"No one should be a allowed to send a Friend Request unless already viewing a profile.
Anyone agree?"
Definitely! If that pesky white icon for friend request were only visible on the profile that would solve most of it. The other issue is the "automated message", I think from the app.
Is that one of those send this message to everyone within X miles type of thing? We just starting to block all the senders of those.
GGMM, I agree with you and we have turned ours off, only recently turned them back on as we are working on growing our group. It does help us to see how many people we invite to the group check our profile as it shows us some semblance of interest in seeing who we are and what we are into. I agree that anyone truly interested will reach out however we have seen some recently that looked several times in a two week time period so we reached out to them instead of waiting. Turned out they were just afraid to msg us as they did not think we would be interested. It can be useful for us, and I can see where it can be bothersome as well.
"And we should be able to see everyone who has viewed ours no matter if theirs is on or off."
Why? Mine is off because I've had one too many awkward conversations with people whose profiles I've inadvertently opened (my laptop has a very sensitive touchscreen) and not read. Since I don't care who looks at my profile - if they're interested, they'll write - there's no down side to turning off WVM.
Why should your desire to have not particularly useful information (if they are interested, they'll send a message) trump my desire to not have those awkward conversations? (Uhhh, yeah, thanks for excitedly thanking me for looking at,your profile, but I accidentally hit a Bliss Cruise thumbnail/forum post/your hot date when I was scrolling down to events, etc.)
If someone's is off that probably means they want to perv in private and they don't care who is looking at theirs.
Cacp, I agree it must be turned on to see who has viewed you. And we should be able to see everyone who has viewed ours no matter if theirs is on or off. Note I did say SHOULD....
"IF someone is viewing your profile it should show in the recently viewed"
But they won't show up if that member has THEIR WVM off. Not everyone has it turned on. Those people will not show up in anyone's WVM list.
SLS Wayne.. "It is not possible for anyone to know if someone else read their profile or not." IF someone is viewing your profile it should show in the recently viewed. IF the member viewing does not have pictures they will show after all of those with pictures normally.
What was being said before hand I believe, was that any member free of paid should NEED to view another members profile in order to send a friend request. I know requests can be sent from searches as there is a button for that, and we also know that just because someone has looked at your profile does not mean they actually read it.
THIS would be a great upgrade that I am sure most would agree with, is to make communication with anyone only possible from the members profile they are interested in. In other words you would need to open a members profile in order to communicate, message, friend request or add to a group. This could minimize some of these issues. Just my 2 pennies worth....
<p>It is not possible for anyone to know if someone else read their profile or not. </p>
Free members can send friend requests. They do not have to view your profile to do so.
No one should be a allowed to send a Friend Request unless already viewing a profile.
Anyone agree?
We just blocked a paying couple's friend request as they had not read our profile
<p>Free members can send friend requests. They do not have to view your profile to do so. There is a white icon in the lower right corner of your thumbnail picture they can use. It's just other members sending you friend requests. Mayber because there is not much else they are allowed to do.</p>
I’ve been getting friend requests lately from free members who haven’t even viewed my profile. Some requests come in two or three requests at a time from the same “person”. Either this is a hack, catfish, or test profiles from webmaster. Thoughts?
"Why even have that "feature" (paid member can block free members messages under tools) when..."
You misunderstood. Paid members have the option of blocking free members from viewing their profiles. When free members were allowed to send five messages a day, that effectively also blocked them from messaging you, but the tool is the viewing block.
"Why even have that "feature" (paid member can block free members messages under tools) when free members cannot even send messages.. Kind of a USLESS current "feature""
Why? So when the site did allow free members to message during covid, or before the whole FOSTA thing, we had the option to block the useless "hi", "she's hot", "see my site here" , "text/call/email me" messages. Now, it stops the random friend requests from free member over and over again. It isn't just about messages. It's about choosing who sees your profile. We can opt to block single men, women and couples, so why shouldn't we be allowed to block free members?
Wayne , you would be best served by not trying to explain this.
It has gone from the Gov't wont let us to it is too much trouble.
Why you should give a rip if we exchange email addresses with any one, a free member included, and take our conversation off of SLS is beyond me.
We belong to at least one other group that occasionally has a commercial post come through. For the most part they are reported inside of an hour by the membership and removed unless they post at 3AM then it takes 3 hrs. There is not much traffic from 3 to 6AM
As to being kicked off for "violations", IF I was in that business I would consider a membership fee a reasonable advertising expense and just sign up paid under a different alias every time my month was up or I got caught. So the paid members are less likely to violate argument does not apply to anyone attempting to go commercial.
Cacpl,
Why even have that "feature" (paid member can block free members messages under tools) when free members cannot even send messages.. Kind of a USLESS current "feature"
Its just words....to fill up the tools page to make it look like SLS is offering all these goodies to paid members. There are probably more.
<p><a href="https://staging.swinglifestyle.com/profile/lookup.cfm?usercode=38773507">lcmim</a>,</p>
<p>The issue is that free members have nothing to lose. Worst case scenario for them is that we catch them and kick them off the site. When we kick paid members off the site, they lose whatever they paid. It's just far more likely for free members to try to do things illegal, so we got rid of them to cut-down on the work we have to do reviewing all the content.</p>
You've fallen for one of the two classic blunders! The first being never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly lesser known: Expecting anything you see SLS do to be logical.
Etexas,
We are on the same side here.
FOSTA was the reason we were given.
I always wonder how a law intended originally to fight trafficking somehow allows communication once money has changed hands with with SLS while it bans communication in which no money changes hands.
By that logic, hooking up at a bar, should be illegal while, getting laid utilizing the services of a pimp would be legal.
FOSTA from my understand plays it part regarding photographs and minors access to the site and sex trafficking. My intent was as regarding messages, friend requests and similar. Free members are not minors, based on my understanding as to SLSs process in "signing up" . Maybe I am missing something on the free member sign up process.
Minors can be weeded out using other methods/technology. Such as non charging credit card or Government ID, Self Iding photos as another very popular site uses for members being verified. There just needs to the will for SLS to come up with a workable methodology in handling free members.
"The paid member then should be able to select to NOT receive messages from free member if they choose to do so."
You can do that now. Tools> privacy features > hide from free members.
Pretty simple.
FOSTA
or so the story went.
UMMM Why does SLS allow friend requests FROM free member to Paid/Life/Charter members when free members can not send, see, respond to ANY messages? Kind of a contradiction of purpose, is it not?
Just let free members respond to messages from paid/life/charter members and be done with it. Make it a "reward" perk to those that have paid. The paid member then should be able to select to NOT receive messages from free member if they choose to do so.
Or is this TOO COMPLEX for SLS coders/developers to accomplish. Kick the idea "upstairs" or are the mid level staffers timid to ask.
