Yesterday it was brought to our attention that there were an usually high number of profiles that were removed from the site during the routine cleanup process where inactive accounts are suspended to make way for those that are active. At first I thought it was a major bug and that a lot of people were falsely auto-suspended. But it actually turned out to be a much more minor issue.
When I first received the news, I quickly leapt into action to restore everyone that had activity in their account within the last 30 days. But then I started looking into how/what could have caused it, and I was stumped! Everything seemed to be working just fine in all of the tests. However there was a discrepancy in the ladies profiles of showing very recent activity. How could that be!?! I checked and checked again, until I finally thought to myself… why don’t I have an inbox full of support requests from ladies asking why their photos are gone (due to the suspension script running on their profiles)?? Or a lot of their friends asking why their friends are all gone?? And then it dawned on me… these ladies must not actually be active at all. And that’s exactly what was happening. The “Last Activity” value on profiles was being falsely reported ever since the recent changes to how we log activity. For at least 2 years now, we’ve always excluded logins as a trigger to show someone as active. Activity is defined as interacting with the site and contributing in some way. But for about the last 2 weeks log-ins were falsely triggering an activity update.
So that’s why you may have seen a larger than normal drop in active accounts, quickly followed by a spike in active accounts (after I restored them), and then again followed by another drop after the cleanup routine ran again. The cleanup routine was right all along. But rather than be sorry, we played it safe and restored them all until the root cause could be found.
So the only real downside from this bug, was that some ladies had a window of about 14 extra days that allowed them to appear active from “false activity” simply by logging in. Luckily no major crisis, and no ladies where wrongly deprived of any donations (in fact they got to hold onto them for 14 extra days).
Some had suspected that the new Stealth Mode feature may have been the cause of this, but it wasn’t at all. But one should be aware that the Stealth Mode feature will by design prevent that last activity value from being updated. So Stealth Mode really does allow you to be active on the site, yet not appear active. Clearly this is something I doubt many women would want to use, but then again so is the ability for them to return donations, yet that does get used from time to time. So it’s just another tool in the toolbox really, and people can choose to use it how they best see fit.
The obvious side affect of this however is that it’s technically possible now for people to have Last Activity dates greater than 30 days yet still have an active profile. This of course is because we track actual activity separately regardless of stealth mode to determine if someone should be auto-suspended.
I hope this helps to clear up any confusion on the matter.
48 COMMENTS
Leave A CommentSo it was technically possible that at least some of the women who were deleted mistakenly thought they were in compliance with the 30 days of activity because of that inaccurate last activity status being displayed on their profiles. Granted they shouldn’t exclusively depend on their benefactors to help them stay in compliance but since the incorrect last activity status contributed to part the issue, do those women have any recourse? I mean other than hoping their benefactors haven’t redistributed the funds that were returned to them?
How about defining what constituted activity other than your “Logging in alone is not defined as activity.”? Is opening a chat window considered activity? Is writing a blog considered activity? I know sending a message is considered activity but are there any other functions we might think is activity (such as logging in) that you don’t consider activity?
“So the only real downside from this bug, was that some ladies had a window of about 14 extra days that allowed them to appear active from “false activity†simply by logging in. Luckily no major crisis, and no ladies where wrongly deprived of any donations (in fact they got to hold onto them for 14 extra days).”
I’d beg to differ. I know one my friends has personal issues and had become dependent on me letting her know her funds were at risk. Since the status was wrong (through no fault of her own) I wasn’t given the opportunity to give her that warning. I’m sure by now she has lost a portion of her earnings. I did warn her when you reinstated her account yesterday and since her last know activity then showed one day, I didn’t worry about it until she was gone once again today.
I checked earlier and there were no new news articles posted. Now there were two posted in the last few hours. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think that the other news article was published to push this important website one down so it doesn’t appear in that new link you’ve provided on the bottom of most pages.
One would think a noteworthy story about THIS website would be more important than a botched breast augmentation story and should have either been postponed so it could be on the top for more than an hour OR the other delayed a day.
Good think I’m not a conspiracy theorist…
lol. If we wanted to hide this, it would have never been published in the first place. Two different people published this and the other post, and often times news posts are schedule to go out days/hours/weeks in the future from when they are originally created. You can all remove your tinfoil hats now!
But I *like* my tinfoil hat!
Anyways, I am completely confused by this, and have been confused by the ‘activity’ monitor lately. Sometimes, I’m talking to someone and it says they haven’t been here for 6 days or more, but there I am talking to them. Chat should count as activity.
I feel kinda weird about knowing when someone’s been on or not on, but it was kinda helpful, too. Like Walter says, you could try to remind someone to keep track and keep active. If they are set up to get an e-mail notice when the get a new message anyway….
Activity types include:
Wrote a blog entry
Edited a blog entry
Created new account
Updated profile
Sent a message
Uploaded a photo
Placed an order
Left some feedback
Created a contest
Entered a contest
Voted for a blog
Sent a photo/video
Surgery goal update
In the near future we will probably be rolling out a feature that shows account activity history so that you will be able to tell what your friends have been up to so that you don’t have to go hunting around to find it.
Part of me is really hoping Drone gives his avatar a tin hat.
There are two things that disappoint me the most in this whole ordeal. First is that MFI has now released what constitutes “activity” which was one of the intangibles of the site, but now is open for models to take advantage of, meaning benes will see even lower incidence of getting donations back to pass along to those with an actual commitment to the site.
The second is there are benes who feel it is their duty to “warn” models when they approach that 30-day non-active barrier. How serious is a model about their journey here when they do not log in at least once a week, let alone in more than three weeks? Do these benes also offer a service where they remind the model when it is time for their annual physical, six-month dental check-up, or as they approach 3000 miles on their vehicles for oil changes?
Personal issues or not, we do live in a world where internet access is easy to come by, and if a model cannot actively participate in this community once every 30 days (spend 5 minutes a month, from what Jason says), then the money they’ve earned should go back to the benefactors to pass around to other models actually willing to participate.
Yet another reason why I feel this “activity” meter should be dropped from 30 days to 15 days: just like unemployment, or welfare, if you cannot make that effort to log in once a week, you aren’t eligible to receive it for that week.
And this is not a ME, ME, ME rant, as others have alluded to in blogs. This is about the community as a whole.
I understand that sometimes life outside of MFI demands a person’s full attention at times. That is why I depended on the accuracy of the last activity indicator to help a friend that risks losing what they worked so hard to obtain. I see my friends and know that sometimes they could use a little help. If I can provide that help, I will.
There is at least one wonderful woman in the Hall of Fame that received such a warning who might have lost her funds as a result of that inactivity. I don’t know whether she would have given up her dream as a result or would have remained. I’m glad that I will never know the answer to that question.
Not all of my friends respond to my warnings. Some have never come back. Some return after having lost the donations made to them. Of those who do come back after having lost their funds, some stay while others leave. But I feel I owe my friends the chance to come back with their funds intact if they wish to do so.
Everyone here has to make personal decisions on what they do and won’t do here. Forgive me for reaching out to friends who are temporarily inactive for whatever reason that haven’t given up their dreams here.
I am curious about one thing though. If a person fails to report to the welfare or unemployment office, does the government take back the funds already given to them?
Maybe my analogy was not the best, but lest we all forget, the models have not earned the funds until they complete their review. Until the review is completed, those funds are held in escrow, with the name of the benefactor and model attributed to them. That is how the terms of the site read.
I still have not heard one, let alone two compelling reasons, why a model needs a 30-day activity meter. The rules were created four years ago to help get a fledgling business off the ground, and to get interest on the site. Now, with a success rate of one model per day, I would think the site has hits it stride. Why not free up more of this escrow money to give to those models who actually want to be a part of the community.
I dreamed about being a doctor every day growing up. Sometimes we need to realize that we are not able to achieve every dream. If a model consistently uses the 30-day activity meter to her advantage, is it truly a dream of hers, or has it become more of a fantasy?
A suggestion:
There are several women, and probably some men too, who have stealth on most of the time. When they remove it, they are inundated with chat requests.
The stealth works, but the problem is that one model I’ve talked to every day this week shows up as inactive for 11 days. I know she could fix this herself by dropping stealth, doing a few things, and then putting it back on.
What if the batch that ran to look for inactive models also updated every models last activity date based on the log file that’s kept? This would mean a model who is active on a daily bssis would get credit, stealth or not. Maybe it could even be as simple as any model who as active today gets updated to the current time and yesterday’s date, so they are “1 day inactive”.
Jim, I hear what you’re saying about wanting your money to go *somewhere* tangible. I feel that way, too, and am baffled by some of the time/earnings numbers on the Most Persistent List.
But I guess, as far back as I can remember (sometime in July, IIRC), I’ve felt that anything I’ve sent to someone here was for *them*, without regard to time-frames or expectations. And I’ve known more than one woman here who’ve had a personal/familial/professional crisis of one kind or other. I just returned an item to a store today, where I had 30-days to return it and today was day 29. It’s not inconceivable that someone here could not realize 30 days had gone by amidst some kind of kerfuffle. (And, yeah, the internet is accessible, but pre-moderated MFI isn’t always something you access just anywhere.)
I wouldn’t want to see things change so that women that are juggling a lot on their plate have to choose between having their cake and eating it, too.
@J Coverman: let’s be realistic here, as we will never see changes in the two-year logic for a model cashing in her funds for surgery, the six months on abandoned message credits, or the 30-day activity meter for the models.
These are all built into the business model of MFI, and although some people naively see it as “protection” for the models, the simple fact is the longer the money is held in an escrow state, the more interest is earned by MFI. This is the primary reason why the money is allowed to sit in the hands of the models.
I know that the minute I send a donation, or send a message, that the money is MFI’s, and that the odds are greater that I will get struck by lightning then ever see it again. Yes, I do hate to see that I have a few thousand dollars stuck in limbo between models who made HOF over a year ago, then disappeared, or models who over the course of the past 18 months, spent a few months here, then realized this was not an easy journey, and log in every 4 weeks just to retain what they have earmarked (or are reminded every 20 days by a bene).
While one particular bene is saddened to see that yesterday’s purge MAY have affected a friend, I am thrilled because two of the women I contributed to a year ago, but took advantage of the system for at least the last nine months, were purged, allowing me to send my investment to models who’ve shown they respect the community. Unless a friend is booted or quits, I doubt I will ever see another donation come back my way.
I stand by what I have said the past few days, here and in the blogs, and although I challenge people to think, I know I am just pissing into the wind.
And in reference to your analogy, growing up, many of us were told we needed to finish our dinner or we wouldn’t get dessert. Some night, we did not finish our dinner, so we missed out on the German chocolate cake, other nights we did, and we got the white cake. Maybe some of the women here need to focus on making sure everyone is happy around the dinner table of their life, and realize that they may never get a piece of the German chocolate cake of MFI, and be content with a slice of the white cake. The harsh reality of life is that every dream will not come to fruition.
One of the models has recently revealed that she has had cancer in the past. She got back some test results recently and they revealed the very real possibility her cancer has returned. If she does, she will be undergoing chemotherapy again.
I don’t think her logging into MFI to perform some activity would be in her mind while undergoing chemo. I’m thinking that how long it has been since she last activity could easily slip her mind. Would it be wrong of me to send her a reminded so she can protect the more than $1500 she has in her account so she can return when she is healthy? I couldn’t imagine how crushing it would be for her to come back and only have $400 or less in her account. I know I couldn’t just sit around and watch that happen without doing what I could to help her in her time of need.
I’m with J Coverman on this one. When I give a donation to a woman, I give it to her, not MFI. Yes, some women may abuse the system. But for those who have personal issues to deal with, I am glad for the opportunity to remind them they aren’t forgotten. Sometimes it the little things in life that mean the most when life has turned difficult. I just can’t sit idly by and let a dream die when I can help. That is just a part of who I am. I wouldn’t change that for the world.
Most of these women who are on the “once a month is good enough” plan aren’t going to succeed. Are we really helping them when we leave money in their account and pretend their dream is still real or are we just giving them false hope?
The Stealth mode does need to be adjusted for future false “inactivity”. Everyone knows I am here practically every day yet my last log in said different. Not to be rude, its just that other HOFers I’m sure like me get bombarded with chat requests when we log in not under the Stealth mode.
Maybe we are talking about two different situations, guys.
I don’t think I’ve ever had much interaction with anyone I thought was ‘working the system’.
As for ladies I’ve tried to remind, I won’t name names, but one is mighty mightily close the HOF right now. Maybe I’ve been duped, but I think she’s serious about wanting this and I don’t think she’s working the system.
If someone seems wishy-washy, well, I’ll take them as they are — if they almost drop off the site multiple times, then I think I’m clear that this is not her priority. And I’d let her go.
If I’ve created the image that I’m flitting around the site ‘rescuing maidens’ right and left, half-a-dozen a day, I’m not.
But I guess I’d rather err on the side of having leeway for women that are serious, but hit a snag. Not to get morbid, but when any of us lose a loved one, your life goes out the window for a time. You don’t necessarily give up your life for good, but a helluva lot of things go on hold until you’re through it.
The status quo is working, from where I sit.
But not one to miss the chance to find a new, broader solution, what about some kind of ‘shrinking’ window? First time, it’s 30 days. If you get beyond, say, 20 days and then log in, your new log in window is 25 days. Then it becomes 20, 15, 10, 5…. That way, someone that is chronically just logging in to keep active either has to raise that log in commitment continually, OR they ARE going to fall off the site, sooner or later (but sooner than the current system perhaps). I could expound on this, but only if it sounds practical/interesting to anybody….
This is the whole exception/rule thing, again. As with the “2-year HOF payout” conversation in the blogs, the examples are again naively the exceptional case, not the norm.
MOST of the women who use the 30-day activity meter actually abuse it consistently, from month-to-month, and the most persistent list is a testament to this fact. While some on that list who are truly an active part of the community, who either took a break (and lost a lot of their earning when they did) or have clawed to get their earnings, many of those women are members of the “once a month is good enough†club. The purge over the weekend cleaned out 4 people (or 20%) of that list.
Again, as with the HOF models, I am all for making exceptions for people like your example, and I am sure the J’s can handle those few exceptional cases. I feel it is time some of these terms regarding time lengths needs to be re-evaluated. The business surely has matured in the four years since many of them were created.
Oh.
I’m naive.
That explains it.
Or maybe I’m just not keeping up with the roughly 2600 women signed up as well as others do. I keep getting distracted by my Atari 2600 — you can see where the confusion creeps in, I’m sure.
Is there a suggestion for a new system? Or just the wanting of one?
I have to start form the beginning.
The 2 years for getting to the surgery when reached HoF is fair. Not showing any progress at all since reached HoF, no notice at all to benefactors big or small or to the management is not good enough. For me in this case with the 2 years wait lack of progress my biggest bother. Yes, they are small percentage of the HoFers, but the HoFers are not more than between 0.3% to 1% (depending on how you count) of all ladies that has signed up since the start. So having 2 years time to realize what is a dream fro many is more than fair, but during these 2 years not showing any progress and even suspecting got breast implants another way than MFI is not only not good enough, it is unfair, bad and wrong.
In June 2007 one of my closest ladies on this site made HoF. She approached with concerns that i might not want her have my donations. She told me she got pregnant 1 or 2 month before reaching HoF. I told here that it was a wonderful news to hear and that i dearly wait till she is ready and should not worry about my donations to her. One year later or so she had her surgery. This HoFers gave a REASON to not progress imminently and for me that was enough for a progress.
For me my biggest bother is not showing progress and not giving any explanation for not hdoing any progress. Same goes for the 30 days. But i have to start from the beginning
The 30 day rule has not exisited for ever. In the beginning there were ladies on the top earner list who didn’t earn 1 dollar in month; at that time there were no “Last activity” so we didn’t even know if she was active at all. With the 30 day rule this was changed but and ladies could not sit on money forever. Warning them we are in ways back to this time where there was no rule. Most of ladies who fall into the inactivity suspension has for me shown it long time before it actually happened: being less on MFI, less of contacting me, less blogging, just less of everything, dropping of more and more . The signs are there before she falls into inactive suspension. And we all know doing less on MFI not the way of being successful at MFI.
When i donate/contribute financially on this site i do that because she show tendency for a good progress and like to trust she will carry that tendency of progress into the Payment and surgical progress. Not carry the trust into a waiting game – either it is in the earning period or Payment period – where i lose interest and do forget about her, because i start to distrust her.
We all maybe remember a pretty UK brunette who even was on #2 on the CTG list with not more than $600 left to HoF. She is today gone, what happened i have no clue, but after a very quick raising of what she had in her funds, she showed all the signs of dropping off more and more, till it happened: she did fall into inactive suspension. I had no problem to transfer my donations to her to another lady, because she lost my trust of being truly interested and reliable for making this after HoF.
As much as ladies are warned to tamper with her target goal to get into the CTG list, any lady should be warned to just get into some club named “once a month is good enough”. Because logging in every 20 days or so is not good enough, it is bad and wrong and does not help anybody. As it is discouraging for me i believe it is more discouraging for ladies who work hours per day to make this happen and then knowing she sits on thousands of dollars doesn’t make it any better.
Last: what about this bug, was it really that minor now?
J, the naive comment was not aimed at you, but based solely on a comment made by Walter last week about him “maybe being naive”, because he was picking one-off reasons to prove the point, where others, including myself have shown the “exceptions” to be the rule, and his examples to actually be the exception.
As for suggestions I’ve made about time-based issues, I’ve offered them in my blogs and comments in the past. Sometimes the solution is a simple as announcing in advance, depending on the issue, that in 30 days (with the activity based rule) or in three-months (with the cash-out change) that new rules will be effective, and the clock starts ticking then. Again, because a small percentage of models affected by these rules have exceptional situations, they can deal with them directly with management. I fully support allowing long-term holds being put on pre-HOF and post-HOF accounts for medical (pregnancy, health care) and catastrophic (death in the family) reasons. This would allow the models to forget about MFI for longer periods than 30-days, and gentlemen such as Walter and yourself would not have to worry about sending a message every 20 days to remind them to login. I have not heard one complaint from a model in the blogs, news comments, or messages to me to any of the suggestions myself or the tin-hatted happy face man has made about tightening up the time allowances. Quite the opposite, I’ve heard from a handful of HOF models and those still on their journey about their support for these ideas, because these women, throughout their journey, and after their journey, have respected the benes, and what MFI is offering them, and executed on their dream in a timely manner.
Maybe I am the exceptional bene here, and am unfortunate to get all of the models who have the mentality of “once a month is good enoughâ€, or “HOF, run, and wait”. Only one time have I not moved funds from a model, suspended for reason or suspended due to time-out activity, as soon as I saw them back in my boob bank, and because hindsight is 20/20, I wish I had moved the funds.
Welcome back CCR!
It was one of my worst days on MFI when I realized that this “bug” led me to neglect to message a friend to remind her, since I thought she had been active more recently than 30 days. I have two friends now in the HoF who at one point I “reminded” to write a message to someone ASAP so they would not be suspended due to the 30 day rule. They are not chronic or inveterate “once every 30 days” people.
I am happy to remind a friend to do something to preserve her earnings. Of course, dedication is necessary to be successful. All of us who have been around awhile know that. But sometimes real (and successful) women deal with family and careers and life outside of MFI: perhaps moving or illness or death. I don’t think I would deserve the descriptor “friend” if I didn’t understand and respect that.
I think everybody here has a slightly different experience, we know different folks, we see different things happen. I don’t think anyone’s example is a bad example.
I may be under-qualified to comment on this issue, since I don’t remember ever particularly interacting with anyone that was a ‘user’ of the system. But it’s only right for anyone to ask for it to be addressed, if they have more involvement in the issue.
(Also, if you see me making fun of myself, you know I’m alright.)
What I find really odd is I’m the FIRST LADY to post in here!! =)
Is it me or does this bug bother the guys more than the girls?
I have to say that I am on stealthmode 89% of the time I am on. Its hard for me to chat unless its night time,due to my son. I get bombarded with requests so I am more likely to chat with guys that send a msg before hand letting me know they are wanting to chat
XOXO
@ ** Italianita ** 68931 – What is AnGeLnDiSgUiSe if not a lady? lol
LMAO!! thank you Walter…..ummm ok so what can be done about the stealth mode being on yet we aren’t counted as being active?? Yea so watch that Italianita….I had to click OFF stealth, do one of the activities posted to have my activity date changed. I was bombed with 5 chat requests in seconds, if you read my blogs I have reasons for being stealth….so any fix for this? Or just have to continue going visible then going BACK under the radar???
I must say A Friend of mine who I just chatted with 3 days before all this happened was deleted and she lost over 500 and all her pictures and her fan sign . Since the benes transfered the money I am sure there is nothing any one can do about it , i also track the girls on my friends list and send messages to help keep they up to date like other benes do . The most i have seen this model go with out activity was 23 days .
I have been here for some time now and helped many , promoted the sight started the RAOK
This has upset me and I am lossing some faith in the way things are run.
As a customer , and that is what the benes of mfi are customers . If we all go away then there is no MFI
i am not happy and feel there is nothing the management can do about this what i read in the news is they think it was a minor problem .
rethinking weather i need to be here any more
Yes i have fix for it, AnGeLnDiSgUiSe. Separate Stealth mode form chat requests:
- have one check box to enable/disable STEALTH MODE
- have one check box to enable/disable CHAT REQUESTS
i have told Jason about this but for some reason he just continues to explain the stealth mode feature for me which i find useless, personally. I would rather have a way to enable/disable chat requests, only.
I think CCR’s solution will only partially work.
Imagine I’m a guy who really wants to chat with a woman. I look and I can’t live chat her because the link isn’t there. I then look down and see that her last activity was 39 seconds ago.
If I am particularly pushy (and I have reason to believe that would describe quite a few benefactors and typically the ones women are trying to hid from) I send her a message asking her to chat. She doesn’t respond. I see that she’s now been inactive for 11 seconds. Clearly she’s still on the site and is just not replying to my message or granting my chat request.
I may become angry (since I could have blown a dollar just now messaging her). I may leave bad feedback or send a nastygram.
On a site where everyone was well-mannered and respectful of each other the change would work fine. On MFI I’m afraid women would have to turn both off most fo the time to avoid recriminations of not chatting.
There’s a lot to respond to here, so my comment will sort of be a hodgepodge of ideas, roughly in order of comments left…
For a while there I felt there was a certain value in keeping “activity types” unknown, but it wasn’t exactly rocket science to figure it out with a bit of trial and error. And I generally think transparency is a better policy overall. So for better or worse, they are now public knowledge.
I think one of the big takeaways here is there there are two basic frames of mind when it comes to contributing:
1: MFI is a charity, and the contributions are gifts.
2: MFI is an escrow service, and the contributions are contingent based on reaching ones goal.
Both are valid, because both are opinions. And I feel it’s important that everyone respect both opinions, especially MFI management, because one is no more valid than the other. It’s up to the individual on how they view their contribution.
I do think activity is an important criteria for one to keep a profile. A community functions best when it’s citizen contribute to society. Our business model is not based on keeping abandoned donations. We stand far more to gain by creating more success stories than by pocketing a few dollars from inactive profiles.
There’s sort of a bigger question around Stealth Mode, which perhaps deserves it’s own post and own discussion, and that is the topic of privacy. Stealth Mode sort of gives people the opportunity to ignore others, for better or worse. If Stealth Mode operates independently of Last Activity, then it’s far easier to catch someone in a “lie”: Sorry I missed your messages I wasn’t at the computer. Oh really? Your last activity says otherwise! So there’s a decent argument to keeping Stealth Mode and last activity linked. I know I have people that are friends in my IM client, that I will ignore their messages from time to time. We all do it, for whatever reason. So the question is what are peoples expectations of Stealth Mode? Just how stealthy do you want to appear?
J Coverman, your idea about the shrinking window of opportunity is interesting. I’ll marinate on that one for a bit. It seems like a good way to light a fire under someone!
@Drone: well i think that happens even now and also before stealth mode feature, the scenario you describe. At least that is what i have heard already about the stealth feature.
With the options i gave a lady and a guy can choose different level of stealth/privacy. If he/she does want to be very private he/she enables stealth and disables chat requests. Or he/she can choose stealth but still allow chat requests. And so on. It provides with more options for the different users on here.
And this feature is not only for ladies it is feature on both sides, so for me it is something also about me and my choices of stealth /privacy. As it is now i the stealth feature is useless and probably makes ladies upset annoyed, because i have to ignore chat requests because i show that link for them, but what i want and where i find ladies to help is through messages they send me. Jason told me that when i am in stealth my profile pic goes to end of the list of guys. That way i wont get many messages, so i am not using stealth because i want a way to show myself as “online” and it also results in many chat requests from ladies that i ignore. With the option to disable chat requests only, i can still show myself as “online and when a lady wants to chat with me she sees there is no link, maybe she moves on , maybe she sents me a message and she and i can go from there.
@Drone again:
** Italianita ** 68931 tells us that she is in stealth mode for around 90% of her time here. However she as many other ladies in stealth mode do post blogs. Italianita about everyday and some days several times a day. Now blogging is a way, maybe one of the oldest ways, to think/assume that a lady is online. Being in stealth mode while having posted a blog can create same situation with not so well mannered benefactor when he tries to chat with her.
Just an example above.
I try not say you are wrong, Drone, but how we turn it or what rules and features we have on here there will always be people that misbehave, abuse the system and people for their kindness and openness etc, or just jump to assumptions and interpret peoples intentions to the bad.
Maybe it was bad that i said i had “fix” to this, because it is not a fix for every one. But i think more options will help more than less with this stealth/chat request feature.
I have to comment on CCR’s last post. I like that idea because even if I see a gentleman with chat next to his name I still choose to send a message so that HE may have the opportunity to show interest in me for free other then adding to friends list (I like to have a first conversation with people before deciding a friend add is the way to go maybe we just dont get along or conversation doesnt flow easily). Afterall I have just sent him a message saying that I am interested in him. I dont get very far back into the list of gentlemen when sending messages so what CCR said made a lot of sense. But whatever the outcome we will all adapt some way some how if we want to be a part of dreams coming true.
~~Judy~~
What??? I said something useful??? Beware! The end of days is nigh!
*ahem*
Also, in case the waters weren’t muddy enough on the issue — I’ll point out that I had previously made the suggestion that maybe being able to define a number of chats you’re willing to have up at once would be helpful. If a member enters a “1″ and they are having a chat, no one else can start one (thus no pop-ups interrupting). If someone puts a “3″ and they have two chats going, then someone else could start a chat with them, but then their Live Chat link would go away for anyone looking at their profile. Entering “0″ would be like a kind of ‘stealth mode’. Easier said, than done? Probably.
LMAO I musta missed ya Angel!! =) Sry..Yeah I get bombarded all the time too but I also have a one year old, that is the main reason I cannot always chat.but I do update my profile and send msgs everyday and like CCR said I blog ALOT. A good way to keep yourself up there is to blog. All my friends know my situation and understand I can only be on for chat normally at nights when lil ones asleep.
yes, Italianita, i have understood the stealth mode works that way for you ladies and i thought it did work that way for us benefactors, but according to Jason the system puts a benefactors profile in the end of the list of all benefactors when a benefactor choose stealth mode. The reason i was told was because the system would otherwise delete benefactor profile when it see it as inactive. For me all this doesn’t makes much sense. But have tested this numerous times with a HoF lady and every time i go in stealth mode she says i am gone , vanished, she can not find my profile pic, but it should be on the first page of all benefactors.
I would be happy if the stealth mode worked as it does for you ladies: stealth mode disabled, doing a profile update, then stealth mode enabled and chat requests disabled, but being on the first page and being pushed back while other benefactors update their profiles.
That is how i thought stealth mode feature worked.
Maybe Jason can enlighten us why there are differences in the feature for ladies and benefactors?
@Jason/J Coverman: it would be great to see the activity window shrink.
LOL
Curious observation, and blogs not the place for it: when was the feedback criteria scaled back from 5/5 to 3/3, and why?
“There is a minimum requirement of 3 messages sent, and 3 received from this person before you can leave feedback.”
Stealth mode ideas: I like J Coverman’s idea of allowing the model to limit incoming chat requests (I would think any number from 0-5) but still allows a model to click on a bene’s chat link. Once that number is reached, the Live Chat link disappears.
Also, it seems like models in stealth still change positions on the model page based on activity, which seems to defeat the whole “stealth” aspect. If the stealth is solely to limit the chat function, allow the model to control that like a dimmer switch.
I would like to see benefactors have the same option in the idea of 0-5 on going chats.
yeah, it being the same for *everybody* was my concept….
Glad you like it!
I like these new ideas you guys are coming up with! Very clever.
I just dont like the idea that a popup link pops up and I have to either accept or *decline*, people get offended. Like what if Im in the middle of a blog or messaging or in 3 other chats? People get feelings hurt.
I just wish there was a diff way to do it, but things are getting better here. They are helping and taking in our ideas and always respond quickly to messages. Kudos to Jay and Jason!! =D
Wow..Lots of opinions here! I think I will sit back on this one..