FabSwingers.com forum: Verifications

By *igSuki81 OP Man
over a year ago

Retirement Village

Dear Admin (bear with me it's a long one)

Having read through 2 seperate posts in regards to verifications (one on negative ebay style feedback and one on veri's by cam) it sort of got me thinking that is it possible (and i'm not IT guru) to combine the two ideas to have an all encompassing feedback/veri system in place.

-----------------------------------

Although the negative feedback idea wasn't really a positive step in my opinion as it was suggesting to focibly display all verifictions it did come up with a decent idea of having an ebay style feedback, which i believe may be able to work.

I posted this comment within that topic

"Just had an idea if it's worth considering.

The idea of displaying feedback is bit too much and something i can't really agree with. It is still my choice to display who i have met and played with as it is to show or not show my pics but the positive or negative feedback may be worth it if you can control or even stop unsolicited feedbacks and negative comments being left.

If it is possible to leave an ebay style pos/beg feedback then can you make it annonymous until the person who the feedback is left for responds with thier feedback. Then you display both at the same time so that the issue of unsolicited feedback dissapears.

for example:

- miss-a and mr-b have a meet

- miss-a leaves a pos/neg feedback

- mr-b comes online and sees he has feedback but NOT what it is

- mr-b confirms he has met miss-a and leaves his feedback

- the system accepts both have met and displays the pos/neg feedback

i'm not sure what the feedback comments are going to be to have ratings on them and some, such as was it a good meet/shag will be highly opinionated but the above example (if its possible to do) may relieve some concerns regarding unsolicited feedback

of course this relies on everyone using the set up correctly and not just accepting the feedback for the sake of it "

No one really picked up on the idea and i don't know whether it actually was considered seriously or is being worked.

-------------------------------------

Thge other topic i posted on today was the whole veri by cam. this was an observation made by a site memeber about the FAQ's regarding memebers being verified by cam. I did have a tiny bit of a say in this thread too, but it was a bit off topic so i wont go in to it in too much detail but i did pick up on comments regarding a traffic light type system which in my mind sounded good.

---------------------------------

So here's my question, is it possible to combine the idea of the two threads to have a neat and tidy feedback/veri system

and here's my Balderick-esque cunning plan

Currently the veri system allows you to verify in person or by cam and no longer via the phone (that was a stroke of genious by the way

) but isn't always clear as to whether the member who has been verified has actually played, it was a group social or just a private one. If it is at all possible to have a drop down menu to say whether you played at your meet, it was a group social or just a private social, you can rate these as traffic lights. That way even without displayed verifications other memebers can tell whether the person they are perving over meets socially only, meets in groups socials only or is someone who plays. This interpretation can be read over to the cam veri too, i.e did they perform on cam or did they just chat.

So now you have a detailed breakdown of a meet without going in to the gory details and it gives a more accurate idea to each member as to whther they person they are interested in actually meets, whethe they are a scoail only person or whether they are a naughty bugger who likes to get down and dirty

The ebay style feedback i'm still working the idea through in my head but i think that could work too IF (& it's a big IF) admin can come up with the right topics that aren't too opinionated and it is kept anonimous from each feedback provider until the other person has provided theirs as detailed early in my novel of a thread lol

----------------------------------

I'm open to all and any constructive criticism if anyone thinks it doesn't work, there's too much technical effort needed or there's a flaw in the idea, but having read the aforementioned posts i get the impression not everyone is happy with the veri/feedback system we have in place.

Of course everything i have suggested as a potential solution is dependent on all members using it correctly and not abusing it for friends or someone who flashes a bit of flesh on camera and gets a full on veri from it

Over to all admin and all you fab folk to disect the idea and tell me why you think it's right or wrong (& i am sorry for making it such a long one but i thought size mattered

)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

A verification is purely to show you are real. There needs to be no more detail than 'this person turned up' Looks like their pic'. That's it. So having options for types of meet needlessly complicates something that should be simple.

As for the ebay style feedback, I can tell you now that any chance of negative feedback would prevent people from enabling it. Being 'punished' by bad feedback just because someone didn't like me would have me opting out in about 10 seconds.

That's a very large post to try and fix something that's not actually a problem. Now I don't know if the OP joined just to ponder this sort of thing, but I joined for sex. If I have a bad meet, well, these things happen. I don't verify the person. If I have a no show I block and report the person. If the person turns up and is what was described and not a loony, I verify the person. Such a simple system, yet people want to complicate it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *issBehavingxxWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

Other than removing webcam veris (which was debated enough in the other post)... the only thing I would change would be differing ticks / symbols to show whether someone was only webcam veri'd.

Changing to the green tick when they've been meet in person verified.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Seems like a bit of a over complicated over haul for a system that in the main works fine

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I don't know why the need to know if someone played or not. Surely that's no one business? You say it's to show who plays or who's just here for socials, but I might meet 5/6 people socially and not want to take it further Or do we now all need to shag everyone we meet just so we don't look to be a fake/time waster for those who really don't have enough of a life that they have to go dissect all verifications?

A veri surely is to say yes this person is who they say they are. It's not there to say best sex ever or the most handsome or beautiful of people because thats purely subjective.

I never put much store in veris. I have a gut instinct which keeps me right.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *Ryan-Man
over a year ago

In Your Bush

I would be totally against this. The sole purpose of a veri is to prove the person is genuine. I like a bit of discretion. I certainly don't want to publicise to the entire site, what meets I do or don't do. If anyone wants to know that they can ask me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I don't know why the need to know if someone played or not. Surely that's no one business? You say it's to show who plays or who's just here for socials, but I might meet 5/6 people socially and not want to take it further Or do we now all need to shag everyone we meet just so we don't look to be a fake/time waster for those who really don't have enough of a life that they have to go dissect all verifications?

A veri surely is to say yes this person is who they say they are. It's not there to say best sex ever or the most handsome or beautiful of people because thats purely subjective.

I never put much store in veris. I have a gut instinct which keeps me right. "

agrees with the above whether its a play or a social it does not matter. It just proves that those people are human and alive and are nice people. If we dont like someone we dont veri them, makes sense. And to have a forcible veri system even negative verification like the poster suggested is open to abuse as we could put negative feedback on people we dont like and vice versa.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Verifications are there to say that the person you met or cammed with is real and representative of the pics on their profile........its that simple,I don't see why is has to be overcompilcated so much

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I agree sexsensual!!!! Why complicate things it's easy enough and people generally write whether it was a drink or a fuck.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Yup I ignored this in the other thread.

A veri is simply to verify that person IS real.

A webcam veri can do this, however I prefer to know if I am arranging a meet with someone that they've met others in person. I.e actually turned up and look something like their pics.

So for me, yes change the colour of the ticks, so veri by webcam is a different colour and met in person ones are clear, without having to ask to see the veri(s).

Feedback works great on ebay. This is not ebay.

I also think people should be able to keep their veri's and have it show 'user no longer on site', if they leave.

And I disagree with being able to block them and remove the veri you left from their profile.

I have no interest in what happened between the 2/3/4 people that night, nor if they fall out afterwards. I simply like to know, that they are real and turned up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

And if the feedback system were adopted, what is the method that would prevent "malicious" negative feedback? Anyone would be able to give negative feedback to anyone else and remember, mud sticks!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *igSuki81 OP Man
over a year ago

Retirement Village

I'm on my phone so can't fully respond to the comments but having a skim read of some i ask only 1 question

did anyone fully read & understand what i originally posted or have you drawn up conclusions based on partial reading and your minds interpretation

I'll say it again, it was just a thought/idea built up on several other threads of a similar nature. I will try to respond to the various comments left if i get a chance tonight but i would like to say, positive criticism rather than doom mongering and jumping on a band wagon

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

The existing feedback system works well enough, Fab has many ways to check to see if someone is real ( webcam in the chatrooms & photo verification). If a potential meet passes these hurdles then you can look at their verifications to see if they turn up. Site users just have to do a bit of leg work. Though your idea may be a good one it is complicated and would mean extra programming for the web team, all this would mean more expense for the site and at times like these it may be expense that is passed down to us fabbers. Its a great site and free if you want it to be and in our opinion we would like it to stay that way.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

We also believe that a met in person verification is just that, proving that the person has met. Many fabbers would suggest that its no one elses business if they played or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Yes I did read it,im 40 and can read,I found it far too complicated to make any real difference to me and what I want from my experience on this site,its clear that you have thought long and hard,but I also think you have a bit of a cheek to question if people have actually read your suggestion and even more of a cheek to assume they're doom mongering or jumping on a band wagon when they don't agree......gonna do my own rolling eyes now on response to yours

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I read all the op's on this thread and the other one and I dont need a personalised response.

It still comes down to I dont think it needs an overhaul and am happy to just have people use the system properly and not abuse it.

Yes the webcam/met in person thing could be clearer but otherwise it is fine.

The op might need to consider that sometimes veri's arnt left so linking to a 'she mailed him', 'he mailed her' (or whatever combi you want) does not sit well with me.

Anyone that really wants to get verified as genuine only needs to attend a social or approach someone verified for a social meet. Simple really

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *igSuki81 OP Man
over a year ago

Retirement Village

[Removed by poster at 20/06/13 00:15:10]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *igSuki81 OP Man
over a year ago

Retirement Village

It's a bit late but i'd like to answer some if not all the posts within this thread and clear up one or two things.

Firstly admin can we have spell check because my spelling is hurrendous at times and even i'm embarassed by it

Thank you for all of you who provided positive criticism and i feel like a numpty right now as i forgot to think about the software change / cost element. Considering my line of work that would be classed as a "donut offence" and cost me a few quid in treats for work colleagues. So thank you to the couple who pointed that out to me

The cost element throws this idea out the window especially if it is too high to maintain the freedom of the site.

I'm not going to individually answer each comment as a) i don't have the time and b) some seemed more specific to me rather than the idea hence my earlier post asking if the orignal post had been read and understood. I can't name drop in a thread as that means i get put in the forum "Sin-Bin" and i'd rather that not happen but i will quote certain comments and try to explain myself

"That's a very large post to try and fix something that's not actually a problem. Now I don't know if the OP joined just to ponder this sort of thing, but I joined for sex. If I have a bad meet, well, these things happen. I don't verify the person. If I have a no show I block and report the person. If the person turns up and is what was described and not a loony, I verify the person. Such a simple system, yet people want to complicate it."

It is a large post (as is this one) and i highlighted that within the first sentance of the orginal post. I never said there was a problem with the veri system on here so where'd you get that idea from

Everyone has thier own reason for joining here, some sex, some friends with benefits, some to explore their sexual desires. I make mine clear in profile but i don't question anyone elses reasons for being on here and i don't appreciate mine being questioned either.

"I would be totally against this. The sole purpose of a veri is to prove the person is genuine. I like a bit of discretion. I certainly don't want to publicise to the entire site, what meets I do or don't do. If anyone wants to know that they can ask me."

I didn't say the feedback would be you specifically pointing out that you've fucked someone, it'd be the whole traffic light system which may help in defining those who are on here socially and those who are on here looking to play.

"agrees with the above whether its a play or a social it does not matter. It just proves that those people are human and alive and are nice people. If we dont like someone we dont veri them, makes sense. And to have a forcible veri system even negative verification like the poster suggested is open to abuse as we could put negative feedback on people we dont like and vice versa"

I'm going to have to ask where in my orginal post did i say that members hsould be forced to display verifications

and where have i not realised that this could be open to abuse/unsolicited veris

I have proposed a way around this but you sort of forgot to read or perhaps even understand that bit ??

"And if the feedback system were adopted, what is the method that would prevent "malicious" negative feedback? Anyone would be able to give negative feedback to anyone else and remember, mud sticks!"

Same comment i made on the above post, i have even proposed a suggestion that may prevent that from happening, did you read that far down or make your mind up within the first 10 seconds of starting to read this and then realised you may miss the band wagon

"Yes I did read it,im 40 and can read,I found it far too complicated to make any real difference to me and what I want from my experience on this site,its clear that you have thought long and hard,but I also think you have a bit of a cheek to question if people have actually read your suggestion and even more of a cheek to assume they're doom mongering or jumping on a band wagon when they don't agree......gonna do my own rolling eyes now on response to yours"

To you i owe an apology (and you may owe me one too but i'll let you decide on that). My comment regarding the band wagon and not reading all the original post was not aimed at you, though i believe you may have taken it that way. If you have taken it as jab at you then for that i apologise but i hope if you read through the highlighted posts you may be able to understand why i made that comment.

"The op might need to consider that sometimes veri's arnt left so linking to a 'she mailed him', 'he mailed her' (or whatever combi you want) does not sit well with me"

I don't quite understand this comment, what doesn't sit well with you? The scenario i painted was in regards to the how you can get around the malicious feedback issue and still maintain the integrity of the sites feedback system. I respect the fact that the ebay styled feedback is not something you would prescribe too but i did say in the original post that i don't know and can't think of what the feedback comments/ratings would be as playing with someone is personal and everyones opinions would very on what was a good meet or a bad meet.

I know i've made this another lengthy one and for that i'm sorry but i stand by what i originally posted and realise that the cost implication may be too high for the site to swallow so admin if you want to close off the thread by all means do so. If anyone has any disagreement with me im happy for a PM to be sent and tell me what they are. All i did was propose an idea / suggestion and looked to admin and other members for thier thoughts i didn't quite expect to be questioned why im on here, why im pondering stuff especially as we actually don't know each other.

The one thing i am going to finish with is this, this section of the site is for site feedback and suggestions, some of you have made suggestions and criticism which i appreciate, whilst others haven't really understood what i've said and given an opinion but it has cleared thing up in my mind of what i should and shouldn't post in the "open" forums so for that i thank you all

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Wow, I thought my posts were long

Unless I report an email to admin, I dont really want people having to look in my inbox (I avoid it myself at times)

I didn't like your idea at all, however, would never say you cant or shouldn't post it on here

Post what you want. If I dont want to respond I wont, as should be clear in the fact I didn't post when you initially suggested this.

I think the biggest bug I have with this whole idea is simply we shouldn't need a 'traffic light system', for socially or play. I meet with a variety of people, socially and more intimately.

Each person is different, yes.

Some people want social encounters/friends/fwb/dates/nsa/one off sex, or a combination of, which is fine.

The whole point of having individual profiles is .....

I think if people used the veri system for what it is, and not as a well we got on so I veri'd them, then we fell out so I want my veri back

And only verified someone as; genuine, looking like their pics, turned up/met as planned. Then it would work fine.

For everything else, conversation and reading the profile should suffice

If it isn't broke

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Suki.....your fingers must be aching

Don't stop trying to think up ways to make the site a better place,and don't worry about what you're posting incase the responses are'nt what you want,even if people don't agree with you,so what? Thats real life and its not personal to you,its the idea they have a problem with not you,you've at least thought about an improvement that may work,some people would rather moan about all the current functions without being able to offer a better solution

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

hi the pics i put on the site are my wife but you reject some of them saying they are not the same parson i can assure you they are can you please put this right before i renew my site support pass.mosaig

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *Ryan-Man
over a year ago

In Your Bush

"hi the pics i put on the site are my wife but you reject some of them saying they are not the same parson i can assure you they are can you please put this right before i renew my site support pass.mosaig"

I think you may be in the wrong thread mate.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

You can't have your wife on your pics as you have a single males profile.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *attoo Lovers 69Couple
over a year ago

lowestoft

negative feedback?

-2000 on most couples and single girls just because they didnt want to meet, or did meet and didnt play as the person who turned up was 10 years older than there pics and false age on profile.... BAD idea....

Likes etc on forum posts... maybe

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

i just think that the verifactions should be different colour ticks.

say green for met in person verifaction and red for cam verifacation.

as some users dont meet even though make out they do..they only cam.

im not against camming as peeps here want different things, but nowdays seems more people do just cyber.

if meet and cam then the 2 different colour ticks will show on profile.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent

I've only read the OP and not any of the posts after and here is my opinion...

I agree that a webcam veri and a met in person veri is a good idea.

I don't think wether anyone played or not at their meet is relevant.

I think for the most part the veri system works fine. But yeah as another poster said when people leave site the veri should remain the same as messages and forum posts but with user no longer on site.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread