FabSwingers.com forum: Limiting messaging

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Hi everyone,

as recently divorced man, I am going to give swinging lifestyle a try (in the end, it was one of the reasons why I am single again - after 15 years!).

What occurred to me, is abundance of men in this site and lot of women or couples are complaining about amount of messages they are getting and quality of those.

I personally wouldn't mind if my messaging ability would be limited. I thought about several things:

* easiest - one message per day for single man. In the end, if someone wants to meet, he is doing research and is looking for someone who ticks some boxes, right

* opt-in for single message per day and those messages would appear as priority - so the lady/couple who got the message would know that is not part of mass spamming process

* some variation or other ideas - I could elaborate but need to get back to work!

Oh - and by one message I mean opener - if conversation starts, there would be no limits.

Do you think it would improve your experience?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

"Hi everyone,

as recently divorced man, I am going to give swinging lifestyle a try (in the end, it was one of the reasons why I am single again - after 15 years!).

What occurred to me, is abundance of men in this site and lot of women or couples are complaining about amount of messages they are getting and quality of those.

I personally wouldn't mind if my messaging ability would be limited. I thought about several things:

* easiest - one message per day for single man. In the end, if someone wants to meet, he is doing research and is looking for someone who ticks some boxes, right

* opt-in for single message per day and those messages would appear as priority - so the lady/couple who got the message would know that is not part of mass spamming process

* some variation or other ideas - I could elaborate but need to get back to work!

Oh - and by one message I mean opener - if conversation starts, there would be no limits.

Do you think it would improve your experience?"

Hi op

I have an excellent idea you try this method then let me know how you get on as feedback

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But if every guy uses their one a day message to message the same profile the profile will still have 100s of messages all highlighted as priority

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

What if the person you message doesn't log on for a few days, that would be a shame for your one message, and how many times would you be checking if they are online or not or if it's been read.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rFoxAndXenoCouple
over a year ago

Weymouth

"Hi everyone,

as recently divorced man, I am going to give swinging lifestyle a try (in the end, it was one of the reasons why I am single again - after 15 years!).

What occurred to me, is abundance of men in this site and lot of women or couples are complaining about amount of messages they are getting and quality of those.

I personally wouldn't mind if my messaging ability would be limited. I thought about several things:

* easiest - one message per day for single man. In the end, if someone wants to meet, he is doing research and is looking for someone who ticks some boxes, right

* opt-in for single message per day and those messages would appear as priority - so the lady/couple who got the message would know that is not part of mass spamming process

* some variation or other ideas - I could elaborate but need to get back to work!

Oh - and by one message I mean opener - if conversation starts, there would be no limits.

Do you think it would improve your experience?

Hi op

I have an excellent idea you try this method then let me know how you get on as feedback

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Define "conversation starts"

Would a "no thanks" reply count as starting a conversation?

If someone used their one message and got a no thanks reply, given that they can't message anyone else might they get pesty with the one profile they are able to message?

I think it would lead to less replies, potentially more blocks and therefore might be counterproductive overall

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

I came to the forums to make a similar suggestion

However I was going to suggest profiles that send several mails to new profiles or mail to profiles that haven't replied get throttled after a certain amount for 24 hours

As for the nay sayers, yes you could send a mail and it not be picked up for a few days but no difference to a woman getting 500 messages and it getting lost in the mix

If men are going to pester women, there's the block button.

Limiting the amount of mails that can be sent will likely drive quality messages than the current scatter gun effect.

Something needs to be done, engagement has gone out the window on fab and the amount of men to women ratio I think is a huge factor (also the fake accounts)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

Or people could just use the filter options available to them to cut down unwanted/excess mail?

It's easy to do. And now the site has added the 'friends only' message section it's easy to keep on top of ongoing chats with those you already know and separate them from new contacts.

People who allegedly get so many messages they can't deal with them either like the ego boost and attention they get from them, or really need to use the tools the site already has.

Can't recall the last time we had more than 20 in a week. Which is fine.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

Maybe you're too well established

The newer accounts get hundreds, sometimes thousands of messages for the first few days, before pics are even up at times. Depending on the profile that tends to calm down for a bit but any activity like status updates, post a new pics attracts them pesky single men

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"Maybe you're too well established

Yep. And there are filters to block an inundation of messages.

Block new profiles. Block unverified users. Block by age and by gender. Block those with no visible profiles.

Do that and your inbox gets a lot quieter immediately.

Maybe Fab should default all inboxes to block all messages until someone proactively selects who they want to hear from? That way people are forced to make choices that will benefit them whilst getting settled in and deciding over time how to adjust those filters.

Prevention is better than cure.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"Maybe you're too well established

Yep. And there are filters to block an inundation of messages.

Block new profiles. Block unverified users. Block by age and by gender. Block those with no visible profiles.

Do that and your inbox gets a lot quieter immediately.

Prevention is better than cure.

*no visible photos, no profiles

And if thirsty dudes didn't bombard new joiners the second they arrives in the hope of getting in first then people wouldn't get overwhelmed and deterred from the site.

But hey. Some people.......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

Yes if people weren't dicks, people wouldn't be dicks

The idea is to limit undesirable contacts but still leave yourself open to communicate, yes it would be easier for everyone to block all contacts (I don't believe anyone has made the suggestion to remove those features) but the site would dry up pretty quickly you'll only be able to talk to people you already know. I would argue there's better ways to do that outside of fab

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"Yes if people weren't dicks, people wouldn't be dicks

I'll give you an example based on our filters.

Only those within our age preferences can contact us.

No newbies as we like to give people the chance to settle in and it sifts out those looking for a quick thrill or who set up anprofile on a whim with no effort or details.

No profiles without visible pictures. We like to have an idea of who we're talking to and we always view a profile before opening a message.

We have the single male block off at the mo, but if we get a flurry of mail at times we're not looking to meet we turn it on so they can't message. We don't block women or couples but they will get the automated warning message saying we're not looking for them.

All of that cuts down on incoming mail, as does to an extent the clear messages in our profile text.

I stand by the comment that anyone with an overloaded inbox has a variety of options available already.

There's no need to block all contact at all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

Yes now think about it from the opposite direction...

Fab is a different beast for single males the proposed idea is to help them and other members of the site by making the experience better for all parties. your suggestion works great for you not the problem being spoken about.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree with filters. If someone is overwhelmed with the amount of mail they get then rather than post a thread 'moaning' about it, fix the filters. As said, turn them all off and do the searching and first contact. That puts an instant stop to all those messages. Job done

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ealitybitesMan
over a year ago

Belfast

Most of my thoughts on this have already been said by others.

I haven't sent an introductory message in well over 3 years so a limited message filter isn't really going to have any effect on my fab life.

Like everything else though people seem to blame the imbalance in numbers of men and women and overloaded inboxes for all sorts of issues on here.

The minute you start putting restrictions on one demographic you just create even more frustration and anger.

All rules should apply equally to all members regardless of gender.

Lots of men complain about not getting replies and lots of women complain about having hundreds or thousands of unread messages.

Maybe both should take a long hard look at what they could do as individuals to improve their experience rather than join a site, agree to the rules and then try to change them to overcome your own personal difficulties.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"Yes now think about it from the opposite direction...

I was a single guy on here for four years before I met Fox (on here). I know all about being a single guy and a couple, so I'm looking at it from both perspectives.

Single guys who approach the site and swinging in the right way don't bombard all and sundry with cut and paste messages, using a scattergun approach in the hope that some messages get read.

They approach it the same way couples and single women tend to. They only approach those that they honestly believe they're compatible with. They don't send repeat messages when a previous one hasn't been read. They don't target 'fresh meat' in the form of new profiles. They won't contact pictureless profiles or those with one line bios.

If they sent messages the same way the other segments of the site do there'd be no need for a limit, because even if the oft quoted ration of 20/1 was true, women still wouldn't end up with hundreds of unread messages.

Filters are the solution to control a busy box. Common sense and a targeted approach by men would make the need for filters much, much smaller.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

"Yes now think about it from the opposite direction...

I was a single guy on here for four years before I met Fox (on here). I know all about being a single guy and a couple, so I'm looking at it from both perspectives.

Single guys who approach the site and swinging in the right way don't bombard all and sundry with cut and paste messages, using a scattergun approach in the hope that some messages get read.

Filters are the solution to control a busy box. Common sense and a targeted approach by men would make the need for filters much, much smaller.

Excellently put

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

If the problems are some people getting too many messages and, separately, other people not getting enough success, then empower users to deal with those.

Users can already limit inbox traffic.

Users getting poor results can change their expectations or up their game.

I don't think restrictions on sending messages, more than fab already does for some users, is the answer.

Fab has many more things that users would put at higher priority than this, many requested for over 10 years.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There are tools that assist already.

1) restricting messages from a demographic & looking for them yourself.

2) blocking people who send you things that you don't appreciate - no further messages from them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

I believe you've all missed the point here.

The suggestion isn't how to limit messages on the receiver side it's how to drive quality messages and engagement across fab.

By limiting the amount of messages that can be sent to a new contacts (people you've not messaged before) per day (and we can probably add a 7 day cool down like the wink system to profiles you have messaged that day without a reply)

Why do it?

1.It prevents spray messages to random accounts

2.It incentives quality messages

3.brings more engagement

4.Allows quality messages more opportunity to be seen by receivers by reduced overall mail count

5.allows profiles to still be open to receive mail from account they may have had to filter out before

You can still

A.filter your messages at the receiver end

B. Block people

C. Message your added friends freely

What it won't do

Affect most people replying here

Remove the scatter guns account

(But would massively reduce Thier annoyance)

End the world as you all seem to think it will

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ealitybitesMan
over a year ago

Belfast

"I believe you've all missed the point here.

The suggestion isn't how to limit messages on the receiver side it's how to drive quality messages and engagement across fab.

Why do it?

1.It prevents spray messages to random accounts

2.It incentives quality messages

3.brings more engagement

4.Allows quality messages more opportunity to be seen by receivers by reduced overall mail count

5.allows profiles to still be open to receive mail from account they may have had to filter out before

You can still

A.filter your messages at the receiver end

B. Block people

C. Message your added friends freely

What it won't do

Affect most people replying here

Remove the scatter guns account

(But would massively reduce Thier annoyance)

End the world as you all seem to think it will

So should that not apply to everyone and not just men?

Women and couples are more than capable of sending stupid idiotic messages to people they have nothing in common with.

If you apply this principle to a group social and told all attendees they were only allowed to chat to one person at each event it would be a very short night for a lot of people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

So should that not apply to everyone and not just men?

Women and couples are more than capable of sending stupid idiotic messages to people they have nothing in common with.

If you apply this principle to a group social and told all attendees they were only allowed to chat to one person at each event it would be a very short night for a lot of people. "

That my friend is called a false equivalency.

I did say people in my reply with the implication it could be any account however let's be honest most of these websites/apps are going to attract more men than other users and they are more likely to be pests (for a few reasons) so unfortunately it would me more effective to target the single males account,

if you're getting an onslaught of messages from single women then your issues are very different

You may not like it but your fellow man got us here so

This proposal isn't to stop idiotic messages there's not much protection against that

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How would it increase engagement?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"I believe you've all missed the point here.

The suggestion isn't how to limit messages on the receiver side it's how to drive quality messages and engagement across fab.

Why do it?

1.It prevents spray messages to random accounts

2.It incentives quality messages

3.brings more engagement

4.Allows quality messages more opportunity to be seen by receivers by reduced overall mail count

5.allows profiles to still be open to receive mail from account they may have had to filter out before

1. Some men would still message random accounts across the country, miles from them and who are completely incompatible. They'd simply send messages til they hit their limit and then start again as soon as it refreshed.

2. Quality messages? Some couldn't write one using chatGPT.. and what's a 'quality message' ? From a well crafted profile with good text and pictures, we'd respond to a 'hi, would you like to chat?'. The message content is far less important than what can be seen about the person sending it.

3. How? Less messages wouldn't bring more engagement. It wouldnt affect the response rate of most as all they'll still do is reply to people who interest them.

4. Again. Nope. It's easy to scan read messages and many, like us, will view a profile before opening one. No interest in the profile and the message goes straight in the bin.

5. People can be open to messages just using efficient filters rather than barring whole demographics.

You say we're all missing the point. We're not. What you're proposing is what many guys frustrated with low response rates do. Thinking of what you 'think will improve your chances, when your audience is telling you otherwise.

The site doesn't need more restrictions and filters. It just needs some men to think smarter, put more effort in to their engagement and to really think 'am I the right person to contact this person/these people'.

We just meet single guys. We have no problems with engagement with rhem and there are plenty of guys not struggling in the slightest.

Rather than try and reinvent the wheel maybe ask them what they're doing to be be so successful.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ealitybitesMan
over a year ago

Belfast

So should that not apply to everyone and not just men?

Women and couples are more than capable of sending stupid idiotic messages to people they have nothing in common with.

If you apply this principle to a group social and told all attendees they were only allowed to chat to one person at each event it would be a very short night for a lot of people.

That my friend is called a false equivalency.

if you're getting an onslaught of messages from single women then your issues are very different

You may not like it but your fellow man got us here so

This proposal isn't to stop idiotic messages there's not much protection against that

The op suggested the changes should only apply to men.

The only one who got me to where I am today is me.

If others are having difficulties because of something other people are doing that's a false equivalence if they are blaming others for their failings.

I'm not inundated with messages and that's the very point of this thread.

Limited messages hasn't increased quality of engagement.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All the changes in the world to the site wont change the behaviours of some people.

It's the typical stance of dont address the real issue aka peoples behaviour but work things into a twist trying to adapt ...it wont change those who choose to behave that way ergo it falls on the recipient to manage their availability to contact from such types. It's really not complex.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

1. Yes but it would greatly reduce the amount those accounts can send on a daily basis and weekly basis there is also the block button for repeat offenders.

2. An example of a poor quality message

'want to fuck' what you're now arguing is for quality profiles on a whole. I would say over half of the profiles I look at that do allow single males explicitly say "no one liners"

Yes if everyone made maximum effort on profiles and messages fab would be better and this thread wouldn't exist

3.Less time managing rubbish messages more visibility to existing messages and higher chances that they will be better quality messages. Less overall annoyance with the platform = more engagement. The point again is that messages from people that you may want to reply to get lost with all the spam or blocked through filters.

4. That's great and that works for you and you can still do that, this is again an argument for better quality profiles

5. Ok, so how do you block single guys that spam everyone?

[Quote]

You say we're all missing the point.

We're not. What you're proposing is

what many guys frustrated with low

respo....

[Quote]

No, I'm proposing something that works for both parties at the cost of more restriction to my own.

This isn't about improving MY chances it's about improving the overall site.

[Quoted]

The site doesn't need more restrictions and filters. It just needs some men to think smarter, put more effort in to....'.

[End quote]

Hence why I'm taking this from the approach of incentives because the current method of hoping the low effort time wasters will suddenly all buck up is not working.

[Quoted]

We just meet single guys. We have no problems with engagement with rhem and there are plenty of guys not struggling in the slightest.

Rather than try and reinvent the wheel maybe ask them what they're doing to be be so successful.

[End quote]

If that works for you great, you can choose not opt in for this proposal and happy days it won't effect you.

The read I'm getting is... "These desperate single males just want an easier way to get laid" there's many a better avenue for that.

What's been suggested here is something that may help others the site isn't working for, be it men or women (and any other profile type)

So far all opposing suggestions have been, status quo works for me so it should be good.

[I truncated some of your quotes in my replies to make it easier to read this was done in good faith and not to try misrepresent]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Again, how would it increase engagement?

Because regardless of how well crafted a message is, regardless of it standing out, regardless of it being message no.1 or message no.51, if the recipient is not interested in the sender there will still be no engagement (except perhaps a no thanks)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Marking a message as priority" is actually ridiculous

1 every single man would then send their messages as priority, 2 it would put too much pressure on the woman receiving the messages 3 until you've received hundreds of "Nice tits" messages you won't understand how frustrating it is, can you imagine recieving hundreds of "Nice tits" messages marked as a priority

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ephistoBapMan
over a year ago

London

"Again, how would it increase engagement?

If someone isn't interested they aren't interested, I'm not proposing forced communication.

I've outlined why I think it would improve engagement in my previous post, if you have a particular question about that post please let me know what it is

However, As the previous poster has just outlined getting 50 nice tits messages is tiresome the idea is to reduce those aspects of the website so using fab is a better overall experience for everyone.

People are more likely to engage in a community or product if they have a good time using it. If most of your experience is opening and deleting messages that say 'nice tits' I doubt it will get you invested

(Might do wonders for your body confidence though)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I believe you've all missed the point here.

The suggestion isn't how to limit messages on the receiver side it's how to drive quality messages and engagement across fab.

Why do it?

1.It prevents spray messages to random accounts

2.It incentives quality messages

Thank you for the discussion. The above quote is exactly why I thought about the feature. Many profiles and many threads on the forum are mentioning abundance of messages that single women are getting. And I understand that some couples like @Obi_Fox are spending lot of time going through messages. But I still think some limits would make sense - to prevent those 100's of messages from horny guys.

I personally don't plan to spam anyone. My profile is very much work in progress, but after its done I don't think I will send more than one message per day.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread

Limiting messaging - good idea?