FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > Verifications
Verifications
Jump to: Newest in thread
"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  ) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
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  | |||
 | |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
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 | |||
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 | |||
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 | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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" You can't have your wife on your pics as you have a single males profile. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
