New Verification Rules!
- Thread starter ticklemypleasure
- Start date
TestI hope everyone here is doing well! We have implemented a new video policy for the verification forum which I will link below.
👉 *** (READ ME 1ST) How to Become Verified as a Real Person *** 👈
⚠️ Important note: The rules and requirements for verifying were changed on 05.08.2022, video is now required for verification. Please read the requirements and possible exceptions carefully. What is Verification? We want your experience on our website to be enjoyable, so we offer a free...www.blacktowhite.net
Becoming verified is an important step here for those actually looking to connect with others. There is no charge, it only takes a few minutes, and you do not have to reveal your personal identity.
Thanks to you all!
TMP
Just like automobiles and safety issues ... some cars only have a lap belt, even older cars have no seat belts at all, however new cars have the latest requirements regarding seat belts. Why is that? Is it fair to new cars to have more strengent requirements regarding safety? Sure, it is.
That's "grandfathering old requirements" otherwise it's doubtful ANY safety regulations would advance to the latest requirements.
If those with the old requirements leave, then come back a couple years later, they'll have to reapply under the latest requirements which will be stricter than what you have. It's a sign of "PROGRESS".... assuring you of the latest methods of verifying who you are talking with which is what you want if you're trying to hook up, right?
Or, don't get verified, like ME, as I'm not trying to hook up with anyone at all and I've been here since 2010.
Have Fun ...
This was a very good decision. It will definitely help to reduce the proportion of fakes that manage to get verified.I hope everyone here is doing well! We have implemented a new video policy for the verification forum which I will link below.
👉 *** (READ ME 1ST) How to Become Verified as a Real Person *** 👈
⚠️ Important note: The rules and requirements for verifying were changed on 05.08.2022, video is now required for verification. Please read the requirements and possible exceptions carefully. What is Verification? We want your experience on our website to be enjoyable, so we offer a free...
Becoming verified is an important step here for those actually looking to connect with others. There is no charge, it only takes a few minutes, and you do not have to reveal your personal identity.
Thanks to you all!
TMP
I assumed most everyone had a reasonable understanding of this principle - that’s what I get for assuming.
Another enhancement related to "Real Person" verification that might encourage others to use the site more effectively is with respect to controlling access to member media.
As you know, the privacy settings to view or add member media currently are:
Can view media items
Could B2W please consider investigating if you could add one additional privacy option of "Real Person" (Verified Person) to both view and add media?
The current selections leave a gap between "Registered Users" and "People you Follow" that allows non-real people, even if "registered", to see the media content. And our experience is that being a "Registered User" is a low hurdle for people and bots to steal and cross-post member content elsewhere without permission. Obviously a "Real Person" can do the same, but to most members they feel that a "Real Person" is less likely to do so than a "Registered User". And another advantage is that search bots like Google aren't going to be "Real Person" verified, so that may reduce the leakage of member media to general Internet searches.
And on that note, we know long-time members that have removed their media entirely because of this bot leakage problem, ourselves included at times.
The other options of "People You Follow" and "Specific Members" are certainly available as well to highly restrict access, but there is a limit of 1000 followed users, and I suspect there would be a limit for the "Specific Members" option as well. Plus both options are high maintenance and would not allow for new "Real Person" members to see the content without having to take a specific step to so, which is itself counterproductive if a member does want all "Real Person(s)" to see their new adventures.
In some other threads where this has come up, other members have shown great interest in this opportunity of adding a "Real Person" option to the media folder privacy settings.
The "Real Persons" option is already available under the privacy settings for several functions within the overall account privacy management as you can see below (at bottom of privacy account settings page), so hopefully this function would not be difficult to just extend to the media folder privacy settings as well.
https://www.blacktowhite.net/account/privacy
Thank you for your consideration.
P.S.
Regarding the questions about "re-verification" and the clarification that "prior to the video clip requirement" existing "Real Person" verified accounts will not require re-verification to the new video clip standard; my opinion is that it likely would be beneficial for a periodic requirement to re-verify "Real Person" accounts especially if the original verification were the old standard.
Acknowledging the sheer numbers involved, and thus level of effort, it never-the-less like the suggestion above about additional media controls, might increase member confidence in the "reality" of "Real Person" verified accounts by having old members re-verify every so often.
With that suggestion, one might ask "how often is reasonable"? ...fair question, and if desired, then a balance would need to be struck between the value of doing so and level of effort. So maybe something like if an account used the new non-video standard, they must re-verify within 12 or 24 months using the new video clip standard. This would still create a fair amount of work for the admin staff, but it would be staggered out over time, and then again a lot of derelict accounts would also simply fall away back to non-verified without manual admin intervention.
Just a thought.
As you know, the privacy settings to view or add member media currently are:
Can view media items
- Album owner only
- People You Follow
- Registered members
- Everyone
- Specific members:
- Album owner only
- People You Follow
- Registered members
- Everyone
- Specific members:
Could B2W please consider investigating if you could add one additional privacy option of "Real Person" (Verified Person) to both view and add media?
The current selections leave a gap between "Registered Users" and "People you Follow" that allows non-real people, even if "registered", to see the media content. And our experience is that being a "Registered User" is a low hurdle for people and bots to steal and cross-post member content elsewhere without permission. Obviously a "Real Person" can do the same, but to most members they feel that a "Real Person" is less likely to do so than a "Registered User". And another advantage is that search bots like Google aren't going to be "Real Person" verified, so that may reduce the leakage of member media to general Internet searches.
And on that note, we know long-time members that have removed their media entirely because of this bot leakage problem, ourselves included at times.
The other options of "People You Follow" and "Specific Members" are certainly available as well to highly restrict access, but there is a limit of 1000 followed users, and I suspect there would be a limit for the "Specific Members" option as well. Plus both options are high maintenance and would not allow for new "Real Person" members to see the content without having to take a specific step to so, which is itself counterproductive if a member does want all "Real Person(s)" to see their new adventures.
In some other threads where this has come up, other members have shown great interest in this opportunity of adding a "Real Person" option to the media folder privacy settings.
The "Real Persons" option is already available under the privacy settings for several functions within the overall account privacy management as you can see below (at bottom of privacy account settings page), so hopefully this function would not be difficult to just extend to the media folder privacy settings as well.
https://www.blacktowhite.net/account/privacy
Thank you for your consideration.
P.S.
Regarding the questions about "re-verification" and the clarification that "prior to the video clip requirement" existing "Real Person" verified accounts will not require re-verification to the new video clip standard; my opinion is that it likely would be beneficial for a periodic requirement to re-verify "Real Person" accounts especially if the original verification were the old standard.
Acknowledging the sheer numbers involved, and thus level of effort, it never-the-less like the suggestion above about additional media controls, might increase member confidence in the "reality" of "Real Person" verified accounts by having old members re-verify every so often.
With that suggestion, one might ask "how often is reasonable"? ...fair question, and if desired, then a balance would need to be struck between the value of doing so and level of effort. So maybe something like if an account used the new non-video standard, they must re-verify within 12 or 24 months using the new video clip standard. This would still create a fair amount of work for the admin staff, but it would be staggered out over time, and then again a lot of derelict accounts would also simply fall away back to non-verified without manual admin intervention.
Just a thought.
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestion but we are not a dating or match-making site. Our verification process is simple and intended to show others you are real. True verification can only be done on a person to person basis and being grandfathered in is the only way to do this here on the site. Re-verifying tens of thousands of members is nearly impossible and unnecessary for the site’s intended purpose.
Last edited:
I have to agree. I only reverified because I wanted to.
Wow, that blew up
I understand the issue of level of effort, and the decision to grandfather already verified members is certainly the prerogative of the site, but I'd offer two observations with regard to the site's intended purpose and whether it is at least in-part a "dating" site:
1) There is a link at the top of the site specifically called "Dating"
2) And while the intended purpose of the site may not originally have been for "dating" or "match-making", one of the seemingly recurring primary drivers for members caring if others are "real" is because they want to know if they are available to actually meet, noting the number of threads related to that topic.
Neither of these observations may change the site's perspective of whether to re-verify using the new standard versus grandfathering existing verified members, and that's fine.
But I would argue that even if it was not originally intended, the site has never-the-less evolved into a "dating" site to some degree. So any way to improve the confidence of being "real" for the total population of the site is beneficial, and no doubt the new standard going forward will contribute to that.
Worst case, anyone interested in determining if someone is "more real" than another could look a their verification post to see if they provided the new video standard or not, and also make some judgements based upon that member's other contributions such as posts and media.
Thanks for implementing the new video standard
People will always want to meet when sex is involved. That tab would be better labeled “location search” or something similar. The entire site, platform and software is not set up at all to be a dating site nor would we want it to be. Staff discussed older verifications when I implemented the new rule and we will not re-verify old verifications.
I find it is easy to verify on kik individually. Even with verified membersI understand the issue of level of effort, and the decision to grandfather already verified members is certainly the prerogative of the site, but I'd offer two observations with regard to the site's intended purpose and whether it is at least in-part a "dating" site:
1) There is a link at the top of the site specifically called "Dating"
2) And while the intended purpose of the site may not originally have been for "dating" or "match-making", one of the seemingly recurring primary drivers for members caring if others are "real" is because they want to know if they are available to actually meet, noting the number of threads related to that topic.
Neither of these observations may change the site's perspective of whether to re-verify using the new standard versus grandfathering existing verified members, and that's fine.
But I would argue that even if it was not originally intended, the site has never-the-less evolved into a "dating" site to some degree. So any way to improve the confidence of being "real" for the total population of the site is beneficial, and no doubt the new standard going forward will contribute to that.
Worst case, anyone interested in determining if someone is "more real" than another could look a their verification post to see if they provided the new video standard or not, and also make some judgements based upon that member's other contributions such as posts and media.
Thanks for implementing the new video standard
I just think a trophy when you meet someone in person will be better fit because you can be real but really you here to waste others timeI understand the issue of level of effort, and the decision to grandfather already verified members is certainly the prerogative of the site, but I'd offer two observations with regard to the site's intended purpose and whether it is at least in-part a "dating" site:
1) There is a link at the top of the site specifically called "Dating"
2) And while the intended purpose of the site may not originally have been for "dating" or "match-making", one of the seemingly recurring primary drivers for members caring if others are "real" is because they want to know if they are available to actually meet, noting the number of threads related to that topic.
Neither of these observations may change the site's perspective of whether to re-verify using the new standard versus grandfathering existing verified members, and that's fine.
But I would argue that even if it was not originally intended, the site has never-the-less evolved into a "dating" site to some degree. So any way to improve the confidence of being "real" for the total population of the site is beneficial, and no doubt the new standard going forward will contribute to that.
Worst case, anyone interested in determining if someone is "more real" than another could look a their verification post to see if they provided the new video standard or not, and also make some judgements based upon that member's other contributions such as posts and media.
Thanks for implementing the new video standard
That's an option, or like some sites have an option for "testimonials" from other members, although that has its problems too where they can be faked also.
We can do it just like a video with signs for additional proof plus you get people from the site and not just random videos of anyone to verify
Last edited:
Maybe. I know people that don’t use certifications on SLS because they don’t like kissing and telling
True but there be testimony anonymous box but must be verify people but the sign is extra proof
Well, this is actually a good idea.
bbcmaster2
Male
so that means i can stay or should i leave? Because i am a real person but i dont have nudes i need someone to tell me if i should stay or leave i wanna know.
No one is making you send anything or verify. Verified members have better results if trying to meet others.
Similar threads
