Lurkers

Guys does it bother you that a lot of men on here lurk and don't really contribute?

Or are you totally fine with that?

I guess it really doesn't bother me but my only issue is people who don't have post or accounts so you can't tell who they really are. Seems dangerous.. and I don't allow those types to book with me.

Why would it bother the guys? That don’t make sense.

It doesn't bother me that they do this...however I also don't share with them at all when they send me messages requesting info.
If you don't care to give, then you shouldn't expect to receive.

Totally agree with Tone. When I get an private message from someone wanting information. I look at their handle and see they have been around since 2010, with 9 posts and one review.

It's an easy delete.

Guys does it bother you that a lot of men on here lurk and don't really contribute?

Or are you totally fine with that?

I guess it really doesn't bother me but my only issue is people who don't have post or accounts so you can't tell who they really are. Seems dangerous.. and I don't allow those types to book with me. Originally Posted by Sienna91

You're making assumptions that may not be true.


Maybe some book with providers, contributing to their well-being, but don't spend time in the forums posting a lot of the crap I read.
And if you're using posting here as a criteria of screening/safety, that's a weak base to start with. I'm sure there's more.

You're making assumptions that may not be true.


Maybe some book with providers, contributing to their well-being, but don't spend time in the forums posting a lot of the crap I read.
And if you're using posting here as a criteria of screening/safety, that's a weak base to start with. I'm sure there's more. Originally Posted by papadee

It's not a weak base. It actually makes sense. plenty of providers use being active on eccie as a way to determine if the person is real or not because as a person said if you've been on here for years but have no posts or reviews it's a red flag

I'm not assuming it would bother y'all I'm asking for input

but I do know some guys are bothered by the fact that some request information but they don't give any

And I've actually seen other guys say stuff to guys on here who have been out here for a while but never do anything I've seen that numerous times so again the reason why I'm asking is because it seem to bother people so I just wanted an opinion on it

It's not a weak base. It actually makes sense. plenty of providers use being active on eccie as a way to determine if the person is real or not because as a person said if you've been on here for years but have no posts or reviews it's a red flag Originally Posted by Sienna91

So client A is active on ECCIE. Does that mean you won't ask for referemces, etc?
Client B isn't active. But he offers you 5 references, and a P411 acct. Not acceptable?


Activity in the forums & writing reviews, should never take the place of solid screening. Some don't participate or write reviews because they're in the hobby for their individual pleasure, not our entertainment. Some providers don't want reviews. That doesn't make them "suspect" providers.


If a potential client said, "You don't need to screen me. Look at all my posts & reviews on ECCIE", would you still not screen?

Every board I have seen, no matter the subject, has far more lurkers than posters. Just like every meeting has more listeners than speakers. It is the dynamics of humans and groups. As is true for most other mammals as well. So no, it does not bother me.

doesn't bother me, per se.. but if I was in charge of the Site, I would systematically delete all accounts that haven't had a single post in the past 30 days.

think of it like a 401k account.. if you enroll in your Company 401k plan, then quit your job a few months later, they will boot you from the plan, send your measly money to you, and be done.

same concept should apply to ECCIE.

doesn't bother me, per se.. but if I was in charge of the Site, I would systematically delete all accounts that haven't had a single post in the past 30 days.

think of it like a 401k account.. if you enroll in your Company 401k plan, then quit your job a few months later, they will boot you from the plan, send your measly money to you, and be done.

same concept should apply to ECCIE. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You're treating the non-posters as total non-participants. If they pay their dues, contact & meet providers, and only communicate through PMs, they're participating. There's more to ECCIE than just the forums & reviews. To follow your 401k analogy, not all stockholders attend meetings or even vote, but they still own the stock.

You're treating the non-posters as total non-participants. If they pay their dues, contact & meet providers, and only communicate through PMs, they're participating. There's more to ECCIE than just the forums & reviews. To follow your 401k analogy, not all stockholders attend meetings or even vote, but they still own the stock. Originally Posted by papadee

I'm not treating anyone like anything.. I'm not in charge.

if someone pays to be here, fine.. but few do. the great majority of non-posters are hack accounts, 2nd handles and such.. a 30 day, one post rule is barely asking for any participation, so don't make me out a Mussolini, LOL..

the 401k comment is way off point. which is that a Company's fund managers don't want to fool with a meager account balance for someone not associated with the underlying business that owns the account being managed. it has nothing to do with them being Stockholders.. they are basically non-participants in a plan that requires participants to run properly.

I'm not treating anyone like anything.. I'm not in charge.

if someone pays to be here, fine.. but few do. the great majority of non-posters are hack accounts, 2nd handles and such.. a 30 day, one post rule is barely asking for any participation, so don't make me out a Mussolini, LOL..

the 401k comment is way off point. which is that a Company's fund managers don't want to fool with a meager account balance for someone not associated with the underlying business that owns the account being managed. it has nothing to do with them being Stockholders.. they are basically non-participants in a plan that requires participants to run properly. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Your suggestion was to treat them that way if you were in charge ...is that better?


Hack accounts, 2nd handles, etc should be dealt with, but if a member is correctly using the site w/o participating in the forums, why is that an issue? What is it about the forums that deems participation?


My 401k/stock comparison is that when an employee loses their job and stops contributing to a 401k, the employer stops too. But if a person owns only one share of stock, and soen't participate in meetings & votes, they don't lose their stock and the rights associated with owning shares. I guess ECCIE would have to define what "particpating" means. Are the forums & reviews the only way to participate?

Totally agree with Tone. When I get an private message from someone wanting information. I look at their handle and see they have been around since 2010, with 9 posts and one review.

It's an easy delete. Originally Posted by Fizley

I guess I am not the only one who gets PMs with either bullshit requests or ' sensitive' info from some guy with no site input around forever. As you say, ' easy zap'

a 30 day, one post rule is barely asking for any participation, so don't make me out a Mussolini, LOL.. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Mussolini, well it could have been several worse names. The Italians need a good leader; maybe you could volunteer to help rebuild Italy. Legalise prostitution as the people want it and lower the income tax from I think 42% to 30% and the cap gains tax from 25% to 15% and I will move there.

In the good areas ur 30 day must post and contribute in isn't so far out of reality. There used to be a national men's board was private and invite only and the rule was you had to contribute a minimum of one review for your area or you got booted. Not a bad rule..

Problem is here, the majority of Johns are lurkers. Good idea, for here? Maybe a good idea for the locker rooms etc... Problem is guys will simply fake a review ( if they do not already)