ideas for verifying members as genuine

do you think the site should have a verification system

14 Jan 2009

Quote by Silk and Big G
whats happening to the forum we always loved for its open and grown up approach

14 Jan 2009

Quote by Kff30
i posted this back on about page 9 its funny how many ppl are now saying the same things now about ppl not listening or even be open to compromise
this site is here for all of us it should be built around what all of us want its not hard to do its just hard for some to accept that ppl want change

And it would appear it's hard for others to accept that some of us don't want change?
Two sides of the same coin isn't it?
If you wish to have the site built around what 'all of us' want, good luck with that, because it'll never happen. I want the site to make my PC give me gold bars everytime I log on, not gonna happen, there will be people who believe that sending a message should lead to a meet and those who choose not to meet them are stupid and deserve to be run off the site, there will be others who want a feedback system, there will be others who want everything but the front page locked to un verified members, where does it end?
The question has been asked of the wider membership, I'll see what they say about it, I'm sure you won't get a concensus though, so as usual, the majority will rule which, while personally I would be disappointed to see a verification system bought in and have clearly and in reasonable terms stated my reasons why, is the only fair way to do it.

14 Jan 2009

Quote by st3v3
whats happening to the forum we always loved for its open and grown up approach

14 Jan 2009

Quote by Silk and Big G
whats happening to the forum we always loved for its open and grown up approach

I don't think thats gone, if you're talking about this thread, as always there's a mix of speculation about what we will do, some pretty obvious scare mongering, good views put forward and for the most part a pretty good debate.
Yeah youre right Steve I was being a bit drama queen :-)
still it keeps the debate going huh :-) verified or otherwise ;-)
No matter what the decision is about verification, validation or even certification, this has turned out to be the best debate/discussion we have seen in a long time biggrin

14 Jan 2009

Have we solved it yet............... rolleyes

15 Jan 2009

Quote by markz
Have we solved it yet...............

No, this is the Milton Keynes of discussions, nothing but roundabouts, people going round in circles.....

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fabio
okay ahabs... I'll then put this to you, in regards to your example
1) Photo varification comes in, so she proves that she is who she is.... how has that helped you in this senario? the answer is that it hasn't...
2) varification with feedback comes in....lets say that she has met 5, but like you said messed around 100.....
a) if people have control of what is shown.... whats the likelyhood of the no shows appearing on the profile.... slim to none, you'd only see the positive meets....
b) without those 100 no shows on the screen, how are you suppose to make a proper judgement ..... you can't
c) who's checking the varifiers to check that they are genuine... unless you are going to do a family tree type thing to work out who's "had" who....
wonderful we can play "6 degrees of kevin bacon" and link everyone on the swinging site in 6 shags or less.... yes that bit was a bit flippant but it brings me to:
d) that discretion word again.... I don't want to world knowing who I have met, I don't really want to know who's met who either
you tell me how it helps you in these cases... and you'll win me as a convert.... until then, I don't see how it has helped.... sorry

Hey Fabio, I hear what you're saying, however:
1) I'm not talkignabout photo verification - that can be left to the admin team at time of account setup/hpto upload.
2) The meat of the matter:
a) Yes, you can't stop people doing anything - I've been on a meet where all was good and fine till moment of *the ultimate* and she suddenly went "Can you just hold and cuddle me instead?". Now I wa sure I had done something wrong (however left immediately claiming the moral highground) only for her to contact me the following week offering to meet. Turns out she's a soft swinger who wanted to play with (any) black guy but never had, and yet that little detail somehow never came up in discussion. Who knew?
b) I'm thinking more of a system that gives the option of displaying how many feedbacks you have, and (if people's choice) who with, ie with-hold username. Its been done before and it does work!
The trick is some 10-star rating on the account where the higher percentage positive gives higher stars, the higher percentage negative gives lower stars. So if I saw an account with 3/10 stars, its up to me to assume that 70% of the verification preferred to vote negative. Irrespective who or how many. My example would hence have (5/100) % positive, (100/105) % negative. Clear picture ;)
Who's checking the verifiers? No idea - but it should be encouraged (a note on the "leave a verification" section that "This is for use only for people you have met and choose to verify. Not for (ab)use of leaving verification in the hope the recipient will reward with a meet!". How admins will then check that (example) I haven't set up 100 other profiles and had each one verify my main anonymously? Possibly IP tracking? (yes,one or two may get through if I vote at work r a friend's but majority are filtered out)
d) Discretion? The optional "how many" and "who dunnit" settings should help maintain these. No one likes their dirty aired in public.
Touching on the subject of "Family tree" quickly, am in two minds about this. I personally don't want everyone thinking "My god - he wasn't kidding when he said WILL TRAVEL, I mean... Prague ffs!") yet there is a laughable (if not so sad) case I saw that could have helped:
A lady I started chatting to in 2007 (as part of her preferences) tends to "investigate" who potential meets have met (doing her homework) as she prefers to stay well clear of anyone who goes bareback, has met anyone that goes bareback, or anyone linked (6-degrees) to any bareback swinger (including visiting the bareback room herself to note who to avoid). The sad thing is she has a regular play partner that... you guessed it, has been known to do just that. "Damn" I thought, "... poor naive soul - oh well, not my business. IF she's meant to find out, she will". This then becomes a "verification vs Discretion" argument.
I somehow would prefer to know the difference between soemone saying "You'll never know who I've met cause I'm that discrete" to "Actually, she hasn't met many cause the first few sussed her to be a timewaster". Just my view.

15 Jan 2009

The trick is some 10-star rating on the account where the higher percentage positive gives higher stars, the higher percentage negative gives lower stars. So if I saw an account with 3/10 stars, its up to me to assume that 70% of the verification preferred to vote negative. Irrespective who or how many. My example would hence have (5/100) % positive, (100/105) % negative. Clear picture

Clear picture? As mud unfortunately. It's no good, you've lost me. lol

;) I may have completely misunderstood what you're saying here, so bear with me . . .
Presumably, with your suggested system, if I had one positive rating, and nothing but, I would have 100% positive, or 10 stars. If I had ten positive, and one negative, I'd have 90% positive, or 9 stars. So, all I'd have to do is get a single verification, and I'd look like a better bet than someone who's been on dozens of meets, but was scored negatively on one of them. I'd have the better score? Would that not be completely meaningless? Everyone would start at 10 stars with a single verification, and presumably, the more they actually meet, the more 'genuine real swinger' they are, the more chance they have of lowering their scores? As I say, I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds completely ass-backwards. confused

Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

The other thing to think about with that system is what stops a person deleting bad feedback/negative comments dunno

And if its not possible to delete then what stops member x and all his/her mates leaving negative comments about someone just because they can :dunno: thus making that member look like a total tosser when in fact they are not ......
Too many ways in which it is open to abuse....

15 Jan 2009

To the last two comments,
Fair points however remember am just putting ideas forward here, not giving a Technical Requirements Document on how SH should build their verification system. Its all down to udnerstanding various scenarios (I already tried thinking some through)
With regards to "100% for 1 verification", you could set a threshold - 3 votes minimum (or something) for it to kick in (or something) otherwise 2 votes could show 50-50.
With regards to negative votes being deleted - how bout it not being able to be? Now some people will probably start arguing "What if person A doesn't like person B, and so gets 20 of their mates to vote negative for person B forcing their stars down...", true, and I've seen it before. As SH admin would advise, don't get into tit-for-tat, simply report it and they will investigate.
(I don't know if SH admins can see people's emails, but if there's proven lack of contact between person B and the sudden surge of 20 negative, then it would look suspicious)
Bow bearing mind again I'm only offering suggestions - for all I know SH have already got something built that they're testing, or may not plan to - but at least am thinking, its in a bid to make thing better cause the way I see it, not everyone is as adept to doing their homework and hence being fortunate never to have had a bad meet (I only know 2 of such people - and I;m not one of them). This is to assist and protect the wider community, so Swinging Heaven does not become Timewasters Haven (yes, Haven, not Heaven).
Offer suggestions, rather than just knocking it saying "its not 100% so don't have it" otherwise we'll be looking for things in life that are "100% every time" and life is not perfect. If life was perfect, I'd be looking for that one person that could give me everything I could ever want in every swinger, and keep it fresh and different every single time.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
To the last two comments,
Fair points however remember am just putting ideas forward here, not giving a Technical Requirements Document on how SH should build their verification system. Its all down to udnerstanding various scenarios (I already tried thinking some through)
With regards to "100% for 1 verification", you could set a threshold - 3 votes minimum (or something) for it to kick in (or something) otherwise 2 votes could show 50-50.
With regards to negative votes being deleted - how bout it not being able to be? Now some people will probably start arguing "What if person A doesn't like person B, and so gets 20 of their mates to vote negative for person B forcing their stars down...", true, and I've seen it before. As SH admin would advise, don't get into tit-for-tat, simply report it and they will investigate.
(I don't know if SH admins can see people's emails, but if there's proven lack of contact between person B and the sudden surge of 20 negative, then it would look suspicious)
Bow bearing mind again I'm only offering suggestions - for all I know SH have already got something built that they're testing, or may not plan to - but at least am thinking, its in a bid to make thing better cause the way I see it, not everyone is as adept to doing their homework and hence being fortunate never to have had a bad meet (I only know 2 of such people - and I;m not one of them). This is to assist and protect the wider community, so Swinging Heaven does not become Timewasters Haven (yes, Haven, not Heaven).
Offer suggestions, rather than just knocking it saying "its not 100% so don't have it" otherwise we'll be looking for things in life that are "100% every time" and life is not perfect. If life was perfect, I'd be looking for that one person that could give me everything I could ever want in every swinger, and keep it fresh and different every single time.

If they are given information to investigate then discretion is thrown out of the window...
Admin will have to be given full details if they are to investigate anything and they cannot have all the details and discretion remain intact....
As for just knocking it well....
The suggestion I have is not to have any kind of verification at all.....
The site has survived without it and verification has been shown to have pitfalls from every angle....
I do realise that you are only offering suggestions and I applaude you for that :thumbup: but IMHO this site doesnt need it :-)

15 Jan 2009

Couldnt we just have a star system like on e-bay less hassle, no negative comments to worry about and far easier for the site to introduce.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Steve
If they are given information to investigate then discretion is thrown out of the window...
Admin will have to be given full details if they are to investigate anything and they cannot have all the details and discretion remain intact....
As for just knocking it well....
The suggestion I have is not to have any kind of verification at all.....
The site has survived without it and verification has been shown to have pitfalls from every angle....

But how do you know the site does not need it? ;)
Is it not possible the site has in part survived because nothing can be proven (no proof of contact, incident or time-wasting) and as such most (like myself) have had to resign to the fact "Nothing will change, the timewasers will continue to get away with it, you can't report it, its not admin's business, I made the choice to be a swinger, I might as well put up and get on with it, or delete my profile and return to celibacy and monogamy".
Damn, how bleak and positive an outlook is that! smile

15 Jan 2009

Quote by soul_girl
Couldnt we just have a star system like on e-bay less hassle, no negative comments to worry about and far easier for the site to introduce.

If there is no negatives, how would a star be a guarantee?
They could have met one couple all went well they got their star, then they decided swinging was not for them, they would like to stick with just sexual chat or cam to cam. Would the star still shine?

15 Jan 2009

Quote by soul_girl
Couldnt we just have a star system like on e-bay less hassle, no negative comments to worry about and far easier for the site to introduce.

The only problem I see with making the ebay system work is that people can actually see how many others have voted for you - which would interprete as "Wow, 98% positive votes from 902 people.. and their profile has only been active 10 months - tart!"
Which is why I thought "Hm, better leave the optionto hide the number of total votes". I a user however wants to show this, is "100%, of 3 votes", then its up to them.
Hang on, as an idea, maybe even show the number as long as 3 or less? so people understand where "100% of 3 votes" comes from (keep voters as 'Private').
Lol - we giving away trade secrets here!

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Couldnt we just have a star system like on e-bay less hassle, no negative comments to worry about and far easier for the site to introduce.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
But how do you know the site does not need it? ;)
Is it not possible the site has in part survived because nothing can be proven (no proof of contact, incident or time-wasting) and as such most (like myself) have had to resign to the fact "Nothing will change, the timewasers will continue to get away with it, you can't report it, its not admin's business, I made the choice to be a swinger, I might as well put up and get on with it, or delete my profile and return to celibacy and monogamy".
Damn, how bleak and positive an outlook is that!

The other side of that particular coin Ahabs is that one aspect of this site is that it is a learning resource for those interested in finding out more about swinging, and swingers. To enable that, the ethos has always been, IMHO, that we will allow anyone to come here, for whatever reason, and we will take them on trust, based on what they have to say for themselves, until such time as they prove to us that they should not be afforded that trust. There is nothing 'bleak' in that outlook in my view. It's actually empowering and enabling IMO.
That does of course mean that there will always be those who abuse the trust offered them, but I fail to see how a verification system will put a definite stop to that once and for all in a way that does not have an adverse impact on what I feel is an important aspect of the site.
Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

but timewasters would still get away with it as i presume a verification will not prove anything. especially not whos a timewaster.
unless you will only meet verified, but then your potentially missing out on some great people cause they are not verified?
i would hate to turn up to a meet and feel i should play or feel im on a job interview as i dont want that negative deduction to my star rating?
ffs we are adults, you can only have time wasted if you let someone. we are not hotels to be rated.
we are not commodities we are humans, yes people will cancel, yes there will be fakes, but thats something your own judgements should decide for you.
i now these are sugestions, and in fact it has thankfully hi lighted to me again the potential abuse of a system.
will we all start writing contracts and getting people to sign to say they were happy with the service just incase they try and leave negative feedback?
i have spokne to people who have left feed back on other sites and they have said about the feed back, oh they were ok, it was a bit crap, but i woudnt go back again, but what are you ment to say when asked to leave feedback after the meet???
i dont wnat them dissing me if i leave crap feedback.
xxx fem xx

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fem_4_taboo
but timewasters would still get away with it as i presume a verification will not prove anything. especially not whos a timewaster.
unless you will only meet verified, but then your potentially missing out on some great people cause they are not verified?
i would hate to turn up to a meet and feel i should play or feel im on a job interview as i dont want that negative deduction to my star rating?
ffs we are adults, you can only have time wasted if you let someone. we are not hotels to be rated.
we are not commodities we are humans, yes people will cancel, yes there will be fakes, but thats something your own judgements should decide for you.
i now these are sugestions, and in fact it has thankfully hi lighted to me again the potential abuse of a system.
will we all start writing contracts and getting people to sign to say they were happy with the service just incase they try and leave negative feedback?
i have spokne to people who have left feed back on other sites and they have said about the feed back, oh they were ok, it was a bit crap, but i woudnt go back again, but what are you ment to say when asked to leave feedback after the meet???
i dont wnat them dissing me if i leave crap feedback.
xxx fem xx

Fem sorry! That really made me :giggle: lol

Perhaps we could put in a disclaimer too! :lol:
ooo and a CV to be attached.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
That does of course mean that there will always be those who abuse the trust offered them, but I fail to see how a verification system will put a definite stop to that once and for all in a way that does not have an adverse impact on what I feel is an important aspect of the site.
Neil x x x ;)

True, but then in life we also accept that most societies also have a trust based system, also built on an element of trust but these do have a system of approaching breach of that trust.
* At school, if you fight/cheat/are rude you get punished/asked to eave the exam/do detention (or shouldbe - unless am speaking eras ago!)
* At work, if you fiddle the figures you get sacked.
* In justice, if you fall foul of the law you get prosecuted and may face jail.
* In marriage, if one partner cheats and gets caught, there's high chance of divorce meaning the other half getting substantial volume of shared assets.
Bearing in mind none of the above are perfect (100%) but they are still in play and there are still on going arguments to improve and tighten the loopholes, so why on earth would we want swinging to be ONLY on trust and no form of protection? What next? do away with condoms also and trust that everyone is clean?
(As a side argument, we wouldnt play with someone we KNOW has something, even if he/she intended to use the entire box of 12 at the same time, so we trust that the people we do play with are clean - BUT - we still give trust a "back up". That's my point about the Condom analogy).
That's like saying "In fact, SH will now do away with pictures - we leave you to use your instinct and trust the potential meet". How many people will still meet without seeing pics? How many will agree to meet without ASKING for pics?
Lets face it - trust only gets us so far.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fem_4_taboo
but timewasters would still get away with it as i presume a verification will not prove anything. especially not whos a timewaster.
unless you will only meet verified, but then your potentially missing out on some great people cause they are not verified?
i would hate to turn up to a meet and feel i should play or feel im on a job interview as i dont want that negative deduction to my star rating?
ffs we are adults, you can only have time wasted if you let someone. we are not hotels to be rated.
we are not commodities we are humans, yes people will cancel, yes there will be fakes, but thats something your own judgements should decide for you.
i now these are sugestions, and in fact it has thankfully hi lighted to me again the potential abuse of a system.
will we all start writing contracts and getting people to sign to say they were happy with the service just incase they try and leave negative feedback?
i have spokne to people who have left feed back on other sites and they have said about the feed back, oh they were ok, it was a bit crap, but i woudnt go back again, but what are you ment to say when asked to leave feedback after the meet???
i dont wnat them dissing me if i leave crap feedback.
xxx fem xx

So you suggest "doing nothing" is the answer? I;m not for one suggesting verification is perfect and will rid SH of all timewasters, neither am I suggesting that "oh, now I've met them I must pkay with them else they'l give me negative feedback", and whilst I don't doubt that there are people who see feedback systems as a bad thing, I (Personally) think they make it harder (not impossible, but harder) for timewasters (those that do this on a consistent basis at least, for kicks) to annoy others.
One person contacted me on a sight with verification:
* No pictures
* No verification displayed
* The stars fell below 'par' (the site has a 'par' system where enough positives send you above, enough negatives send you below but everyone starts off at 'par' upon joining)
Straight away I thought "Assuming they are for real and just had a series of unfortunate cases, they're not helping their case by not displaying pictures or the verification received" so I left them to it.
Now whilst that is one example (and I accept, there's always a good and bad example) I found verification useful there. As for the point "How would people get verification?", I imagine the same way I did - drop your name down for a party of interest and see what happens (a fair few parties don't actually require verification), one eventually turns up.
What I do not agree with tho is "doing nothing", as the saying goes "When good people do nothing, evil prevails".

15 Jan 2009

i want to see a picture to see if i fancy them.
oh and to have a clue who to look out for lol
not using a condom you are risking yourlife and health, not using verification is hardely life threatning, i hate this comparision, it belittes the debate.
maybe only trusting a verification could put you at risk though??
xx fem xx

15 Jan 2009

i dont do nothing, i use the thing called communication, chat and trusting my instinct.
xx fem xx

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
True, but then in life we also accept that most societies also have a trust based system, also built on an element of trust but these do have a system of approaching breach of that trust.
* At school, if you fight/cheat/are rude you get punished/asked to eave the exam/do detention (or shouldbe - unless am speaking eras ago!)
* At work, if you fiddle the figures you get sacked.
* In justice, if you fall foul of the law you get prosecuted and may face jail.
* In marriage, if one partner cheats and gets caught, there's high chance of divorce meaning the other half getting substantial volume of shared assets.
Bearing in mind none of the above are perfect (100%) but they are still in play and there are still on going arguments to improve and tighten the loopholes, so why on earth would we want swinging to be ONLY on trust and no form of protection?

Ahabs, bit of a straw-man argument there dontcha think? ;) The protections you're talking about are in place because those kinds of situations have wider social implications beyond the purely personal. I can't see there's much potential for harm if someone you decide to meet on a swinging website turns out to be a timewaster, beyond a bruised and battered ego? I'm not sure what you think we need protecting from.
Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

I am not about to read the whole thread, boy is it big, but how about a blind system. No one know who has said yes this was a nice meet.
I am however not in favour of negative votes. It just leaves some open to be persuaded to go further than they may wish to. I know not all but some, it is that small number that need to be protected.#
Travis

15 Jan 2009

Ahabs..the site you are refering too, I think, did not work for us.
The 3 stars you start with are fine, and getting up to 5 stars is easy peasy!
You do not even have to of communicated with, or heaven forbid, even meet anyone!
The reason for this being, some really kind individuals deem so fit to give you feedback, with out even messaging one, let alone meeting!
This was done to us by 3 seperate people, when I messaged them and asked them why they had left feedback, they refered they were doing it as a favour, and as we were new to the site and infact swinging(at that time)!
So that sites ways were not good at all!
Typed with my sarcastic head on!
References can be supplied on request!(NOT)
Lucys post

15 Jan 2009

I'm not sure I get the "straw-man" analogy (clutching at straws? I'm don't agree, but that's debatable)
Yes, I accept unlike health, timewasters are more of a personal impact - but on an individual basis. What about the sum of numerous individual opi
nions?
You're saying you don't read reviews? (Clubs/resturants/movies). IF I said "Nah, Cat Chaser was rubbish, I snored through it" and next 6 random people you asked all said the same, despite the impacts to you being merely a wasted afternoon/evening, would you still go see it? Rent it? Play it on date-night?
If enough people said "Yeah, I went to that new resturant - good food, delicious and quick - but the service was lousy and the food was overpriced" then you have an informed opinion on whether to go or not.
All of these are not health-risking or life threatening scenarios, however they still apply some "research" on your part - unless you're one of the few that can walk into any movie/resturant with zero information, no review looked up,and confident you'll have a well spent time. And even then, what percentage of people are there? I'm thinking wider population.
As for previous poster (Fem? apologies for abbreviating), yes, you see the pictures and communicate and try to suss them out if legit or not but that isn't perfect, and certainly not for everyone. Besides, it takes time - I'm not suggesting "everyone rushes into meets (some prefer to take their time, some avoid email tennis), I know people that I've seen their pictures, seen them on cam, chatted to them over the phone, had a laugh for months (one person, 14 months because she didn't like rushing into things), only for her to not follow through - upon having a chat with someone at a social elsewhere int he country, they happened to know this very lady and said "You wanna watch out for that one - she'd burned a few folks, you got away lucky!"
Why? Cause there was no verification to give insight into what people were up against. And she knew it!

15 Jan 2009

I have a mind of my own. :mrgreen:

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Lucyandmike7
Ahabs..the site you are refering too, I think, did not work for us.
The 3 stars you start with are fine, and getting up to 5 stars is easy peasy!
You do not even have to of communicated with, or heaven forbid, even meet anyone!
The reason for this being, some really kind individuals deem so fit to give you feedback, with out even messaging one, let alone meeting!
This was done to us by 3 seperate people, when I messaged them and asked them why they had left feedback, they refered they were doing it as a favour, and as we were new to the site and infact swinging(at that time)!
So that sites ways were not good at all!
Typed with my sarcastic head on!
References can be supplied on request!(NOT)
Lucys post

Yes, I know, and I've always said, no system is perfect - however that particular system I feel is one of the better ones, and there are more people benefiting from it than not. If someone wants to chuck me a free vote for nothing, I can't stop them. Reminds me the time on another site that I received a "testimonial" from someone I had no clue who they were, never seen their profile, was not a match in anyway and we're in two different countries - however their comments went along the lines of "Thanks for the testimonial and extra kudos points - looking forward to meeting you".
I checked the profile to be sure I hadn't done anything in my sleep, but all I saw on their profile testimonial page were several people leaving comments like "fab pictures, would like to meet, here;s our email, here's my number".
Now whilst some would argue that system was being abused, I see it as someone no one can actually say they've met, but rather they were "Rewarding the profile" in the hope of meeting in return.
I class them as wannabes (at best).

15 Jan 2009

right have tried my best to just read and not comment...but seem to be going round in circles here. Now let me say as such I don't think a verification scheme will change much. I am a member on a certain other Fab-ulous site shall we say. they do operate verification..and still see just as many moand about timewasters on there as here.
However on thing they are now doing which may assist is you are requested to send a pic in..with name of the site and your user name on. If your a couple it must be full face and both of you. This will hopefully weed out single people pretending to be couples. I mean I think your neighbour may look a bit wierd at you if ask if the mind holding a piece of card up for you saying
SWINGING HEAVEN
COCK and SLUT
its not perfect...but may weed a few out !!!