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 The Lounge

Commitment to meet and others.

Jump to newest
 

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

We've been on 2 other sites but we prefer FabSwingers. One function missing from all sites are the statistics of each profile.

There should (the workings to be sorted by site programmers) be some kind of commitment system. So after chatting, one party can send a 'commit to meet' request and if the other party accept, then a feedback and % system comes into play. Which party followed through the meet etc.. who did the excuse.

That is just a 'wild' idea before you unleash a verbal tirade, maybe you incorporate a 'replied to message %' etc.. again, just a wild idea.

But overall, we think it would be nice to see stats on profiles, again these would need to be worked out. Just so we could channel our efforts in, hopefully, a more productive direction.

But at the end of the day, you see a profile on 83% or 11% or 99% on their use of the site, interactions, replies and meets etc.. or whatever those may be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend

My "replies to messages" (and I suspect many women's) would be very low. I rarely reply to messages, unless they have made an effort with their profile and message. And read my profile.

And I probably wouldn't score very high on a commit to meet either. I've had many conversations that have seemed to be going well and they've said one thing that has caused me to never reply to them again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliWoman
over a year ago

.

But what happens if X arranges to meet YZ, YZ don't show but get there first in posting X as a timewaster?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"But what happens if X arranges to meet YZ, YZ don't show but get there first in posting X as a timewaster?"

But as we said, the workings need sorted.

The thread is based on the "Idea" as opposed to how the nitty gritty parts work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"My "replies to messages" (and I suspect many women's) would be very low. I rarely reply to messages, unless they have made an effort with their profile and message. And read my profile.

And I probably wouldn't score very high on a commit to meet either. I've had many conversations that have seemed to be going well and they've said one thing that has caused me to never reply to them again.

"

But that's good. We as a couple would chose a different profile, although we're not a one for one liners.

If something unpleasant is said, we immediately point that out, say that they're not what we're after as opposed to blank them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

it would never work

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I can't think of anything worse than a ratings system like that. People need to take their own responsibility for arranging meets and stop thinking of ways to make the site take responsibility for it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I can't think of anything worse than a ratings system like that. People need to take their own responsibility for arranging meets and stop thinking of ways to make the site take responsibility for it"

It's not passing resposibility?

It's like eBay, it's rating the profile.

It's like looking at a cooker on Currys web site, feedback gives one cooker 2 out of 5 and another 4.5 out of 5.

The veri system can be part of the scoring system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"it would never work"

And.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *op gooserMan
over a year ago

chester


"I can't think of anything worse than a ratings system like that. People need to take their own responsibility for arranging meets and stop thinking of ways to make the site take responsibility for it

It's not passing resposibility?

It's like eBay, it's rating the profile.

It's like looking at a cooker on Currys web site, feedback gives one cooker 2 out of 5 and another 4.5 out of 5.

The veri system can be part of the scoring system."
Would be like booking a doctors appointment, people have real lives as well and sex isn't always a priority.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

So I complete the commit to meet request, during the period before said time something happens to put me off meeting him....how does the scoring work then, would I justify why I didn't meet so I don't get a bad rating?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach

I don't think there is one element that would work with a "score"system against it.

All of the pre-meeting metrics are too easily skewed by people's different approaches.

The meetings themselves are too complex a thing to give "stars" too, though it would be fun!

Maybe as an aid to users, others could leave a score for their profile (which could be hidden and just for personal reference)?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"So I complete the commit to meet request, during the period before said time something happens to put me off meeting him....how does the scoring work then, would I justify why I didn't meet so I don't get a bad rating?"

We don't know cos like we've said loads of times, the workings would need thrashed out and sorted. It was just the general idea to begin with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliWoman
over a year ago

.


"The thread is based on the "Idea" as opposed to how the nitty gritty parts work."

Ah, okies. The idea won't work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I can't think of anything worse than a ratings system like that. People need to take their own responsibility for arranging meets and stop thinking of ways to make the site take responsibility for it

It's not passing resposibility?

It's like eBay, it's rating the profile.

It's like looking at a cooker on Currys web site, feedback gives one cooker 2 out of 5 and another 4.5 out of 5.

The veri system can be part of the scoring system."

You analogies are completely flawed. They are based on feedback following a sale, such a system on here is negated by people having the right to change their mind.

And it is passing responsibility to the site creating a pointless grading system that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I don't think there is one element that would work with a "score"system against it.

All of the pre-meeting metrics are too easily skewed by people's different approaches.

The meetings themselves are too complex a thing to give "stars" too, though it would be fun!

Maybe as an aid to users, others could leave a score for their profile (which could be hidden and just for personal reference)?"

Thank you, a sensible post!!

When we signed up to couchsurfing, they posted a postcard with a security code to our address, we entered that into the site. People could see that our address was verified. Ideally, codes should be posted every year. If you had a score system for each person; address, e-mail, phone etc.. verification, then you can see how verified they are.

It's just picking up the ideas from many sources to formulate a system.

When you have an eBay account, buyers can rate your item, post cost, delivery quickness etc.. You don't see what individual people score you. After 10 votes or so, you see your feedback, and so can others. This could replace the veri's and only paid up members can complete veri's.

So have 5 accounts, you would need 5 addresses and 5 paid subscriptions to self rate yourself!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I can't think of anything worse than a ratings system like that. People need to take their own responsibility for arranging meets and stop thinking of ways to make the site take responsibility for it"

This sums it up for me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

would be good to rate who replies to messages then people would know who is worth messaging but we should also be able to rate first messages (and our score on our profile) so that if someones reply rate is low then people can see that the quality of messages we get is also low.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aroleBaskinWoman
over a year ago

somewhere down the rabbit hole, Aberdeen

This idea could work if we were here providing a service but scoring human behaviour on a swingers site can't work in my opinion. It would too open to abuse and skewed perceptions. I don't think I like the idea of being scored on my performance or how I sue the site either.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aroleBaskinWoman
over a year ago

somewhere down the rabbit hole, Aberdeen

*use

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I can't think of anything worse than a ratings system like that. People need to take their own responsibility for arranging meets and stop thinking of ways to make the site take responsibility for it

It's not passing resposibility?

It's like eBay, it's rating the profile.

It's like looking at a cooker on Currys web site, feedback gives one cooker 2 out of 5 and another 4.5 out of 5.

The veri system can be part of the scoring system.

You analogies are completely flawed. They are based on feedback following a sale, such a system on here is negated by people having the right to change their mind.

And it is passing responsibility to the site creating a pointless grading system that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. "

Correct, you commit to meet then change your mind. You would have a poor conversion rate, a low % and so we would avoid you.

We would prefer to channel our time to those who can take responsibility of their actions and ability tofollow their decision through.

Thank you for supplying a perfect example.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"So I complete the commit to meet request, during the period before said time something happens to put me off meeting him....how does the scoring work then, would I justify why I didn't meet so I don't get a bad rating?

We don't know cos like we've said loads of times, the workings would need thrashed out and sorted. It was just the general idea to begin with."

I get what your saying & it works for services paid for as in reviews mon eBay. Trip advisor for example.

I just think when sex, emotions, games, jealousy & all sorts of personal elements are thrown into the mix it would be completely flawed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach


"I don't think there is one element that would work with a "score"system against it.

All of the pre-meeting metrics are too easily skewed by people's different approaches.

The meetings themselves are too complex a thing to give "stars" too, though it would be fun!

Maybe as an aid to users, others could leave a score for their profile (which could be hidden and just for personal reference)?

Thank you, a sensible post!!

When we signed up to couchsurfing, they posted a postcard with a security code to our address, we entered that into the site. People could see that our address was verified. Ideally, codes should be posted every year. If you had a score system for each person; address, e-mail, phone etc.. verification, then you can see how verified they are.

It's just picking up the ideas from many sources to formulate a system.

When you have an eBay account, buyers can rate your item, post cost, delivery quickness etc.. You don't see what individual people score you. After 10 votes or so, you see your feedback, and so can others. This could replace the veri's and only paid up members can complete veri's.

So have 5 accounts, you would need 5 addresses and 5 paid subscriptions to self rate yourself!!"

Thank you, though I wasn't agreeing with you!

An eBay (or whatever) transaction is quite black and white. There's not a lot of room for the vagaries of human nature. Either the item was as described, arrived on time, and was well packed. Or it wasn't...

We all have different ideas of what makes a good meet, or message, or why it's ok to stop communicating with someone. Or not start at all.

None of these translate into any sort of simple scoring mechanism.

...and if it's not simple, it won't work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Also who will pay for and administer this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"

We would prefer to channel ourtime o those who can take responsibility of their actions and ability tofollow their decision through.

"

I've been on this scene around a decade and had dozens of meets both as a single male and part of a couple. In that time I have had zero no shows and time wasters have been spotted very easily. Common sense and a healthy degree of cynicism and realism has always done me just fine for arranging meets

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I would be way up in the who replies to messages, but that doesn't mean I'm going to meet anyone. If there was a "How many has the profile rejected" I'd be tops and nobody would bother messaging me.

We aren't goods to be rated on a satisfied customer ratings service.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I don't think there is one element that would work with a "score"system against it.

All of the pre-meeting metrics are too easily skewed by people's different approaches.

The meetings themselves are too complex a thing to give "stars" too, though it would be fun!

Maybe as an aid to users, others could leave a score for their profile (which could be hidden and just for personal reference)?

Thank you, a sensible post!!

When we signed up to couchsurfing, they posted a postcard with a security code to our address, we entered that into the site. People could see that our address was verified. Ideally, codes should be posted every year. If you had a score system for each person; address, e-mail, phone etc.. verification, then you can see how verified they are.

It's just picking up the ideas from many sources to formulate a system.

When you have an eBay account, buyers can rate your item, post cost, delivery quickness etc.. You don't see what individual people score you. After 10 votes or so, you see your feedback, and so can others. This could replace the veri's and only paid up members can complete veri's.

So have 5 accounts, you would need 5 addresses and 5 paid subscriptions to self rate yourself!!

Thank you, though I wasn't agreeing with you!

An eBay (or whatever) transaction is quite black and white. There's not a lot of room for the vagaries of human nature. Either the item was as described, arrived on time, and was well packed. Or it wasn't...

We all have different ideas of what makes a good meet, or message, or why it's ok to stop communicating with someone. Or not start at all.

None of these translate into any sort of simple scoring mechanism.

...and if it's not simple, it won't work."

Thank you, we didn't say you agreed with us !!!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aeBabeWoman
over a year ago

London

Killing Kittens has a star rating for users which can easily abused as open to everyone to rate regardless of interaction with that person.

So maybe if they sent a request to meet and the other accepted it, perhaps could work, but it's just too complicated to monitor as people change their minds all the time due to commitments elsewhere, emergencies or a development in the interaction that will prevent one party from meeting the other.

So many factors to consider here, that it may not be feasible.

A dating site use to say in regards to messages:

Replies often

Rarely replies

Selective response

Etc.

Think that feature is gone now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach

However, with all the above said.

I might add a fake user rating score to my profile.

Every little helps!

;-)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Killing Kittens has a star rating for users which can easily abused as open to everyone to rate regardless of interaction with that person.

So maybe if they sent a request to meet and the other accepted it, perhaps could work, but it's just too complicated to monitor as people change their minds all the time due to commitments elsewhere, emergencies or a development in the interaction that will prevent one party from meeting the other.

So many factors to consider here, that it may not be feasible.

A dating site use to say in regards to messages:

Replies often

Rarely replies

Selective response

Etc.

Think that feature is gone now. "

Thank you for considering the idea through though. Much better to read than, "Won't work" comment. Nice to see.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

It doesn't appeal to me for a few reasons... if someone 'books in' for a meet, either - or both - could change their mind or life gets in the way. I'm horrendous at replying to messages, even from friends, so my % would be low on that, and due to natural human emotions the meeting rating system could be abused - not getting on with one meet doesn't mean you won't get on brilliantly with another... and the whole booking/rating system reminds me of a site for adult workers, and that whole business is too cold and cynical for me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"However, with all the above said.

I might add a fake user rating score to my profile.

Every little helps!

;-)"

You can do, from another account that you paid for and a security code sent to it's address.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"It doesn't appeal to me for a few reasons... if someone 'books in' for a meet, either - or both - could change their mind or life gets in the way. I'm horrendous at replying to messages, even from friends, so my % would be low on that, and due to natural human emotions the meeting rating system could be abused - not getting on with one meet doesn't mean you won't get on brilliantly with another... and the whole booking/rating system reminds me of a site for adult workers, and that whole business is too cold and cynical for me."

But this is the whole point. When we agree to meet, we go. Anything cropping up, we sort one way or another.

So if we saw you as a low score, we would message elsewhere. Or if we messaged you, we would know from the outset that a meet is probably slim and most of our effort will be concentrated elsewhere.

What we would like to see is, who are those more worth while to interact with. We don't want a high chat, low meet. We want average chat, high meet.

In essence, does it mean you don't want a rating system because you'd fair poorly?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Killing Kittens has a star rating for users which can easily abused as open to everyone to rate regardless of interaction with that person.

So maybe if they sent a request to meet and the other accepted it, perhaps could work, but it's just too complicated to monitor as people change their minds all the time due to commitments elsewhere, emergencies or a development in the interaction that will prevent one party from meeting the other.

So many factors to consider here, that it may not be feasible.

A dating site use to say in regards to messages:

Replies often

Rarely replies

Selective response

Etc.

Think that feature is gone now.

Thank you for considering the idea through though. Much better to read than, "Won't work" comment. Nice to see."

Your response to anything you perceive as negative kind of highlights to me the reasons why it wouldn't work.

I also qualified my 'won't work' comments.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

i think that's a valid point really, that booking people is clinical. a lot of guys already see us as free prostitutes as it is...i can only imagine 'booking' us would encourage that ideal.

i think if such a system was in place i'd only use it with trusted users i've already met.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Like we said, it was just an idea to think about.

If you read through the thread and think, "I would score low", just think of those that wish to and do commit to meets but feel so let down when it doesn't follow through.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Your response to anything you perceive as negative kind of highlights to me the reasons why it wouldn't work.

I also qualified my 'won't work' comments."

The response is from management days!!

It's easy to criticize, it's say to say, 'It won't work' but it's finding the people who can consider the problem, come up with ideas, brainstorm it and come to a solution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"It doesn't appeal to me for a few reasons... if someone 'books in' for a meet, either - or both - could change their mind or life gets in the way. I'm horrendous at replying to messages, even from friends, so my % would be low on that, and due to natural human emotions the meeting rating system could be abused - not getting on with one meet doesn't mean you won't get on brilliantly with another... and the whole booking/rating system reminds me of a site for adult workers, and that whole business is too cold and cynical for me.

But this is the whole point. When we agree to meet, we go. Anything cropping up, we sort one way or another.

So if we saw you as a low score, we would message elsewhere. Or if we messaged you, we would know from the outset that a meet is probably slim and most of our effort will be concentrated elsewhere.

What we would like to see is, who are those more worth while to interact with. We don't want a high chat, low meet. We want average chat, high meet.

In essence, does it mean you don't want a rating system because you'd fair poorly?"

What if your child falls ill or has to be rushed to hospital, either of you fall ill or goes to hospital, an immediate family member dies? Sometimes it isn't really possible to avoid problems.

Hmmm... yes and no. I tend to talk to people for a long time and I make the first contact, so that would form a better impression of me than a bad rating - like, you see a bad review of a film because the reviewer isn't a fan of an actor or the genre, would you go by a bad review, or would you rather see it yourself if you think you'd appreciate those aspects or experience it and make your own opinion?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Statistics are always flawed anyway. So I'd hate a stats system. It feels like performance tables at work and KPI's. Next we will have full appraisal reviews and interviews. No thanks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I'm best going unlos now then.

PTU XXX

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliWoman
over a year ago

.


"It's easy to criticize, it's say to say, 'It won't work' but it's finding the people who can consider the problem, come up with ideas, brainstorm it and come to a solution.

"

But it's not a problem to be considered. What you're proposing is a solution to a problem that you perceive to be effective. A solution in that case can be as simple as someone saying it won't work. It's understandable that you're keen on your idea but there have been many valid points raised as to why it won't work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I don't see there is a problem with the way things work currently therefore see no need for a solution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I don't want to be scored. I already find the site and some peoples' approach to be way too impersonal, im a person not an object and id much prefer to have a normal human interaction where people can make their own decisions about me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"We've been on 2 other sites but we prefer FabSwingers. One function missing from all sites are the statistics of each profile.

There should (the workings to be sorted by site programmers) be some kind of commitment system. So after chatting, one party can send a 'commit to meet' request and if the other party accept, then a feedback and % system comes into play. Which party followed through the meet etc.. who did the excuse.

That is just a 'wild' idea before you unleash a verbal tirade, maybe you incorporate a 'replied to message %' etc.. again, just a wild idea.

But overall, we think it would be nice to see stats on profiles, again these would need to be worked out. Just so we could channel our efforts in, hopefully, a more productive direction.

But at the end of the day, you see a profile on 83% or 11% or 99% on their use of the site, interactions, replies and meets etc.. or whatever those may be."

I can think of nothing that would turn people off the site than a perfomance check.

This site is about humans interacting in the most personal way possible with other humans.

The system suggested is more sutable for commercial transactions where purchasers can rate the performance of the service suppliers give.

Or are you suggesting that swingers are supplying a service to be rated.

We fell if such a check was introduced then the site would turn into an escort supply site for singles rather than a site for like minded swingers to meet other like minded swingers

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

the problem with this is a simple one...

you can have all the "metrics" you want.... at the end of the day they don't make up for having basic common sense....

people want to use ever statistic as a crutch to lean on.... use statistics to cover their own mistakes... put the blame elsewhere...

at the end of the day, people should be big enough and adult enough to rely on using basic common sense.... which seems to be replace by the urge in peoples groinal area....

we all have brains... if something doesn't feel right... don't bloody do it, or keep talking till it does feel right....

and if that means changing your criteria.... then change your criteria...

at the end of the day... the only person responsible for you is you... no metrics, no statistics, no ifs, no buts.....

the lack therof in some of the stories of woes are astounding..... maybe if peoples used a bit more basic common sense maybe there would be much less angst.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"What if your child falls ill or has to be rushed to hospital, either of you fall ill or goes to hospital, an immediate family member dies? Sometimes it isn't really possible to avoid problems.

Hmmm... yes and no. I tend to talk to people for a long time and I make the first contact, so that would form a better impression of me than a bad rating - like, you see a bad review of a film because the reviewer isn't a fan of an actor or the genre, would you go by a bad review, or would you rather see it yourself if you think you'd appreciate those aspects or experience it and make your own opinion?"

We have family and kids. Rarely, once in a blue moon if that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I don't want to be scored. I already find the site and some peoples' approach to be way too impersonal, im a person not an object and id much prefer to have a normal human interaction where people can make their own decisions about me. "

Hmm, maybe there should be an opt out, so members could voluntary have stats, then others could choose to avoid those that opt out. Another twist to the idea!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"the problem with this is a simple one...

you can have all the "metrics" you want.... at the end of the day they don't make up for having basic common sense....

people want to use ever statistic as a crutch to lean on.... use statistics to cover their own mistakes... put the blame elsewhere...

at the end of the day, people should be big enough and adult enough to rely on using basic common sense.... which seems to be replace by the urge in peoples groinal area....

we all have brains... if something doesn't feel right... don't bloody do it, or keep talking till it does feel right....

and if that means changing your criteria.... then change your criteria...

at the end of the day... the only person responsible for you is you... no metrics, no statistics, no ifs, no buts.....

the lack therof in some of the stories of woes are astounding..... maybe if peoples used a bit more basic common sense maybe there would be much less angst....."

With anything, especially politics, you can't have a perfect system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"

With anything, especially politics, you can't have a perfect system."

It seems the current system is perfect for everyone except you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"

With anything, especially politics, you can't have a perfect system.

It seems the current system is perfect for everyone except you"

It's not perfect for everyone. I don't think it's perfect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"

With anything, especially politics, you can't have a perfect system.

It seems the current system is perfect for everyone except you"

No, yet again, it was an idea.

I've lost count the number of threads that state; no show, was chatting but got blocked, weren't who they said they were etc.. etc.. etc..

So when an idea is proposed to rate profiles, it's all of a sudden working brilliantly and just not for me, LMFAO !!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

We're leaving the thread. Got quite a bit of feedback. Found it interesting but ran it's course for us.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igeiaWoman
over a year ago

Bristol


"

With anything, especially politics, you can't have a perfect system.

It seems the current system is perfect for everyone except you

No, yet again, it was an idea.

I've lost count the number of threads that state; no show, was chatting but got blocked, weren't who they said they were etc.. etc.. etc..

So when an idea is proposed to rate profiles, it's all of a sudden working brilliantly and just not for me, LMFAO !!!!"

But a rating system such as the one you're proposing wouldn't fix that. All it would do is list stats with no context. My profile states I chat to a few people who interest me and I will eventually meet some of them. When I turn my filters off I get messages from people who want to meet there and then. It's their expectations and messaging with no thought that leads to me having to be blunt but under your proposed system that would give me a low rating since I either haven't replied or haven't converted contact to a meet. For one of the popular single women on here the ratio would probably be even worse. Your proposed system presumes fab is transactional. My fab experience is interactional. The two are diametrically opposed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ystical_InkedBBWWoman
over a year ago

somewhere in the Shire of Derby

What one perceives as being negative could very well be a positive to someone else. A rating system would not be able to take that into consideration for an individual.

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