ideas for verifying members as genuine

15 Jan 2009

Quote by deancannock
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 !!!

That's what I'm trying to say - its not just having it, its about how its made to work.

15 Jan 2009

Okay,
An example of how research, as opposed to verification can fail" - bearing in mind you can't possibly ask every question possible in the hope of finding that one magic question that determines "Ah! I better stay away then":
I arranged to meet a young lady in town at 8pm one day for a drink. Some know the London Underground can be unpredictable, I arrived at (was hoping to arrive and impress her that I got there first, but oh well).
She wasn't there - I waited till then rang her but couldn't reach her (she was underground). Eventually got through at (ish), she said She was there at 8pm as agreed and I wasn't, and she doesn't appreciate tardiness nor timewasters as she was a busy person and had to be across town at for a 9pm appointment.
My bad or her bad? (4 mins ffs!)
She hadn't mentioned anything about being elsewhere at 9pm - since then though, I'm sure to mention "So we'll have at least a couple of hours to ourselves, or if you're in a rush we can arrange for a different date/time?", doesn't mean I've covered all possible basis - every question I ask (apart from the obvious) are based one one previous "experience" or other - which I could have learned about given enough information to start with.

15 Jan 2009

I've just noticed, a quick scan of random posts on threads, several posters forum signature (including some mods/Ops) as having some form of positive comment about them from another member.
Yes, its all a bit of a laugh, but no one would really put that there if it did not happen, irrespective of the context.
So, bearing in mind its just one or two comments usually, would we class that as (self-) verification or lack of discretion?

15 Jan 2009

Quote by deancannock
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 !!!

Dean, that particular website has now brought in photo-verifcation, in addition to the feedback system they've had for a while, and I'm guessing that's because they found the feedback system was being abused so widely that they needed a secondary system under Admin control to shore up the first system. It suggests to me quite strongly that they've discovered that a feedback system in and of itself is pretty much useless, so they've now introduced still more membership tiers, between verified vs unverified, verified by feedback vs verified by photo vs verifed by feedback and photo. Wonder where they'll go with it next? confused

I can't post on there cos although I could get verified in a heartbeat just by sending a PM to the people on there that I know, you need to be photo-verified just to use the bloody forum, presumably again to keep out the trolls, but I suspect confusion reins there just as it does here from time to time. ;)
Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

I've seen the said attempts at verification, all I can say to it is they might argue that they acknowledge that whilst whatever system in place may not be perfect, at least attempting to control/get rid/reduce the number of timewasters and let the legitimate swingers carry on is better than sitting idly by, harbouring them and and letting life continue as if we're in ignorant bliss.
If a free site can see the need, then surely paid members deserve a little bit more? (Why anyone would pay to become a timewaster is beyond me, but hey, I don't claim to understand the mind of a timewaster - am to busy looking to have fun and a shag or two!)

15 Jan 2009

OK, I have it.. :twisted:
We can have a Committee that has to 'vet' every new member in person, like an assessment centre. This will consist of Neil, Gem and myself (because I say so) wink

Neil can test run all the girlies, Gem the guys, me the undecided ones and if it gets too busy on the single guy side of things then Neil can help out - hence my reasons for having these specific people on the panel.
There, sorted... if someone can just tell me how to contact Admin. I can ensure we get this rolling asap.....
cool

A verification system will always be open to abuse in my opinion - if you think the accusations of cliques etc etc are rife now, wait until a verification system comes in! I think this site has gotten way too big and Commercial for any such system to work or to be properly policed to be honest. Take ASBO's for example - one of my good pals is a judge and he hates the things - he says they are easy to issue but almost impossible to uphold.
Yes, things kinda work on Ebay but then they are trading commodities and not people, sex, cock, pussy etc etc - once you throw humans into the equation things become a lot more complicated.
x

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
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 !!!

Dean, that particular website has now brought in photo-verifcation, in addition to the feedback system they've had for a while, and I'm guessing that's because they found the feedback system was being abused so widely that they needed a secondary system under Admin control to shore up the first system. It suggests to me quite strongly that they've discovered that a feedback system in and of itself is pretty much useless, so they've now introduced still more membership tiers, between verified vs unverified, verified by feedback vs verified by photo vs verifed by feedback and photo. Wonder where they'll go with it next? confused

I can't post on there cos although I could get verified in a heartbeat just by sending a PM to the people on there that I know, you need to be photo-verified just to use the bloody forum, presumably again to keep out the trolls, but I suspect confusion reins there just as it does here from time to time. ;)
Neil x x x ;)
It is a shame that I have had to stop posting on that forum, as they have made it compulsory to photo verify.
Well fuck 'em.
I have been swinging for a few years. If I want someone to see my face pic then I would pass it to them on MSN or wait to meet them at a social. I do not want other people having control over my face picture, that can be "lost" in the web somewhere. If people want to be that trusting then you can. Just leave me out of it.
Compulsory verification may see a reduction in members. I hope this isn't going to happen here as I would miss this site..........but I ain't giving my picture to no faceless people.
Dave_Notts

15 Jan 2009

Quote by R6_biker
OK, I have it.. :twisted:
We can have a Committee that has to 'vet' every new member in person, like an assessment centre. This will consist of Neil, Gem and myself (because I say so)
Neil can test run all the girlies

Sod that for a game of soldiers mate. What if they think I'm rubbish or summat, and I end up with a "Met Neil today as agreed, he did actually turn up, but I ended up with the distinct feeling I'd have preferred a no-show"? I'll never get a shag again. If you think I'm risking what little reputation I have left on this one, you can bloody well think again!
Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
OK, I have it.. :twisted:
We can have a Committee that has to 'vet' every new member in person, like an assessment centre. This will consist of Neil, Gem and myself (because I say so)
Neil can test run all the girlies

Sod that for a game of soldiers mate. What if they think I'm rubbish or summat, and I end up with a "Met Neil today as agreed, he did actually turn up, but I ended up with the distinct feeling I'd have preferred a no-show"? I'll never get a shag again. If you think I'm risking what little reputation I have left on this one, you can bloody well think again!
Neil x x x ;)
too late. :wink:

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
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 !!!

Dean, that particular website has now brought in photo-verifcation, in addition to the feedback system they've had for a while, and I'm guessing that's because they found the feedback system was being abused so widely that they needed a secondary system under Admin control to shore up the first system. It suggests to me quite strongly that they've discovered that a feedback system in and of itself is pretty much useless, so they've now introduced still more membership tiers, between verified vs unverified, verified by feedback vs verified by photo vs verifed by feedback and photo. Wonder where they'll go with it next? confused

I can't post on there cos although I could get verified in a heartbeat just by sending a PM to the people on there that I know, you need to be photo-verified just to use the bloody forum, presumably again to keep out the trolls, but I suspect confusion reins there just as it does here from time to time. ;)
Neil x x x ;)
It is a shame that I have had to stop posting on that forum, as they have made it compulsory to photo verify.
Well fuck 'em.
I have been swinging for a few years. If I want someone to see my face pic then I would pass it to them on MSN or wait to meet them at a social. I do not want other people having control over my face picture, that can be "lost" in the web somewhere. If people want to be that trusting then you can. Just leave me out of it.
Compulsory verification may see a reduction in members. I hope this isn't going to happen here as I would miss this site..........but I ain't giving my picture to no faceless people.
Dave_Notts
its optional dave..not compulsory....and the pic does not go on profile for others to be seen.

15 Jan 2009

Dean, the message I get when I try to reply to a forum thread is that photo-verification is now compulsory for forum posting rights. Just goes to show how easy it is to add an element of compulsion to so-called optional verification systems, eh? ;)
Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

i truely understand what you are saying, but..
lol yeah there has to be a but..
what about new resturants? dont they deserve a breck?
what about the guy who says amazing food, but we have completely different tastes?
xx fem xx

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fem_4_taboo
i truely understand what you are saying, but..
lol yeah there has to be a but..
what about new resturants? dont they deserve a breck?
what about the guy who says amazing food, but we have completely different tastes?
xx fem xx

Yes, they exist - like I myself I only ever intended to be nothing but true to my word, and to walk the walk. Sadly, for a lot out there, their word isn't worth wahtever paper its written on and they talk the talk, but that's about it.
Verification should be about swaying the balance in favour of the legitimate, irrespective of where the exceptions lie.

15 Jan 2009

lol what about genital pics?? do we have to hold a id name sign beside to prove its our minnimoo or cock?
i wonder if verification will bring arrogance,
arrogant people who think even more so i should meet them cause they are verified or aggogance that i dont count cause im not verified.
how can you verify a single guy is a single guy?
this is going around in circles, but i cant help that, i honestly have tired to see how verification will help. dont bring it in just for the sake of it.
xxx fem xxx

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fem_4_taboo
lol what about genital pics?? do we have to hold a id name sign beside to prove its our minnimoo or cock?
i wonder if verification will bring arrogance,
arrogant people who think even more so i should meet them cause they are verified or aggogance that i dont count cause im not verified.
how can you verify a single guy is a single guy?
this is going around in circles, but i cant help that, i honestly have tired to see how verification will help. dont bring it in just for the sake of it.
xxx fem xxx

Lol.. trust me, all these questions are not knew, they have been asked all over the place and scenarios played out before whatever verification system gets brought into place.
However, it has occurred to me that people are thinking of two different meanings to verification:
1) Member verification: "I hear by dub thee legit account holder". Where a duck is a seen to be a duck.
2) Legitimacy verification: "Yes, it really DOES taste like cheese sauce!". Where the proof of the pudding is in the pie, and the chef can prove it!"
I'm yet to see ANY site that "member verifies" single males separate from couples or legit (most member verification wants to prove that a female does exist as so many people pretend to be female or a couple, but a female would never set up and account pretending to be male in a bid to meet more women..... no point). I'm actually not debating on this point at all simply cause I don't have much to say for or against it.
I'm talking about Legitimacy Verification.
Its one thing if someone says "Just here to chat" and they do just that, fair enough. Its another thing is someone says "Here to meet" but leave a wake oe people they've stood up in their calendar. Makes me wonder, do they wake up thinking "Who's time shall I waste today?"

15 Jan 2009

Quote by deancannock
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 !!!

Dean, that particular website has now brought in photo-verifcation, in addition to the feedback system they've had for a while, and I'm guessing that's because they found the feedback system was being abused so widely that they needed a secondary system under Admin control to shore up the first system. It suggests to me quite strongly that they've discovered that a feedback system in and of itself is pretty much useless, so they've now introduced still more membership tiers, between verified vs unverified, verified by feedback vs verified by photo vs verifed by feedback and photo. Wonder where they'll go with it next? confused

I can't post on there cos although I could get verified in a heartbeat just by sending a PM to the people on there that I know, you need to be photo-verified just to use the bloody forum, presumably again to keep out the trolls, but I suspect confusion reins there just as it does here from time to time. ;)
Neil x x x ;)
It is a shame that I have had to stop posting on that forum, as they have made it compulsory to photo verify.
Well fuck 'em.
I have been swinging for a few years. If I want someone to see my face pic then I would pass it to them on MSN or wait to meet them at a social. I do not want other people having control over my face picture, that can be "lost" in the web somewhere. If people want to be that trusting then you can. Just leave me out of it.
Compulsory verification may see a reduction in members. I hope this isn't going to happen here as I would miss this site..........but I ain't giving my picture to no faceless people.
Dave_Notts
its optional dave..not compulsory....and the pic does not go on profile for others to be seen.
Optional?
You can opt in and have the use of the site.
Not opt in and have no use of the forum and other parts. So now I can't access the forum, which was may main use of the site.
That to me is not optional. Optinal to me is to allow me full access of the site and I would have no green tick, flag or star.............I would have happily carried on with that.
Dave_Notts

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
lol what about genital pics?? do we have to hold a id name sign beside to prove its our minnimoo or cock?
i wonder if verification will bring arrogance,
arrogant people who think even more so i should meet them cause they are verified or aggogance that i dont count cause im not verified.
how can you verify a single guy is a single guy?
this is going around in circles, but i cant help that, i honestly have tired to see how verification will help. dont bring it in just for the sake of it.
xxx fem xxx

Lol.. trust me, all these questions are not knew, tey have been asked all over the place and scenarios played outbefore whatever verification system gets brought into place.
However, it has occured to me that people are thinking of two different meanings to verification:
1) Member verification: "I hear by dub thee legit account holder". Where a duck is a seen to be a duck.
2) Legitimacy verification: "Yes, it really DOES taste like cheese sauce!". Where the proof of the pudding is in the pie, and the chef can prove it!"
I'm yet to see ANY site that "member verifies" single males separate from couples or legit (most member verification wants to prove that a female does exist as so many people pretend to be female or a couple, but a female would never set up and account pretending to be male in a bid to meet more women..... no point). I'm actually not debating on this point at all simply cause I don't have much to say for or against it.
I'm talkign about Legitimacy Verification.
Its one thing if someone says "Just here to chat" and they do just that, fair enough. Its another thing is someone says "Here to meet" but leave a wake oe people they've stood up in their calendar. Makes me wonder, do they wake up thinking "Who's time shall I waste today?"
ewghhhh ahabs did you have to use that term of phrase lol
xxx fem xxx

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fem_4_taboo
ewghhhh ahabs did you have to use that term of phrase lol
xxx fem xxx

Next time I'll use marmite: love it or hate it.
With regards to arrogance though, there is never an excuse for arrogance - no matter how many votes/feedback/testimonials one has - its a poor human trait to carry and exhibit and endears to no one. It smacks of "I'm the best you never had" (like some woman I had the displeasure of meeting and she got pissed off I didn't know who she was) to which I all too happily quip "I wouldn't want to with an attitude like that!"

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
Dean, the message I get when I try to reply to a forum thread is that photo-verification is now compulsory for forum posting rights. Just goes to show how easy it is to add an element of compulsion to so-called optional verification systems, eh? ;)
Neil x x x ;)

People are raising a debate based on choice, the point you have mentioned eliminates all choice. If SH were to bring in such a system here would that not be against personal choice?
I do understand the frustrations of some and the stories that have been told.
I do understand that we don't all have time to be spent wasting time.
But all those in favour for a system, do you believe what Neil has said to be a fair system?
I think before we wish for something we all need to think about what it is you are wishing for or what is on offer.
Because sometimes wishes don't come true to form.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Theladyisaminx
I think before we wish for something we all need to think about what it is you are wishing for or what is on offer.
Because sometimes wishes don't come true to form.

Very true, which is why I feel along the lines of understanding the type of verification this is supposed to be, its the right of every member to not only vote if they want it or not (Why am I saying that??) but more importantly, suggest ideas on how it will work for the benefit of the larger community.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs

I think before we wish for something we all need to think about what it is you are wishing for or what is on offer.
Because sometimes wishes don't come true to form.

Very true, which is why I feel along the lines of understanding the type of verification this is supposed to be, its the right of every member to not only vote if they want it or not (Why am I saying that??) but more importantly, suggest ideas on how it will work for the benefit of the larger community.
I totally agree!
I think we have to resign ourselves at least to the fact it could well be a consideration by Admin to implement, due to the fact of the questionnaires.
Maybe we should start talking what we don't want it to include.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Auto-Message
While we test the new forums, you must have been a member for over 72 hours AND be photo verified to post
Your have been registered for over 72 hrs
You must be the following:
You are not yet photo verified - click here to go to learn about photo-verification
You can still send and receive private messages and respond privately to forum posts

I dare say that'll be that up the creek then! :undecided:
Optional? I think not.

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Theladyisaminx
*snip*
But all those in favour for a system, do you believe what Neil has said to be a fair system?
*snip*

I think they've brought that in as a way of making forum moderation easier for themselves. I do not believe for one minute SH Admin would ever entertain such an idea, and I would expect every Mod on this forum to come out against it if they did. Just so we're clear I'm absolutely not suggesting we'd ever go down that particular road. It's just a side issue that came up as an example that isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. ;)
Neil x x x ;)

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
*snip*
But all those in favour for a system, do you believe what Neil has said to be a fair system?
*snip*

I think they've brought that in as a way of making forum moderation easier for themselves. I do not believe for one minute SH Admin would ever entertain such an idea, and I would expect every Mod on this forum to come out against it if they did. Just so we're clear I'm absolutely not suggesting we'd ever go down that particular road. It's a side issue to this particular discussion. ;)
Neil x x x ;)
I hope and agree you could be right there.
I was just using your example as something those that said they want a system should think about all the implications that could entail. I am not suggesting for one minute I think SH would do that, but I do feel that is the kind of example that needs consideration for the people that feel that opting out of a system could have knock on effects.

15 Jan 2009

There always has been a verifying factor on this site. It isn't much but, if you want to go to a munch or a meet you need to have been a member for a while. This prevented anyone just getting immediate access to the events without at least the impression of participating beforehand. Or has that changed recently?

15 Jan 2009

Quote by duncanlondon
There always has been a verifying factor on this site. It isn't much but, if you want to go to a munch or a meet you need to have been a member for a while. This prevented anyone just getting immediate access to the events without at least the impression of participating beforehand. Or has that changed recently?

Munches have a cut off date usually i.e. must have joined before such and such a date.
Socials and parties are at the discretion of the organiser
Dave_Notts

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
Dean, the message I get when I try to reply to a forum thread is that photo-verification is now compulsory for forum posting rights. Just goes to show how easy it is to add an element of compulsion to so-called optional verification systems, eh? ;)
Neil x x x ;)

arghh right....don't use the forums on there to be honest. I do know they had them hacked into and I guess it is because of that. as i have said generally i am against verification, because don't think it truely works...but that photo with your name..did seem one way round the idea of singles poseing as couples..etc etc.

15 Jan 2009

Dean, it seems I completely missed the bit in DG's quote that said it's just while testing. Still, the rest of it up there about verifications upon verifications and the ease with which you can add compulsion to voluntary systems still stands. Really must learn to bloody read properly, eh? redface

In my defence, seems Dave missed it completely as well, but then, we'd expect no less from him, eh? bolt

;)
Neil x x x ;)
p.s. Sorry Dave!

15 Jan 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
Dean, it seems I completely missed the bit in DG's quote that said it's just while testing. Still, the rest of it up there about verifications upon verifications and the ease with which you can add compulsion to voluntary systems still stands. Really must learn to bloody read properly, eh? In my defence, seems Dave missed it completely as well, but then, we'd expect no less from him, eh?
;)
Neil x x x ;)
p.s. Sorry Dave!

I have an excuse. The doctor says I am still ill :smug:
I did miss it though.
Wonders what he missed? Doesn't want to ask outright to save some face lol

Dave_Notts

15 Jan 2009

Quote by R6_biker
OK, I have it.. :twisted:
We can have a Committee that has to 'vet' every new member in person, like an assessment centre. This will consist of Neil, Gem and myself (because I say so)
Neil can test run all the girlies, Gem the guys, me the undecided ones and if it gets too busy on the single guy side of things then Neil can help out - hence my reasons for having these specific people on the panel.

Favouritism, and I think you need some back up incase Gem is busy lol

do you think the site should have a verification system