I wonder why this site has members appear on the search results that don’t allow for messages. Seems pointless to have their profile even show if they aren’t available to message. I’m not the type to copy and paste a message, and consider myself rather selective on whom I reach out to. It’s discouraging to spend time drafting an introduction (while responding specifically to their profile) only to receive the red banner of that user not accepting messages.
What’s more frustrating is that I’ll receive messages from others, but when I hit reply, it sometimes gives me the same red banner… surely the site should recognize that if they wrote me, it would allow me to respond.
Ok, complaining over. Thanks for listening. Enjoy your Sunday friends.
What’s more frustrating is that I’ll receive messages from others, but when I hit reply, it sometimes gives me the same red banner… surely the site should recognize that if they wrote me, it would allow me to respond.
Ok, complaining over. Thanks for listening. Enjoy your Sunday friends.
The site allows members to turn off messaging from single males and block them. If you are being blocked that is most likely why.
It's a double standard but that's just the way it is. They're probably fake profiles anyway since there's quite a few on here that I've noticed. Single males aren't a priority so don't take it too offensive. 99% of the male side of the couples don't want anyone touching their wife even if it says they are looking for single males. It's just how it is. The thought is more intriguing to them then actually following through. There are more flakes on here than serious members. Just be patient. Also remember they don't want single males or need males. And every couple on here has a backup male or a referral who isn't even on here so the chances of a single male getting picked on here is like 1 in a million.
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
Defiantstranger wrote:
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
Because it’s a Swinger site … not designed for single males. But who knows, that might change given the number of single guys trolling on Singular.
“Because it’s a swinger site” - doesn’t explain the WHY the site would have any user (single male, or otherwise), be able to view users that they could not contact. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have your profile NOT pop up on searches from singles males or any other demographic that does not interest you?
“not designed for single males” As you said earlier, it’s a swinger site…. It can be assumed that is “designed” for all types of swingers… couples, single males, single females, all types. The category’s are pretty clear in its stated format.
I do agree however that many seemingly just troll.
“not designed for single males” As you said earlier, it’s a swinger site…. It can be assumed that is “designed” for all types of swingers… couples, single males, single females, all types. The category’s are pretty clear in its stated format.
I do agree however that many seemingly just troll.
It's because it is pointless!
Most of the revenue here come from single males paying for memberships.
Single males will pay for membership when they see the sexy profiles.
They find out later most of those profiles have no interest on single males
Webmasters exploit single males by charging them for a membership that won't yield any results and exploit couples by using their profiles as a marketing gimmick to generate revenue. This happens on most LS sites except SLS where males cannot see couples or single ladies not interested on them. If this webmaster decides show you an actual representation of the typical profiles here on it's welcome page, you'll see nothing but cocks. And cocks don't sell memberships here.
The only difference is that most couples do get results here and other LS sites. For us not much here because we rarely come to UT anymore but we have met people from this site and played too! But SLS/AFF, woah we are always meeting and hooking up with people there.
Try asking for a refund.
Most of the revenue here come from single males paying for memberships.
Single males will pay for membership when they see the sexy profiles.
They find out later most of those profiles have no interest on single males
Webmasters exploit single males by charging them for a membership that won't yield any results and exploit couples by using their profiles as a marketing gimmick to generate revenue. This happens on most LS sites except SLS where males cannot see couples or single ladies not interested on them. If this webmaster decides show you an actual representation of the typical profiles here on it's welcome page, you'll see nothing but cocks. And cocks don't sell memberships here.
The only difference is that most couples do get results here and other LS sites. For us not much here because we rarely come to UT anymore but we have met people from this site and played too! But SLS/AFF, woah we are always meeting and hooking up with people there.
Try asking for a refund.
Defiantstranger wrote:
“Because it’s a swinger site” - doesn’t explain the WHY the site would have any user (single male, or otherwise), be able to view users that they could not contact. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have your profile NOT pop up on searches from singles males or any other demographic that does not interest you?
“not designed for single males” As you said earlier, it’s a swinger site…. It can be assumed that is “designed” for all types of swingers… couples, single males, single females, all types. The category’s are pretty clear in its stated format.
I do agree however that many seemingly just troll.
We disagree on the definition of what a swinger is. I don’t consider singles to be swingers.
Maybe try the apps 3Fun or Feeld. They’re geared towards 3somes
Defiantstranger wrote:
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
You get what you pay for with this site. For a $50 lifetime membership, you get the Walmart experience. While it makes sense to you or I, to remove search results that are explicitly not interested in a specific profile type, or who haven't logged in for 6 months, or to have a fully functional blocking feature, we'll never see that kind of sensible improvement. There's no money in it. Why pour time and energy into improving when everyone accepts this experience and pays for exactly what they're getting. 🤷♀️
MANDIEQT wrote:Defiantstranger wrote:
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
You get what you pay for with this site. For a $50 lifetime membership, you get the Walmart experience. While it makes sense to you or I, to remove search results that are explicitly not interested in a specific profile type, or who haven't logged in for 6 months, or to have a fully functional blocking feature, we'll never see that kind of sensible improvement. There's no money in it. Why pour time and energy into improving when everyone accepts this experience and pays for exactly what they're getting. 🤷♀️
Exactly this too. It is what it is.
MANDIEQT wrote:Defiantstranger wrote:
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
You get what you pay for with this site. For a $50 lifetime membership, you get the Walmart experience. While it makes sense to you or I, to remove search results that are explicitly not interested in a specific profile type, or who haven't logged in for 6 months, or to have a fully functional blocking feature, we'll never see that kind of sensible improvement. There's no money in it. Why pour time and energy into improving when everyone accepts this experience and pays for exactly what they're getting. 🤷♀️
I think you are correct.
It’s too bad for the user (singles and couples), but it is easier to bait subscribers by having volume.
FunKinkyDuo wrote:Defiantstranger wrote:
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
Because it’s a Swinger site … not designed for single males. But who knows, that might change given the number of single guys trolling on Singular.
Interesting. Hadn’t thought about it in those terms. Decided to look up the literal term.
Swingers: a person who takes part in group sex or exchanging sexual partners.
SUENDAN wrote:
It's because it is pointless!
Most of the revenue here come from single males paying for memberships.
Single males will pay for membership when they see the sexy profiles.
They find out later most of those profiles have no interest on single males
Webmasters exploit single males by charging them for a membership that won't yield any results and exploit couples by using their profiles as a marketing gimmick to generate revenue. This happens on most LS sites except SLS where males cannot see couples or single ladies not interested on them. If this webmaster decides show you an actual representation of the typical profiles here on it's welcome page, you'll see nothing but cocks. And cocks don't sell memberships here.
The only difference is that most couples do get results here and other LS sites. For us not much here because we rarely come to UT anymore but we have met people from this site and played too! But SLS/AFF, woah we are always meeting and hooking up with people there.
Try asking for a refund.
Great response. Agreed
Thank you to all the nice messages.
A few trolls, mostly from the same people who get that way on most threads.
It’s cool how many genuine and nice hearted people there are.
A few trolls, mostly from the same people who get that way on most threads.
It’s cool how many genuine and nice hearted people there are.
MANDIEQT wrote:Defiantstranger wrote:
Great responses. But my point is, that IF users aren’t allowing single males to message… why does the site even show the users who won’t allow them to communicate?
Why not limit the search results to users who are able to be communicated with?
You get what you pay for with this site. For a $50 lifetime membership, you get the Walmart experience. While it makes sense to you or I, to remove search results that are explicitly not interested in a specific profile type, or who haven't logged in for 6 months, or to have a fully functional blocking feature, we'll never see that kind of sensible improvement. There's no money in it. Why pour time and energy into improving when everyone accepts this experience and pays for exactly what they're getting. 🤷♀️
“Walmart experience” ! That’s a perfect description hehe 👏🏻
I truly like this forum for the comic relief, well worth the $50!
FunKinkyDuo wrote:
“Walmart experience” ! That’s a perfect description hehe 👏🏻
Hey now... nothing wrong with the Walmart Experience, just as long as you know what you're walking into.
I’ve messaged you and heard nothing
Some good points Defiantstranger !!!
"Walmart experience" haha that's great 😅. $50? Hell we only paid $20! Seriously though people be kind unless they give you a reason not to be.
I wonder how much more a “Target” experience would be?