Printable View
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6911649]Yeah, so far, for this past couple of months, it's proven to be difficult. What has your message response rate been?[/QUOTE]Maybe 20-30%. I don’t send notes or reply to people with likely fake profiles - there are lots of clues. Then a lot of scammers just asking for money or selling content and, mostly oddly, a lot of ghosting in the middle of texting. It takes a lot of work!
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6911155]Some great advice. Thanks for that at Emv La and at Mark Powers. Some additional points I forgot to mention, based on your responses:
For me, this is how I role with each one that I meet:
1. GFE. I treat all of them that I meat w / the expectation that it must be & expected to be a real GFE experience. I don't want the in-and-out, 1-day experince. The expectation is to focus on a short term or long-term thing.
2. Expectation is there are no time limits. I attempt to deliver an experience, all day events. Yes, I'm offering dinner, drinks, doing things (I. E. A comedy show, or indoors event, etc), I'm also hosting w / the hotel. I tell them all this upfront.
3. Yes, she's young technically. Late 20's.
4. Intimacy: I let it be known there will be a lot of it. I let it be known that where Adults up front, and there's no time like the present to have as much fun as many times as possible. But I never ask for specific like CIP, things like that. I let it be known there aims to be multiple pops, and to do as much as we can w / the time we got.
5. Hosting: I always host. Hotels. Personally, don't want to risk going their house or even my own.
Overall, at Emv La. I see what you're saying. However, I've been in the range of $200 - $300 and getting the GFE w / my overall "event experience methods". I'm trying to NOT having to jump to no $500 even to dabble. My point overall, is not to be stuck on one, but to be economical so that I can get others as well. The goal is to pull off 1 or 2 every couple of weeks. But no way at a rate of $500 per person (not to say the others will be that high -- but, if the game is going towards that. Then we're all screwed.).
At Mark. Yes, it's all about our own decision of course. Overall, I'm trying to get a better gauge of what's REALLY happening on the market. We're all talking the game & providing statements about the "increase" - but the real question is, are we giving into it, or is their a strong push back & the push back is acceptable. That's what I don't know yet, based on readying the comments in the past 6 months. Overall, I'ts all a challenge.
But based on the additional information I provided, would you say things differently now?[/QUOTE]Points and view. Everyone has their own approach, swagger and financial means. I like genuine connections more and certain sexual acts. If I can start low or around 3 to 4 then they usually see it's a long term arrangement for me but I personally don't mind a bit higher for less hassle and getting what I want and maybe make it a frequent thing. I get times are hard and this economy everyone wants to bargain but if I got the means I ususly stray away from it as it sometimes ruins the interaction. Not everytime but if I feel they're worth it I do. All in all keep what works for you and every year they'll be a new slew of 18,20, 25 year olds who made bad decisions and need a guy to pay their bills even if they're "independent" haha.
It must be made clear up front that any negotiations are about your budget and not her worth. Which is why I always ask them to come up with a number that works for them while keeping in mind that all bets are off if she offers something outside of my budget. Of course, this is done in a soft as possible manner and is situation dependent.
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6910967]
She followed up w / the following statement:
"I normally get $500 w / other arrangements. Going lower feels like it lowers my value and self-worth. That's something I do not want to do. Can you go higher? ".
[/QUOTE]
LusciousDame: [URL]https://members.seeking.com/member/75a0951f-d660-4c83-9155-797a8c861b10[/URL].
Arrangements: $1,000 plus $250 to make plans
Details:
Age: 26.
Body: Slim, athletic.
Images: Filtered so can't really tell, the framework looks good though.
Attitude: Seems very direct & to the point, seems to respond fairly quickly.
Has anyone partaken?
Looking for intel on Monica. Occasionally I like to try an older woman. YMMV. I find in general they're experienced, love sex, don't have to teach them, open to trying new things and horny as all hell. Looking for any info on Monica, 52 in Waltham. She had a previous profile with age 42 in Lynnfield. Asked 1000 monthly allowance to meet a few times per month which I'm not paying. Blocked me so I don't have a link but not before I got contact information to negotiate. The change in profiles is a little concerning. Anyone seen her before maybe on another site or have experience with her? I'm guessing she may have been around awhile.
[QUOTE=EmvLa;6912002]who made bad decisions and need a guy to pay their bills[/QUOTE]Is moving to Boston a bad decision? LOL. Looks like it since the cost of living is through the roof, it's really tough for a student to live in here.
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6911646]Issue 1: Profiles show Member is "Online", but Active: Days / Months / Weeks Ago.
Question: How can a member profile be "online" and "active" months ago at the same time?
Why this is important:
We're paying for accuracy of information. We're paying to be able to get access to profiles that are real people. We're paying to know whether or not the members profile is actually ONLINE and ACTIVE or not.
It can't be possible that a profile has not been Active for 10 months, and "online" at the same time.
If a person is "online", there's a higher chance of a response. Basically right now, the site is showing that every member profile is "online", giving a false positive, thinking that you have a high chance of getting a response from someone who receives a message, when that member profile hasn't been active for over 2 weeks, 6 months, 10 months, years even.
This needs to be address and fixed. I'm going to be reporting this to Seeking today. I recommend you all do as well and any other issues you find.[/QUOTE]Issue 1 Confirmed: Seeking is NOT providing Correct Locations!
I just verified & confirmed that Seeking is NOT correctly providing locations.
I have been chatting w / this girl, from Boston as well as New York. I have her SNAP.
On her SNAP, as of right now, 10:32 PM EST. She is currently in NEW YORK, walking down the street. Showing current & live videos on her SNAP.
On her Seeking member Profile, it shows that she's "ONLINE", in San Juan, PR, (also showing currently active last 3 hours with an "unknown location).
This is actual definitive proof that Seeking's system is totally screwed up & we are getting extremely inaccurate information. I already sent them an email about my initial findings.
I will also be contacting their support about this. I'm royally pissed about this.
We pay for accuracy of information & data.
After I made the post last night, a new Monica profile showed up on SA this morning. The new Monica is location Boston, 42, and a black woman. The Monica I posted about is caucasian. I thought screen names on SA must be unique. This leads to one of two conclusions: either the original Monica changed the profile to obfuscate her identity or it's a handler with multiple women. My instinct tells me not a handler but maybe that's just what I want to believe. Any idea what is going on here? Or intel on the original Monica?
Here is my original post:
Looking for intel on Monica. Occasionally I like to try an older woman. YMMV. I find in general they're experienced, love sex, don't have to teach them, open to trying new things and horny as all hell. Looking for any info on Monica, 52 in Waltham. She had a previous profile age 42 in Lynnfield. Asked 1000 monthly allowance to meet a few times per month which I'm not paying. Blocked me so I don't have a link but not before I got contact information to negotiate. The change in profiles is a little concerning. Anyone seen her before maybe on another site or have experience with her? I'm guessing she may have been around awhile.
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6912964]Issue 1 Confirmed: Seeking is NOT providing Correct Locations!
I just verified & confirmed that Seeking is NOT correctly providing locations.
I have been chatting w / this girl, from Boston as well as New York. I have her SNAP.
On her SNAP, as of right now, 10:32 PM EST. She is currently in NEW YORK, walking down the street. Showing current & live videos on her SNAP.
On her Seeking member Profile, it shows that she's "ONLINE", in San Juan, PR, (also showing currently active last 3 hours with an "unknown location).
This is actual definitive proof that Seeking's system is totally screwed up & we are getting extremely inaccurate information. I already sent them an email about my initial findings.
I will also be contacting their support about this. I'm royally pissed about this.
We pay for accuracy of information & data.[/QUOTE]Not quite sure you're interpreting things correctly. Locations are filled out manually by the user. Right now I could go into my account and put my primary location is Los Angles (it's not).
The site will track where you're logging in from (there's an option to block) as far as the country. It will say United Sates. But even that I can manipulate with a VPN, in two seconds I can have the site show I'm logging in from the United Kingdom (with my VPN set to there). But again it's the user doing that.
The site has had cliches forever, but not sure what you're interpreting is a mistake / cliche in the site. Has never been my experience anyway. Just FYI.
[QUOTE=HounDog3;6913170]After I made the post last night, a new Monica profile showed up on SA this morning. The new Monica is location Boston, 42, and a black woman. The Monica I posted about is caucasian. I thought screen names on SA must be unique. This leads to one of two conclusions: either the original Monica changed the profile to obfuscate her identity or it's a handler with multiple women. My instinct tells me not a handler but maybe that's just what I want to believe. Any idea what is going on here? Or intel on the original Monica?
Here is my original post:
Looking for intel on Monica. Occasionally I like to try an older woman. YMMV. I find in general they're experienced, love sex, don't have to teach them, open to trying new things and horny as all hell. Looking for any info on Monica, 52 in Waltham. She had a previous profile age 42 in Lynnfield. Asked 1000 monthly allowance to meet a few times per month which I'm not paying. Blocked me so I don't have a link but not before I got contact information to negotiate. The change in profiles is a little concerning. Anyone seen her before maybe on another site or have experience with her? I'm guessing she may have been around awhile.[/QUOTE]FYI many new bot accounts are using simple female first names (such as Monica) as their usernames instead of the old style of AdjectiveNoun.
[QUOTE=BigGuy3344;6913230]Not quite sure you're interpreting things correctly. Locations are filled out manually by the user. Right now I could go into my account and put my primary location is Los Angles (it's not).
The site will track where you're logging in from (there's an option to block) as far as the country. It will say United Sates. But even that I can manipulate with a VPN, in two seconds I can have the site show I'm logging in from the United Kingdom (with my VPN set to there). But again it's the user doing that.
The site has had cliches forever, but not sure what you're interpreting is a mistake / cliche in the site. Has never been my experience anyway. Just FYI.[/QUOTE]I reported my findings to Seeking. They surprisingly are getting back to me, 2 emails so far. One was generic, and the other one from a representative. I'll report what they say when they follow-up again.
Yes, I understand about the VPN. Under Settings in the profile information section, if "Recent Login Information" is turned on, it should provide the correct location (country) that's logged in.
In this case, I was able to confirm because I was directly chatting w / her on both platforms, whereas, this specific member profile was showing Unknown instead of the United States. I do happen to know that the previous week, she actually really was in Puetro Rico (that was confirmed through her SNAP Videos & the locations she was at). And yes, she would have changed her location under Primary Location & most likely haven't changed it back while she's back in NY.
However, my main concern is "ONLINE" when the member is not online, and the "Recent Login Information". I don't really mind the VPN issue, whereas, I can figure that out eventually.
I'd like to understand how a person can be "ONLINE" and not be active in 3 weeks, 5 months, 1 year, and be online at the same time.
Also, the Unknown location for recent login needs to be accurate. If "Unknown" truly means that "recent login information" is either turned off or hidden, Seeking needs to confirm that & let us know.
But more importantly, it's the ONLINE status vs Active timeframe status.
[QUOTE=BigGuy3344;6913230]Not quite sure you're interpreting things correctly. Locations are filled out manually by the user. Right now I could go into my account and put my primary location is Los Angles (it's not).
The site will track where you're logging in from (there's an option to block) as far as the country. It will say United Sates. But even that I can manipulate with a VPN, in two seconds I can have the site show I'm logging in from the United Kingdom (with my VPN set to there). But again it's the user doing that.
The site has had cliches forever, but not sure what you're interpreting is a mistake / cliche in the site. Has never been my experience anyway. Just FYI.[/QUOTE]I think everything stated above is correct. As for the "Online Now" issue, I noticed that as well, the site is listing every profile as "Online Now" but if you look at their last login time it shows the truth of the last time they were actually online, might be a few weeks, months, etc in the past. Up to this point Seeking has been pretty reliable with this type of data. SecretBenefits on the other hand is completely unreliable, they definitely manipulate data to make it seem they have way more active users than they actually do. So hopefully this is a simple bug and not the start of Seeking becoming unreliable.
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6912817]LusciousDame: [URL]https://members.seeking.com/member/75a0951f-d660-4c83-9155-797a8c861b10[/URL].
Arrangements: $1,000 plus $250 to make plans
Details:
Age: 26.
Body: Slim, athletic.
Images: Filtered so can't really tell, the framework looks good though.
Attitude: Seems very direct & to the point, seems to respond fairly quickly.
Has anyone partaken?[/QUOTE]Location says Phoenix now. This is a fake account. (I saw your location post and will respond there, but the scammers can easily spoof location on Snapchat. I had a whole conversation about it on snap with a scammer who admitted he was in Africa! LOL).
[QUOTE=DreplyNow;6912964]Issue 1 Confirmed: Seeking is NOT providing Correct Locations!
I just verified & confirmed that Seeking is NOT correctly providing locations.
I have been chatting w / this girl, from Boston as well as New York. I have her SNAP.
On her SNAP, as of right now, 10:32 PM EST. She is currently in NEW YORK, walking down the street. Showing current & live videos on her SNAP.
On her Seeking member Profile, it shows that she's "ONLINE", in San Juan, PR, (also showing currently active last 3 hours with an "unknown location).
This is actual definitive proof that Seeking's system is totally screwed up & we are getting extremely inaccurate information. I already sent them an email about my initial findings.
I will also be contacting their support about this. I'm royally pissed about this.
We pay for accuracy of information & data.[/QUOTE]The Online thing is real (although I find it accurate in search or email list, just not on the profile page), but the location issue has not been a problem for me.
Scammers can easily spoof the country or even address on Snap maps and can easily fool seeking as well. The manual location changing a lot is one of the telltale signs of a fake profile.
I start conversations with some women, and even after exchanging a few messages and sharing pictures, it appears they haven't visited my profile. Their names don't show up in the "Viewed Me" section. I've stopped responding to these women, assuming they might be scammers or bots. I've noticed this pattern with older profiles too, which makes me think that bot profiles wouldn't stay active for so long. Could this be a technical glitch, or do some women just not bother to read profiles? Has anyone else experienced this? What do you make of it?