steviex00

FR madness

56 posts in this topic

What a daft report ; http://www.punternet.com/frs/fr_view.php?recnum=98186

Shit website, too - no useful information.

I'm amazed this one got through - then I hear that a perfectly lovely Slough lady has had all her reports deleted (including mine) for alleged dishonest FR activity - and she never even logs on!

Come on G, we trust this site....

What do the rest of you think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree

First time Fr so it looks like a bit of touting to me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I agree

First time Fr so it looks like a bit of touting to me :)

Ginger, you are a master of understatement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ginger, you are a master of understatement!

No I'm a master of perfection and action :eek: no this is not a tout :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to ban all reports by first timers, we would never have any new reports, not every auther has a degree in english, its a crap report but PN does not give out prizes. If a favorite lady gets cought trying to manipulate the FR system dont asume very one else is.

Untill Galahads system flags up any wrong doing its a valid FR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steevie you are right.

No way does this qualify as a FR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so its not very informative other than her new contact details but that doesn't mean its fake some people just dont really know what to write when they submit a FR. Innocent until proven guilty and all that....... let the newbies be :) im sure G has been around long enough to know what he's doing and if there are alarms to ring im sure he'll do so if not you guys are going to give a newbie a complex about their writing skills and maybe they will stay as only one report ever written

Hugs Casey xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steevie you are right.

No way does this qualify as a FR.

And on what basis?

We require the ladies name,

contact details.

First time reports must contain a web address.

Not every auther gives a minute by minute detailed account, this is basic and to the point and as yet Galahads software has not flagged up any wrong doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The handle of the suppose to be punter who wrote this Fr looks suspect too: "britishblackbeatys" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First time reports must contain a web address.

Really? Does that relate to a first time reporter (irrespective of the lady he is reporting on), or does that relate to the lady (irrespective of the reporter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it has now been deleted, I see! When G had a moment to look at it one assumes that he agreed with the other commentators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a daft report ; http://www.punternet.com/frs/fr_view.php?recnum=98186

Shit website, too - no useful information.

I'm amazed this one got through - then I hear that a perfectly lovely Slough lady has had all her reports deleted (including mine) for alleged dishonest FR activity - and she never even logs on!

Come on G, we trust this site....

What do the rest of you think??

what was the jist of this report seeing as it has now been deleted? Also on the 2nd subject, once reports are deleted can G reinstate them, (any advice, that won't piss G off?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it has now been deleted, I see! When G had a moment to look at it one assumes that he agreed with the other commentators?

The FR is now gone, the website listed is no longer trading/closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Does that relate to a first time reporter (irrespective of the lady he is reporting on), or does that relate to the lady (irrespective of the reporter).

Think I'm right in saying it applies to the first time reporter, not sure but I think its to stop folk posting their ex-wifes phone number in a fake report!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, although the Feedback form would have been the correct way to do so. Yes, every once in a while one slips through the cracks but they get caught soon enough.

The Slough lady in question had a number of reports submitted by one person (either the lady herself or someone acting on her behalf) who created at least five user IDs and used them all to write fake reports about her as advertising, as well as writing fake negative reports about her competition. I have had my eye on her for a while, and the evidence is conclusive.

What a daft report ; http://www.punternet.com/frs/fr_view.php?recnum=98186

Shit website, too - no useful information.

I'm amazed this one got through - then I hear that a perfectly lovely Slough lady has had all her reports deleted (including mine) for alleged dishonest FR activity - and she never even logs on!

Come on G, we trust this site....

What do the rest of you think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think I'm right in saying it applies to the first time reporter, not sure but I think its to stop folk posting their ex-wifes phone number in a fake report!

Ah I see, I hope that the phone number in this FR on Gia of Central London is not of kimxy's ex-wife, a first time report for the lady and a first report for kimxy (not allowing for any deleted reports of course) with no URL supplied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah I see, I hope that the phone number in this FR on Gia of Central London is not of kimxy's ex-wife, a first time report for the lady and a first report for kimxy (not allowing for any deleted reports of course) with no URL supplied.

If someone was petty enough to create an FR with their ex-wife's number, is it not more likely that said report would be written positively thereby encouraging others to call ? I doubt that this particular FR will lead to a flurry of calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, although the Feedback form would have been the correct way to do so. Yes, every once in a while one slips through the cracks but they get caught soon enough.

The Slough lady in question had a number of reports submitted by one person (either the lady herself or someone acting on her behalf) who created at least five user IDs and used them all to write fake reports about her as advertising, as well as writing fake negative reports about her competition. I have had my eye on her for a while, and the evidence is conclusive.

Glad to see you're mantaining the standards here G. I think the problem comes when you have someone who has written a honest report on a lady they genuinely like, they find it hard to believe there is any skullduggery, (I love that word), going on behind the scenes with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great replies, thanks.

G, I'm gald you see my point about the original FR and have taken action. However, your point about the feedback form is duly noted for future use.

Regarding my point about the Slough lady, Mike52 has hit the nail on the head. My FR was genuine and as she is a particularly nice person, I really couldn't believe these was skullduggery (yes, it is a great word) afoot.

I think she may have an over-ardent fan who has abused the system even though his motives were well meaning. (could you not just delete the suspected fake reports and leave the others?)

Cheers, Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she may have an over-ardent fan who has abused the system even though his motives were well meaning. (could you not just delete the suspected fake reports and leave the others?)

Cheers, Steve.

The problem there Steve is that if that was possible everytime G detected several fakes the lady would just say 'I didn't know about them being done, please take them off, just leave the rest'. She may not log onto the message board but it would be very unusual for a WG not to keep an eye on her reports, if only to look out for negative ones. However they also need to look at them so they can link them to their websites, you think she would notice when there were several that didn't match her diary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem there Steve is that if that was possible everytime G detected several fakes the lady would just say 'I didn't know about them being done, please take them off, just leave the rest'. She may not log onto the message board but it would be very unusual for a WG not to keep an eye on her reports, if only to look out for negative ones. However they also need to look at them so they can link them to their websites, you think she would notice when there were several that didn't match her diary.

I'm afraid I still have the problem that I don't know the ever-expanding reams of small print on what's acceptable so don't post FRs on Punternet other than the odd mention on the Forum. It's one thing not to get paid for writing. It's another entirely to think that someone might not even thank me enough to publish the bl**dy thing. And while this might sound like a criticism of Galahad, it's not really. The PN FRs have a very solid reputation and do a good job. I'm just saying where I'm coming from - sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid I still have the problem that I don't know the ever-expanding reams of small print on what's acceptable so don't post FRs on Punternet other than the odd mention on the Forum. It's one thing not to get paid for writing. It's another entirely to think that someone might not even thank me enough to publish the bl**dy thing. And while this might sound like a criticism of Galahad, it's not really. The PN FRs have a very solid reputation and do a good job. I'm just saying where I'm coming from - sorry.

I don't think the 'small print' has changed much over the time I've been writing FRs, let alone expanded significantly (the signal major change is the prohibition on multiple reports and reporting on the same establishment/agency >3 times in 90 days, although the latter does appear to have been relaxed somewhat).

In fact, it's actually something of a red herring, TBH and a rather lame excuse for not writing FRs. It's your choice whether you write them or not, but don't blame it on the 'system'. ;)

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the 'small print' has changed much over the time I've been writing FRs, let alone expanded significantly (the signal major change is the prohibition on multiple reports and reporting on the same establishment/agency >3 times in 90 days, although the latter does appear to have been relaxed somewhat).

In fact, it's actually something of a red herring, TBH and a rather lame excuse for not writing FRs. It's your choice whether you write them or not, but don't blame it on the 'system'. ;)

B

ROFL! Well defended, Sir!

But let me see. I live in Edinburgh and have done for many years.

Most of the saunas on the list of ones I think worth visiting are on the No Reports List. As far as I know, this list cannot be checked in advance, but certainly Scorpios and Carols, the two that are seemingly promoted (by the sheer omission of the vast number of other saunas in town, from the best to the worst) are not two that I would pay to visit.

Although I have visited the other saunas far more times than I remember, most of my punting is done originally though A---W (even though some go on to have their own site). I understand that the system requires either or both a URL or a phone number. Many of these ladies do not have a public phone number. And the A---W URL would apparently be rejected on the grounds that:

"The report contained a link to, or mention of, the "a----k" website. This is due to that site's long history of dishonest practices and poor reputation within the industry."

I think we all know that A---W has its shortcomings. I personally wonder whether a simple warning rather than an antagonistic and possibly libellous statement might have been better, but be as it may, Punternet, with dubious justification, is accusing A---W of the very practices and reputation that it itself has among many of the 'No-Reports' saunas.

As with A---W, it is through no fault of its own: the reputation was due to the dubious practices of one George McCoy. With A---W, the reputation is as much as anything a symptom of its own success which means that it is a public throughfare rather than a hands-on service. Given the procedures A---W is putting into place (verification photos, passport photos and name/age I.D. and a rapid response to stolen photos as several members on here can testify), they could probably take Punternet to task if they were sufficiently bl**dy-minded.

Yet all this is by-the-by. Most of the small print (No Reports list) is invisible. The other half of my hometown punting is unacceptably A--W linked. If I go to London I either visit LMP (which has no need of further field reports) or go on personal recommendation. Again, these ladies do not want their number appearing on a public site.

When I punt abroad it real is a minority interest as far as PN is concerned (looking at the overall data traffic on FRs) so it wouldn't have the usefulness of posting on UK punts.

So I'm not attacking Punternet. It's damn good and I recommend it. But neither am I using the 'small print' as an excuse. Any WGs on here who know my handles on A---W and ISG will know (and can check) that I write voluminous FRs to assist other punters as much as possible and as a thank you to the ladies if appropriate. I feel a need to explain why I don't post FRs on here. It's not meant antagonistically. Punternet is what it is and my FRs are what they are.

(I do however throw in a few mini-reports - not exactly 1000 words - but enough to give some help I hope - on the forum itself. I think that's the best I can reasonably do in effective use of writing time.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any WGs on here who know my handles on A---W and ISG

ISG? Not heard of that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now