about what we can do to possibly implement such a system while reducing the ability to "game the system" as much as possible. There is another way of course, that would be far far easier. Extend the current "meet me" function to include a profile registration to attend the event. Effectively a tickbox exercise where both profiles confirm before a meet that they have booked it. Of course Fab would have no way nor interest in trying to enforce that people use it, but those of us who are tired of timewasters would be able to tell pretty quickly if someone was going to bail by their refusal to tick the box. No box tick, no ability to sent a report of timewasting as there's nothing to evidentially hang it on. Frankly it's very amusing seeing the single female profiles in here and their followers bleat about how unfair this system might be when let's be real, it's the single female profiles who would likely all have these warnings on them within a few months. The fact is that while yes, the site can operate as it is, and no, these changes aren't absolutely necessary, they could enhance the experience for a large majority of users. We resist such changes because those who have influence (unicorns) don't like the idea of even the tiniest bit of accountability this might place on them. A very common refrain in my experience. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. Did anyone suggest otherwise? No one else did but your own point 3 did lol. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." I'll reply to this as it's the latest post to make this fallacious reasoning but it equally applies to the rest: 1: This post wasn't about fake profiles, it was about other manners of anti-social behaviour on fab. In fact if you go back to my original post you will find that I dismiss fake profiles as actually being the source of the problem. So no, my point 3 does not suggest, as the poster said "that being geographically distant immediately makes someone a fake profile". In fact such a statement would be flat out moronic as clearly all profiles are geographically distant from someone. The point about geography is about determining the likelihood that an allegation of timewasting is true. Geographical distance is one possible metric, to be used with others already collected by Fab, to judge whether a report is accurate; as it is less likely that a meet would be agreed over such distances. There is however a better solution anyway (see below) 2: To take Gemini's point, whether someone messes you about following a meeting in person is irrelevant. That is behaviour off the site and matters not a jot to whether or not we should attempt to reduce such behaviour on this site. I agree that people may still misbehave in person, my point was not concerned with that. My point was concerned about what we can do to possibly implement such a system while reducing the ability to "game the system" as much as possible. There is another way of course, that would be far far easier. Extend the current "meet me" function to include a profile registration to attend the event. Effectively a tickbox exercise where both profiles confirm before a meet that they have booked it. Of course Fab would have no way nor interest in trying to enforce that people use it, but those of us who are tired of timewasters would be able to tell pretty quickly if someone was going to bail by their refusal to tick the box. No box tick, no ability to sent a report of timewasting as there's nothing to evidentially hang it on. Frankly it's very amusing seeing the single female profiles in here and their followers bleat about how unfair this system might be when let's be real, it's the single female profiles who would likely all have these warnings on them within a few months. The fact is that while yes, the site can operate as it is, and no, these changes aren't absolutely necessary, they could enhance the experience for a large majority of users. We resist such changes because those who have influence (unicorns) don't like the idea of even the tiniest bit of accountability this might place on them. A very common refrain in my experience." A bit like: User A proposes meet on via a Fab meet tab. User B accepts meet request. User A logs on and clicks "I'm here". Gets issued a verification pass phrase User B meets User A. Logs on to Fab. Clicks Verify meet. Enters Pass phrase. Both parties happy. A bit like connecting Bluetooth devices but the only way to arrange genuine meets that can be used for stopping timewasters. Which I suggested earlier on in the thread. However as with most comments I post on the forums, people only notice what I write when they take exception to it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. Did anyone suggest otherwise? No one else did but your own point 3 did lol. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." I'll reply to this as it's the latest post to make this fallacious reasoning but it equally applies to the rest: 1: This post wasn't about fake profiles, it was about other manners of anti-social behaviour on fab. In fact if you go back to my original post you will find that I dismiss fake profiles as actually being the source of the problem. So no, my point 3 does not suggest, as the poster said "that being geographically distant immediately makes someone a fake profile". In fact such a statement would be flat out moronic as clearly all profiles are geographically distant from someone. The point about geography is about determining the likelihood that an allegation of timewasting is true. Geographical distance is one possible metric, to be used with others already collected by Fab, to judge whether a report is accurate; as it is less likely that a meet would be agreed over such distances. There is however a better solution anyway (see below) 2: To take Gemini's point, whether someone messes you about following a meeting in person is irrelevant. That is behaviour off the site and matters not a jot to whether or not we should attempt to reduce such behaviour on this site. I agree that people may still misbehave in person, my point was not concerned with that. My point was concerned about what we can do to possibly implement such a system while reducing the ability to "game the system" as much as possible. There is another way of course, that would be far far easier. Extend the current "meet me" function to include a profile registration to attend the event. Effectively a tickbox exercise where both profiles confirm before a meet that they have booked it. Of course Fab would have no way nor interest in trying to enforce that people use it, but those of us who are tired of timewasters would be able to tell pretty quickly if someone was going to bail by their refusal to tick the box. No box tick, no ability to sent a report of timewasting as there's nothing to evidentially hang it on. Frankly it's very amusing seeing the single female profiles in here and their followers bleat about how unfair this system might be when let's be real, it's the single female profiles who would likely all have these warnings on them within a few months. The fact is that while yes, the site can operate as it is, and no, these changes aren't absolutely necessary, they could enhance the experience for a large majority of users. We resist such changes because those who have influence (unicorns) don't like the idea of even the tiniest bit of accountability this might place on them. A very common refrain in my experience." I have many verifications proving I'm not fake, a timewaster or whatever you seem to think. The site is not here to pander to your whims because you are being messed around, if it keeps happening then you need to take a look at yourself since you're the common denominator. If you don't like the way the site works, you can always leave. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" 2: To take Gemini's point, whether someone messes you about following a meeting in person is irrelevant. That is behaviour off the site and matters not a jot to whether or not we should attempt to reduce such behaviour on this site. I agree that people may still misbehave in person, my point was not concerned with that. My point was concerned about what we can do to possibly implement such a system while reducing the ability to "game the system" as much as possible. " I think you've missed my point which was to show how your initial suggested system, and justification for it, is flawed and could be abused in the ways that I showed, in counter to your own, and all are very relevant to that point. Whilst we *could* have convoluted systems put in place such as tick box meets - and yes they would potentially cut down on timewasters and no shows - I keep coming back to it being quite simple to avoid them with a little due diligence and common sense being applied before diving into meeting - the majority of the time those that complain about timewasters/no shows are those that dive into arranging a meet within a handful of messages, without actually taking adequate steps to check that the other person is both who they say they are, and genuine about wanting to meet. I'm not saying it doesn't happen when checks are made but I'll wager that is a tiny percentage of cases - and that being the case would all these "systems" not just be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut? In three years of being here, I've met a number of people, and not once have I had my time wasted or a no show and am sure that goes for others too, which brings me back to the question of whether it should really be incumbent on Fab to babysit, or us as users of the site to employ some common sense and look beyond the prospect of sex? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Being geographically distant from someone doesn't make them instantly fake. 90% of my friends list is in a different country to me and 25% of my veri's required me flying to.meet them. Did anyone suggest otherwise? No one else did but your own point 3 did lol. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." I'll reply to this as it's the latest post to make this fallacious reasoning but it equally applies to the rest: 1: This post wasn't about fake profiles, it was about other manners of anti-social behaviour on fab. In fact if you go back to my original post you will find that I dismiss fake profiles as actually being the source of the problem. So no, my point 3 does not suggest, as the poster said "that being geographically distant immediately makes someone a fake profile". In fact such a statement would be flat out moronic as clearly all profiles are geographically distant from someone. The point about geography is about determining the likelihood that an allegation of timewasting is true. Geographical distance is one possible metric, to be used with others already collected by Fab, to judge whether a report is accurate; as it is less likely that a meet would be agreed over such distances. There is however a better solution anyway (see below) 2: To take Gemini's point, whether someone messes you about following a meeting in person is irrelevant. That is behaviour off the site and matters not a jot to whether or not we should attempt to reduce such behaviour on this site. I agree that people may still misbehave in person, my point was not concerned with that. My point was concerned about what we can do to possibly implement such a system while reducing the ability to "game the system" as much as possible. There is another way of course, that would be far far easier. Extend the current "meet me" function to include a profile registration to attend the event. Effectively a tickbox exercise where both profiles confirm before a meet that they have booked it. Of course Fab would have no way nor interest in trying to enforce that people use it, but those of us who are tired of timewasters would be able to tell pretty quickly if someone was going to bail by their refusal to tick the box. No box tick, no ability to sent a report of timewasting as there's nothing to evidentially hang it on. Frankly it's very amusing seeing the single female profiles in here and their followers bleat about how unfair this system might be when let's be real, it's the single female profiles who would likely all have these warnings on them within a few months. The fact is that while yes, the site can operate as it is, and no, these changes aren't absolutely necessary, they could enhance the experience for a large majority of users. We resist such changes because those who have influence (unicorns) don't like the idea of even the tiniest bit of accountability this might place on them. A very common refrain in my experience. A bit like: User A proposes meet on via a Fab meet tab. User B accepts meet request. User A logs on and clicks "I'm here". Gets issued a verification pass phrase User B meets User A. Logs on to Fab. Clicks Verify meet. Enters Pass phrase. Both parties happy. A bit like connecting Bluetooth devices but the only way to arrange genuine meets that can be used for stopping timewasters. Which I suggested earlier on in the thread. However as with most comments I post on the forums, people only notice what I write when they take exception to it." This is completely unnecessary, just vet your potential meets better. It's honestly not rocket science. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull" But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I've been here for a fair bit of time now. I've yet to be bothered by a fake profile. Nor have I had my time wasted. As a single man I'm most likely to be the "victim" of fakes and timewasters. And yet...... none. Ever. I do however use the tools the site gives me, coupled with a good measure of common sense. Carry out my due diligence, take time to built rapport and trust and am in no rush to get my dick wet. Where am I going wrong? " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? " Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. " It isn't like climbing Everest but neither is taking due care in setting up meets. Alot of people wouldn't want a hidden mark on their profile if they have to cancel for a valid reason. Again I'll say it, use the sites tools in the way they are intended and it cuts down the odds of you getting let down. I've had no shows several times but I just accept that's how some people are and it's not up to the site to fix. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. " Any idea how many fake/timewasting reports will be submitted to admin and how many admin staff there are to investigate each and every one? I suspect the site simply doesn't have the manpower resources to facilitate the idea. And of course, your still asking the site to resolve things that likely could have been avoided in the first place. Arrange a social meet before a sexual meet. Arrange it somewhere you're likely to be anyway. If they no show you've lost nothing more than the time it takes to write a few messages. I don't get why some people seem to have no end of problems with meets and some people have zero problems..... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. Any idea how many fake/timewasting reports will be submitted to admin and how many admin staff there are to investigate each and every one? I suspect the site simply doesn't have the manpower resources to facilitate the idea. And of course, your still asking the site to resolve things that likely could have been avoided in the first place. Arrange a social meet before a sexual meet. Arrange it somewhere you're likely to be anyway. If they no show you've lost nothing more than the time it takes to write a few messages. I don't get why some people seem to have no end of problems with meets and some people have zero problems....." This is my point exactly. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. It isn't like climbing Everest but neither is taking due care in setting up meets. Alot of people wouldn't want a hidden mark on their profile if they have to cancel for a valid reason. Again I'll say it, use the sites tools in the way they are intended and it cuts down the odds of you getting let down. I've had no shows several times but I just accept that's how some people are and it's not up to the site to fix. " Doesn't matter how much you say it, none of your arguments since the first have addressed the fundamental problem of "How is this a bad thing for the site to do?" You're a single female, as such the most privileged group on this site. Honestly your perspective that timewasters aren't a problem and that fab should actively resist suggestions that would alleviate the issue somewhat; its hilariously tone-deaf. It's also beyond obvious that single females wish to preserve their ability to waste people's time when it suits. You have veris, no doubt, doesn't matter. The majority of the people who have flaked on us had veris, we rarely put much time into talking to anyone who doesn't. Verifications don't prove shit beyond the person being who they say they are, they say nothing of how that person behaves. Only the positive ones get published. It's like blaming a customer for buying a flawed product while defending the rights of the manufacturer to suppress negative product reviews. You aren't going to agree, that much is obvious, because why would you? The change would be against your interests and you don't see the problem because you are in the group performing the negative behaviour (in the vast majority of cases) rather than the groups being impacted. But honestly the lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is astonishing | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. It isn't like climbing Everest but neither is taking due care in setting up meets. Alot of people wouldn't want a hidden mark on their profile if they have to cancel for a valid reason. Again I'll say it, use the sites tools in the way they are intended and it cuts down the odds of you getting let down. I've had no shows several times but I just accept that's how some people are and it's not up to the site to fix. Doesn't matter how much you say it, none of your arguments since the first have addressed the fundamental problem of "How is this a bad thing for the site to do?" You're a single female, as such the most privileged group on this site. Honestly your perspective that timewasters aren't a problem and that fab should actively resist suggestions that would alleviate the issue somewhat; its hilariously tone-deaf. It's also beyond obvious that single females wish to preserve their ability to waste people's time when it suits. You have veris, no doubt, doesn't matter. The majority of the people who have flaked on us had veris, we rarely put much time into talking to anyone who doesn't. Verifications don't prove shit beyond the person being who they say they are, they say nothing of how that person behaves. Only the positive ones get published. It's like blaming a customer for buying a flawed product while defending the rights of the manufacturer to suppress negative product reviews. You aren't going to agree, that much is obvious, because why would you? The change would be against your interests and you don't see the problem because you are in the group performing the negative behaviour (in the vast majority of cases) rather than the groups being impacted. But honestly the lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is astonishing" I literally just told you that I also have had no shows, I just don't think it's the sites job to police it. You seem to have real issues with single women, I don't agree with your point of view so you attack single women as a whole group. I believe your issues lie with yourself and maybe the way you interact with people, your posts here have certainly told me alot about how little respect you have for single women. You can keep moaning about timewasters if you need to while I carry on actually meeting people. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Define timewaster please....." Someone who arranges to meet but doesn't turn up | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think the fake users are the main problem at the moment. They are annoying I'll grant you, but they are usually pretty easy to spot and take less seriously at the outset. The bigger problem is the ones who are actually real and verified users but are just collosal time wasters. In all reality we aren't going to see any improvements to the site as they are effectively the only game in town, but one change I would like to see is some sort of eBay style feedback system that is independent of the users decision whether to publish it. Perhaps something numerical where if X number of users report a particular issue it can be flagged as a little banner above their profile. Not to stop them using the site, something like "The community has flagged this profile as a likely pic hunter/timewaster/serial ghosted" Won't happen, but it would be nice We arranged to meet you two, but you never showed up. E 1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message 2: You are outside of our stated age filters 3: You live at the opposite end of the country. All 3 of those things are easy for an automated system to detect as abuse of process and preclude the review from being accepted. I presume this post was meant to be playing devils advocate about how such a system could be abused and not just outright lying for the sake of causing trouble... As for the people asking about the definition of a timewaster, it can have multiple forms. One such type that is seen extremely often for single males and couples who engage with single females is the profile that messages you, exchanges messages for many days, adds you to a chat program like Kik or Snapchat or WhatsApp, arranges a meet, puts you to the expense of whatever arrangements you agreed to set up, continues to message enthusiastically up until a day or two before the meet, then just stops. No cancellation, no explanation, you're just left wondering what the hell happened as they are a verified user and they literally never gave you a word of reason to suspect anything was amiss. And by this point you've booked hotels or bought things you planned to bring, whatever. An expensive waste of time. The definition of a time waster. I think you'll find they were indeed playing devil's advocate to highlight a flaw in your suggestion and whilst your 3 points may hold *some* validity, they are also equally flawed: "1: Our history shows we have never exchanged a message" - but they met you at a club as it was closing and you agreed to meet - no messages needed "2: You are outside of our stated age filters" - people meet people outside of their stated age filters all the time - they're a guideline more than anything, and if, per point 1, you'd "met" in a club you wouldn't necessarily know their age. "3: You live at the opposite end of the country." - as has already been pointed out that isn't necessarily a reason not to have arranged to meet them - perhaps they have relatives in your area. And yes I *am* playing devil's advocate but it's easy to see how a system like the one you suggested *could* be subject to abuse. Simple fact of the matter is with a little due diligence and a common sense approach, it's easy to tell how genuine someone is in their intentions - trouble is a lot of people don't employ those things, and the tools the site provides, and get caught up in the excitement of "I've got interest in a meet" endgame, without actually taking their time to ensure as far as possible that that meet is actually genuine." True story. Right there...^^^^ M | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion." I'm willing to bet the more expensive site you belong to has literally thousands less members, so a lot easier to police, coupled with significantly higher value financial resources to administer and optionalise the site functionality. I'm also willing to bet it too has its fair share of people bleating about timewasters, albeit in smaller numbers. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm on another well known site. Its about £16 a month. You get the same jerkes, time wasters and fakes on there too. Most of the sites you can still message so many times a day without being a full member. I think that should he knocked on the head. Would cut out a few of the riff raff if there were no free messages without being a paid up member. " If there were no free messages we'd have left this site as we did a few others. As we could try it free for as long as it suited us we're still here today and paying members. We've payed for a membership of the very first site we've joined just to realise it was a complete waste of money and not what expected. If a site cannot offer basic services such as browsing profiles, messaging and reading messages for free we won't join it. I'm sure we're not the only ones. Mrs | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm on another well known site. Its about £16 a month. You get the same jerkes, time wasters and fakes on there too. Most of the sites you can still message so many times a day without being a full member. I think that should he knocked on the head. Would cut out a few of the riff raff if there were no free messages without being a paid up member. If there were no free messages we'd have left this site as we did a few others. As we could try it free for as long as it suited us we're still here today and paying members. We've payed for a membership of the very first site we've joined just to realise it was a complete waste of money and not what expected. If a site cannot offer basic services such as browsing profiles, messaging and reading messages for free we won't join it. I'm sure we're not the only ones. Mrs " Agreed. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm on another well known site. Its about £16 a month. You get the same jerkes, time wasters and fakes on there too. Most of the sites you can still message so many times a day without being a full member. I think that should he knocked on the head. Would cut out a few of the riff raff if there were no free messages without being a paid up member. If there were no free messages we'd have left this site as we did a few others. As we could try it free for as long as it suited us we're still here today and paying members. We've payed for a membership of the very first site we've joined just to realise it was a complete waste of money and not what expected. If a site cannot offer basic services such as browsing profiles, messaging and reading messages for free we won't join it. I'm sure we're not the only ones. Mrs " True that.. honestly I think no matter what you do there there will always be time wasters. Just accept it, get over it. It gets easier to spot in time and tbh I've not found it too much of an annoyance myself. I dont think paying more would help with it all just put people off. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm on another well known site. Its about £16 a month. You get the same jerkes, time wasters and fakes on there too. Most of the sites you can still message so many times a day without being a full member. I think that should he knocked on the head. Would cut out a few of the riff raff if there were no free messages without being a paid up member. If there were no free messages we'd have left this site as we did a few others. As we could try it free for as long as it suited us we're still here today and paying members. We've payed for a membership of the very first site we've joined just to realise it was a complete waste of money and not what expected. If a site cannot offer basic services such as browsing profiles, messaging and reading messages for free we won't join it. I'm sure we're not the only ones. Mrs True that.. honestly I think no matter what you do there there will always be time wasters. Just accept it, get over it. It gets easier to spot in time and tbh I've not found it too much of an annoyance myself. I dont think paying more would help with it all just put people off. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. It isn't like climbing Everest but neither is taking due care in setting up meets. Alot of people wouldn't want a hidden mark on their profile if they have to cancel for a valid reason. Again I'll say it, use the sites tools in the way they are intended and it cuts down the odds of you getting let down. I've had no shows several times but I just accept that's how some people are and it's not up to the site to fix. Doesn't matter how much you say it, none of your arguments since the first have addressed the fundamental problem of "How is this a bad thing for the site to do?" You're a single female, as such the most privileged group on this site. Honestly your perspective that timewasters aren't a problem and that fab should actively resist suggestions that would alleviate the issue somewhat; its hilariously tone-deaf. It's also beyond obvious that single females wish to preserve their ability to waste people's time when it suits. You have veris, no doubt, doesn't matter. The majority of the people who have flaked on us had veris, we rarely put much time into talking to anyone who doesn't. Verifications don't prove shit beyond the person being who they say they are, they say nothing of how that person behaves. Only the positive ones get published. It's like blaming a customer for buying a flawed product while defending the rights of the manufacturer to suppress negative product reviews. You aren't going to agree, that much is obvious, because why would you? The change would be against your interests and you don't see the problem because you are in the group performing the negative behaviour (in the vast majority of cases) rather than the groups being impacted. But honestly the lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is astonishing I literally just told you that I also have had no shows, I just don't think it's the sites job to police it. You seem to have real issues with single women, I don't agree with your point of view so you attack single women as a whole group. I believe your issues lie with yourself and maybe the way you interact with people, your posts here have certainly told me alot about how little respect you have for single women. You can keep moaning about timewasters if you need to while I carry on actually meeting people. " Weird flex, but ok... A single female on fab bragging about being able to get meets is about as impressive as if I bragged about being able to beat a 10 year old in an arm wrestle. It doesn't matter whether you think it's the sites job to police it, you aren't the group that would primarily benefit from it. In fact you would find it gives you less benefits so it's hardly surprising you're against it. You enjoy congratulating yourself over shooting fish in a barrel, it really is quite astonishing | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. It isn't like climbing Everest but neither is taking due care in setting up meets. Alot of people wouldn't want a hidden mark on their profile if they have to cancel for a valid reason. Again I'll say it, use the sites tools in the way they are intended and it cuts down the odds of you getting let down. I've had no shows several times but I just accept that's how some people are and it's not up to the site to fix. Doesn't matter how much you say it, none of your arguments since the first have addressed the fundamental problem of "How is this a bad thing for the site to do?" You're a single female, as such the most privileged group on this site. Honestly your perspective that timewasters aren't a problem and that fab should actively resist suggestions that would alleviate the issue somewhat; its hilariously tone-deaf. It's also beyond obvious that single females wish to preserve their ability to waste people's time when it suits. You have veris, no doubt, doesn't matter. The majority of the people who have flaked on us had veris, we rarely put much time into talking to anyone who doesn't. Verifications don't prove shit beyond the person being who they say they are, they say nothing of how that person behaves. Only the positive ones get published. It's like blaming a customer for buying a flawed product while defending the rights of the manufacturer to suppress negative product reviews. You aren't going to agree, that much is obvious, because why would you? The change would be against your interests and you don't see the problem because you are in the group performing the negative behaviour (in the vast majority of cases) rather than the groups being impacted. But honestly the lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is astonishing I literally just told you that I also have had no shows, I just don't think it's the sites job to police it. You seem to have real issues with single women, I don't agree with your point of view so you attack single women as a whole group. I believe your issues lie with yourself and maybe the way you interact with people, your posts here have certainly told me alot about how little respect you have for single women. You can keep moaning about timewasters if you need to while I carry on actually meeting people. Weird flex, but ok... A single female on fab bragging about being able to get meets is about as impressive as if I bragged about being able to beat a 10 year old in an arm wrestle. It doesn't matter whether you think it's the sites job to police it, you aren't the group that would primarily benefit from it. In fact you would find it gives you less benefits so it's hardly surprising you're against it. You enjoy congratulating yourself over shooting fish in a barrel, it really is quite astonishing "Missing the point again, my point was that while you're bitching about timewasters, other people are setting up meets. You're purposely being argumentative so I'm going to let you carry on. Toodles. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apologies Fever, I hadn't spotted it was you who made the Bluetooth analogy. I actually completely agree and your analogy explains it far better than I did. As for whether it's Fab's responsibility to do any of this, no. As I said they don't HAVE to do any of this, and while they are the only game in town they won't either, I'm fully aware of that. But the fact that they won't says a lot about how much they actually value the customer experience. And yes, we are all customers, fab may be free to use in theory but the vast majority of us are paid supporters. You can make the argument that people need to vet harder, ok, some people might. But what can you ACTUALLY do beyond checking someones veris? Not very much. This system, as Fever tree describes best, would cost almost nothing to implement and would significantly reduce the timewasters. The only people to lose out from it would be the timewasters, and despite some claims here such a system would actually be quite difficult to game in any substantial way. Yes, there would be ways of making a false report, but not multiple false reports. And if this was based on say getting X number of such reports in a period of time (which: reminder - can only be made by people you agreed to meet) it would be pretty hard to get multiple reports made against you falsely Fact is, some people don't like the idea that they might get caught out. And you'll win of course, because that's how Fab is and because there's no real alternative to it, but don't try and take the moral high ground, it's just dull But people who are disagreeing are people who are clearly not timewasters as we have verifications proving that. I personally don't want to have to go to the trouble of ticking boxes to prove someone says they will meet me. Sometimes real life gets in the way and people can't turn up, how would that work with your idea? Well to be fair the solution there is simple, you send a message explaining that something has come up. Preferably before the meet but potentially after if necessary. It's then incumbent on the other side to determine if they think a report is appropriate. If they report and it's the only one then ultimately it won't mean much. And they won't know whether that's the case or not. The fab admins however will have visibility of whether or not this is the 5th time they have done the same thing this month and may decide to put the warning on the profile. As previously suggested such a warning wouldn't preclude the person using the site. It wouldn't put them on restricted usage in any way, just give others a heads up that "this user has bailed on 5 meets this month, proceed with caution" I really do think your reticence to "tick a box" doesn't quite match up to the preparation that people go to when they are awaiting a meet from someone with solid verifications who just decides to ghost without any warning. You lose the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, you lose any money you spent booking accommodation and other items, you basically find yourself wasting what might be one of your very few free nights for nothing. You'll forgive me if I think that the hardship of "ticking a box" isn't exactly climbing Everest. It isn't like climbing Everest but neither is taking due care in setting up meets. Alot of people wouldn't want a hidden mark on their profile if they have to cancel for a valid reason. Again I'll say it, use the sites tools in the way they are intended and it cuts down the odds of you getting let down. I've had no shows several times but I just accept that's how some people are and it's not up to the site to fix. Doesn't matter how much you say it, none of your arguments since the first have addressed the fundamental problem of "How is this a bad thing for the site to do?" You're a single female, as such the most privileged group on this site. Honestly your perspective that timewasters aren't a problem and that fab should actively resist suggestions that would alleviate the issue somewhat; its hilariously tone-deaf. It's also beyond obvious that single females wish to preserve their ability to waste people's time when it suits. You have veris, no doubt, doesn't matter. The majority of the people who have flaked on us had veris, we rarely put much time into talking to anyone who doesn't. Verifications don't prove shit beyond the person being who they say they are, they say nothing of how that person behaves. Only the positive ones get published. It's like blaming a customer for buying a flawed product while defending the rights of the manufacturer to suppress negative product reviews. You aren't going to agree, that much is obvious, because why would you? The change would be against your interests and you don't see the problem because you are in the group performing the negative behaviour (in the vast majority of cases) rather than the groups being impacted. But honestly the lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is astonishing I literally just told you that I also have had no shows, I just don't think it's the sites job to police it. You seem to have real issues with single women, I don't agree with your point of view so you attack single women as a whole group. I believe your issues lie with yourself and maybe the way you interact with people, your posts here have certainly told me alot about how little respect you have for single women. You can keep moaning about timewasters if you need to while I carry on actually meeting people. " Agree that this does seem to be an attack on single fems. When I was on as a single the amount of timewasters I encountered was laughable. Made me stop using the site for meets. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The website should become a lot more expensive to use. And I mean A LOT. One or two people from this site are members of an international one (I am as well) and the difference is substantial in my opinion. I'm willing to bet the more expensive site you belong to has literally thousands less members, so a lot easier to police, coupled with significantly higher value financial resources to administer and optionalise the site functionality. I'm also willing to bet it too has its fair share of people bleating about timewasters, albeit in smaller numbers. " Erm, no, actually it has members in the millions because it has listings from Europe, the Americas, and Asia. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"When will fab start taking fake profiles/users seriously and actively make it harder for them to use the site? The problem seems to be rampant at the minute " We are sick of them know, some not even that clever with it lol x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
