FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Fabswingers.com site feedback

Verification tick options

Jump to newest
 

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

Ok, this is something I've just picked up from another thread:

Lets have a vote on having different colour ticks for either cam or meet verifications.

And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please? "

Verification are to say the person is real not a fake as in a males pretending to be a female or couple and that look like their pics. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you didn't spot that on your "social" why would you meet with them again to warrant removing the validation?

If you validate for any other reason, then perhaps you should be more careful who you validate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please?

Verification are to say the person is real not a fake as in a males pretending to be a female or couple and that look like their pics. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you didn't spot that on your "social" why would you meet with them again to warrant removing the validation?

If you validate for any other reason, then perhaps you should be more careful who you validate.

"

Lets just say, I met someone once who seemed lovely in person and he verified me so I returned the favour as he was so nice. I then met him to play and it was an awful experience....he is now blocked and although I understand the verification says the person is genuine, surely if they are bad news and you block them because they are not what they seemed, you could take the tick away.

It very rarely happens, only once in just over a year (yes, this profile is 3 months old, had to leave a previous one because of said person)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I am inclined to agree.

I gave someone his first verification - in all his messages and at our social meet, he said he was single. But after we'd had met to play and our messages became more explicit, I started getting abuse from his WIFE. I removed my verification by blocking him, but I would have liked to take away his little tick.

Also, I once misjudged a man, finding him very pleasant in a social situation. But during sex, he terrified me by putting his hands round my throat (worse than Big Brother last night!) If he had been a Fabster, I would have wanted to remove his little tick.

So, 2 misjudgements on my part (in five years), but they are certainly not men I would want to recommend other women to meet.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

But at the end of the day you have validated them as being "real", because they are real - that is what a validation is for.

If you don't like them etc - block them their validation from you gets removed, but technically they should keep their tick because they are "real".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I am inclined to agree.

I gave someone his first verification - in all his messages and at our social meet, he said he was single. But after we'd had met to play and our messages became more explicit, I started getting abuse from his WIFE. I removed my verification by blocking him, but I would have liked to take away his little tick.

Also, I once misjudged a man, finding him very pleasant in a social situation. But during sex, he terrified me by putting his hands round my throat (worse than Big Brother last night!) If he had been a Fabster, I would have wanted to remove his little tick.

So, 2 misjudgements on my part (in five years), but they are certainly not men I would want to recommend other women to meet."

Thank you Sunny, this is exactly what I meant xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"...

If you don't like them etc - block them their validation from you gets removed, but technically they should keep their tick because they are "real"."

I disagree.

Or else I want some more coloured ticks (and the right to change the tick, when his true colours come to light)

Red for: - he's a "real" cheating scumbag who lied his way into my bed

Purple for: - he's a "real" vicious scumbag, and I have the "real" purple bruises round by throat to prove it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I personally think the whole verification system should be scrapped. Oh no people might have to do some homework themselves then , heavens to betsy the whole of fab would grind to a halt then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"...

If you don't like them etc - block them their validation from you gets removed, but technically they should keep their tick because they are "real".

I disagree.

Or else I want some more coloured ticks (and the right to change the tick, when his true colours come to light)

Red for: - he's a "real" cheating scumbag who lied his way into my bed

Purple for: - he's a "real" vicious scumbag, and I have the "real" purple bruises round by throat to prove it."

you disagree by agreeing?!?

end of the day - he was REAL and you have said as such.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

If you want the phone numbers of the vicious scumbag and the cheating scumbag, I'll send them to you privately.

You meet them, if you like. After all, they were human males when I met them and they are still human males now. Just very unpleasant human males, who abused my trust.

I prefer them NOT to keep the little tick, which might lead them to getting meets with other women they can mistreat.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Maybe if you verify someone and then decide to block them their tick should become an x instead? Would they be so keen to display a row of x's?

I blocked someone who was constantly messaging and was just not for me. He's not a bad guy though and doesn't deserve to be blacklisted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Verifications arent just for validating a person is real, they also are there to give a little information about said person, so it would be a good idea if you could remove the tick, or if there were different colour ticks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackshadow7Man
over a year ago

Toronto

As with any system, it would be open to abuse, mostly by immature people or those with petty grudges.

The current verification system is just about functional at best, but by no means perfect.

The onus should be on those leaving verifications, always. If your relationship with that person should change in the future, then so be it.

While i understand the desire to want to warn others about potential bad eggs, we are all on here looking after OUR individual needs first (mostly). If someone proves to be abusive or worse, that should be a matter for admin to deal with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I personally think the whole verification system should be scrapped. Oh no people might have to do some homework themselves then , heavens to betsy the whole of fab would grind to a halt then "

Actually, if it can't be 'perfected', then I'm in agreement with Moody.

Before Ruby and I got together, I was on another site with no verification system at all, so you HAD to use your nowse and ask questions to find out about the other person.

I know this is contrary to the 'spirit' of the site but the veri system - and the rule that 'no reply is not bad manners' - just encourage laziness. Bet I'm going to need me tin hat for that last one...

I can only speak from my own experience... and my experience of being on a site with no veri system was better, in that respect, than on here.

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Ok, this is something I've just picked up from another thread:

Lets have a vote on having different colour ticks for either cam or meet verifications.

And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please? "

OP - with respect, if the veri system were to work as you describe... 1. it would be wide open to abuse and petty vendetta, and 2. it's asking a lot of people to get it right. And, sorry to say this, a lot of people struggle with reading the RIGHT things into veris now, so Gawd knows how they'd get on if you confronted them with even more 'tick options'.

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lentyoffun40Couple
over a year ago

Lancashire

It's quite simple is the verification system

Only verify someone you have met a couple of times (played with)

And not before

Anybody can come across as a nice person at a club or socially but be totally inappropriate at a meet

Therefor if you meet someone and have fun( or not as the case may be) either chose to verify them or don't

Simple

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *9MuppetMan
over a year ago

Bath ish area

I don't verify people I have only met socially. I met someone socially and they were great. Met them for a sexual meet and it was a nightmare as they had to get paralytically d*unk before they would do anything. Nothing happened as I left.

Wait till you have played and then verify as genuine.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Ok, this is something I've just picked up from another thread:

Lets have a vote on having different colour ticks for either cam or meet verifications.

And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please? "

If you read the new thing it does actually tell you how many are cam and how many are meet.

It seems that whatever admin do there will always be those that shout more more.

As for the verification tick we only have your opinion that they are not what you thought, losing a tick for that is open to all sorts of misuse.

Anyway I will leave you all to use the site the way you want just as I do

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"If you want the phone numbers of the vicious scumbag and the cheating scumbag, I'll send them to you privately.

You meet them, if you like. After all, they were human males when I met them and they are still human males now. Just very unpleasant human males, who abused my trust.

I prefer them NOT to keep the little tick, which might lead them to getting meets with other women they can mistreat.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I think the whole verification system is floored. I think it will always be floored no matter how many different coloured ticks you have unfortunately. There is no sure fire way to make the verification process "fair".

Atm you have the option to show only the verifications you choose to show therefore allowing you to hide any that don't paint you in a glowing light.

Perhaps there should be a sort of meet agreement thing. Where you have to agree with the intended meet before any meet that you have in fact agreed to meet ( therefore discounting any bogus verifications where randoms can verify you) This in turn would allow you to verify your meet... at anytime after. This will be posted regardless if you wish to show it or not.

Or perhaps scrap the verifications on your page and have a verification forum where you can verify people and others can comment.

I wouldn't like admins job tbh. As I say.... its impossible to sort the verification system so it is 100% fair.

Perhaps the best way is once bitten twice shy ... xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Maybe if you verify someone and then decide to block them their tick should become an x instead? Would they be so keen to display a row of x's?

I blocked someone who was constantly messaging and was just not for me. He's not a bad guy though and doesn't deserve to be blacklisted. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikkiBWoman
over a year ago

Falkirk

Doesn't matter what system they put in place, people will find a way around it. I come across fake profiles daily that are photo verified or meet verified, you follow the verifyers and find another fake and another and so on

Its at the stage I don't look at verifications, I read the profile see if they would interest me and chat and use my own judgement as I have zero faith in verifications now.

Its a joke when you read verifications about awesome meets and you image check the pics and they belong to an american porn star, then starts the long reporting process to get them removed, sometimes its quick, sometimes weeks later and they get removed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

My viw is noone should be verified until they have been members for 3 months and actually met others. The number of women that get verified by guys witin seconds of joining the site is rediculous

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Ok, this is something I've just picked up from another thread:

Lets have a vote on having different colour ticks for either cam or meet verifications.

And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please?

If you read the new thing it does actually tell you how many are cam and how many are meet.

It seems that whatever admin do there will always be those that shout more more.

As for the verification tick we only have your opinion that they are not what you thought, losing a tick for that is open to all sorts of misuse.

Anyway I will leave you all to use the site the way you want just as I do "

if you give them the tick then after a 2nd meet they turned funny, so you then wanted to take the tick (that you gave them away) and warn others, i think this is very good idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Ok, this is something I've just picked up from another thread:

Lets have a vote on having different colour ticks for either cam or meet verifications.

And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please?

OP - with respect, if the veri system were to work as you describe... 1. it would be wide open to abuse and petty vendetta, and 2. it's asking a lot of people to get it right. And, sorry to say this, a lot of people struggle with reading the RIGHT things into veris now, so Gawd knows how they'd get on if you confronted them with even more 'tick options'.

ted."

Sorry, I just meant one colour tick for met in person and a different colour tick for a cam verification, that was all

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

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


"Ok, this is something I've just picked up from another thread:

Lets have a vote on having different colour ticks for either cam or meet verifications.

And also, if you meet for a social and verify someone, then you meet to play and they are not what you thought so you block them, I personally think the verification tick should disappear on their profile but at the moment is stays.

Thoughts please?

OP - with respect, if the veri system were to work as you describe... 1. it would be wide open to abuse and petty vendetta, and 2. it's asking a lot of people to get it right. And, sorry to say this, a lot of people struggle with reading the RIGHT things into veris now, so Gawd knows how they'd get on if you confronted them with even more 'tick options'.

ted.

Sorry, I just meant one colour tick for met in person and a different colour tick for a cam verification, that was all "

I think I read more into your OP inn that case. I thought you meant four or more ticks!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top