Verified vs. non-verified

  • andydude

    Posts: 14

    Mar 04, 2007 11:32 PM GMT
    This is a tangent, related to TallGWMvballer's topic on "common decency"...

    I sometimes receive the automatic email, "I've unlocked my private pics for you." These are usually not accompanied by an actual message, which I find a little odd. They are also usually sent by non-verified members.

    My usual practice is to check out the profile briefly and check to see if the person is a "Verified RealJock". If so, I may unlock my private pics (there ain't no nudes in there!), but usually will reply with a request that we chat some first beforehand. If they aren't verified, I'll usually just ignore the message.

    This makes sense to me, but it's got me thinking about the "verified" feature on here. I'd like to see more members rely on it, and even see the site start limiting features for those that aren't verified.

    How do you feel about the "verified" feature? What ideas do you have to make better use of RealJock verification?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2007 12:29 AM GMT
    I think the Verified features is one of the best parts of this site. Many other sites should start using it.

    I normally will respond to most people who contact me, even if just to say no thanks.

    The chat room already has a verified only feature, in that you can only access the webcams if you are verified. Hopefully, that will encourage more people to take it up. It's a very simple process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 6:38 PM GMT
    As a member of this site who isn't "verified", I can tell you that I remain more than a little skeptical with the information these sites request, including the "verification" of members on this site. Call me paranoid, in this age of identity theft, I can't help but wonder if it's merely a means of "big brother" keeping tabs on people or just another means of someone stealing my identity .... Not that I have anything to hide. Becoming a "verified" member really doesn't mean much to me since I mainly use this site for informational purposes, entertainment when I'm bored or just plain curiosity when checking out other profiles/pics. I'm one of a few people online that has no interest in posting someone else's pic in my profile and claiming it's me. I would like to take this opportunity to say that it's highly unfair for those who choose to become "verified" members to criticize or chastise those of use that choose not to become verified members. Everyone should bear in mind that just because someone chooses not to become a "verified" member doesn't always mean it's because they're using a fraudulant picture. I remain optomistic and hopeful that people chatting online represent themselves, as themselves. If they don't, I accept the fact that it's a chance I'm gonna have to take as part of the online community. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: What's to stop someone from taking a pic of someone else at a street fair or some other place in public and asking that person to hold up a "verification" sign then submit that pic to RealJock? If the person who's holding the sign isn't familiar with RealJock and the verification process, chances are they'll just hold up the sign as a goof.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 7:22 PM GMT
    The reason is simple: no "real" person on this site would prefer to deal with a "fake". This is typically true for things like chat and mail, but even moreso when sharing explicit photos or planning to meet in person. If you're not interested in verifying, that's your choice, but of course (as NNJ says) it will come at a cost when you choose to interact with those who have.

    The "identity theft" argument seems particularly strange to me, since that's exactly what the verification process helps prevent. However, in the rather far-fetched scenario above, one simple solution would be to require the verification photos to be taken in private, or for the RJ team to simply ask for another shot whenever the first seems suspect (as I imagine they probably do already). In addition, when I've contacted RJ with questions about verification before, they said that they do occasionally review and revoke verification as necessary when things look fishy.

    It's not VeriSign, but it's a lot better than what most sites have. There are plenty of places to chat faceless or with fake pics; I for one am glad that is getting progressively less welcome here.

    My thoughts:

    1) Add an option in the profile visibility area to hide our full profiles from unverified users.

    2) Allow unverified members access to the site on a 'trial' basis for a certain number of days, and then restrict them to access similar to that of not being logged in.. i.e., no more access to other users' private photos, hot lists, etc. (I'll admit, this may be a bit extreme, but is basically what most other networking and dating sites do, only with money instead of 'verification')
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 7:29 PM GMT
    Yeah, I guess the bottom line is becoming a "verified" member is, in deed, more than I'm willing to give. If people have become THAT jaded in the online community to automatically assume someone is using fraudulent pics then I guess it's their loss. Again, I choose to remain optimistic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 8:19 PM GMT
    I'm with Boxshorts2007.

    I submitted my verification pic twice that is nearly identical to one of my existing photos and obviously I'm still not verified. Oh well.

    I have no urgent need to repeat this process until I get verified, I have no need of being verified. People that opt to meet me in real life know that these are pix of me.

    So judging me by default that I'm fake and limiting my access or restricting me from seeing your profile..honestly, I don't think I'm not losing out if I don't see your profile.

    I come off rather blunt at times but hey, I speak my mind and am honest about it. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are who they say they are with their pictures. Obviously some of them are fake because of one reason or the other .. like you know the original picture model in person.

    It really doesn't bother me too much if someone does turn out to be fake. I don't have a problem telling the person that I appreciate honesty and they've been feeding me lies then get up and walk out.

    If you don't have the balls to be real, then I ask you not to msg me. I don't buy the "discrete" thing. Don't fuck around behind your wife/partner's back. I don't buy the "I'm a public servant and can't reveal my face" thing either.

    I'm gay, I've been a public servant (firefighter) for two decades (off and on) and have gotten recognition from the Gov., and the entire fire/police/city council etc are cognizant of my orientation.

    Thing is, I don't have problem because I pull my weight and treat people with respect so I get a lot of respect and love from the brothers in return. I don't have to hide my face.

    Just be yourself, verified or not.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 9:01 PM GMT
    Come on. Sure it's not foolproof. What is? s NNJfitandbi succinctly put...

    So what if there is someone nuts enough using this site to go and steal a whole collection of pix and call them his own. Yes, we know you can do that. But, no, it's not likely.

    Sure the verification picture can be faked...someone adept at PhotoShop, and with lots and lots of time in their hands can do that.

    It's most likely that those who are verified actually are the person pictured on their photos. It's better than next to worthless. It's a lot better than worthless, guys.

    What's the big deal? Plots, counterplots, identity tracking...come on, what is this, an X-Files episode?

    I like the verification feature a lot.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 9:02 PM GMT
    What pisses me off to no end are guys who request you to reveal your private pics to them, and when you go to their profiles, they don't have a single picture of themselves, whether public or private..

    And I have sent my verification twice, to no avail....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 9:26 PM GMT
    No one is equating "unverified" with "fake". The original poster asked for ideas on how we could provide more incentive for people to get verified, so I put some out there. I don't feel the need to hide my profile from anyone, but I think the option should be available for those who choose to.

    Personally, I've had both good and bad experiences with unverified members. I don't currently go so far as to only communicate with verified people, but it does become an issue when there is travel or significant time involved (such as vacation).

    Aside from all that, from the stories posted here about difficulty getting your profiles verified, it seems there may be some other issues with the verification process that need to be addressed. If that feedback spurs improvement, it's more than worth having the discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 9:31 PM GMT
    Hello from RealJock... Great topic. In answer to the above thread, the majority of people who get rejected from verification appear not to have understood the directions. It's pretty simple:

    1. Take a photo of yourself - including a face photo - holding up a sign that reads "RealJock 123". Submit it using the verification page upload. We compare it to your face photos on your profile, and, if it matches, you're verified. No "identity theft" involved, since all we're doing is verifying your face is the face on the profile.

    The three most common problems we see are:
    1. People simply upload a photo of themselves without the sign.
    2. They upload a photo with the sign, but they have no face photos on their profie.
    3. They upload a photo with something else written on it.

    If you fail to get verified, you should get a rejection letter. If you don't get one of those, your photo may not be uploading properly and you should send us an email using the Help link at the top right.

    Thanks guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 9:47 PM GMT
    Ya know fastprof, maybe life is nothing more than repeat episodes of Xfiles.

    I think it's unfortunate that you guys place so many eggs in your verification basket. If you send a face pic to RealJock for verification, they'll only verify that that face pic matches the face pics you have in your profile ..... That's it. The body parts aren't verified. So, Joe Stupid could get verified yet post pics of another person's body parts in his profile. You mean to tell me that you guys, who place so much emphasis on being verified, would overlook or forgive Mr. Stupid for posting another person's body parts because he has a verified face or because you were more attracted to his face than his body to begin with? I doubt it. C'mon guys, no matter how you slice it, online chatting is fraught with flaws and becoming "verified" certainly isn't a means of rectifying those flaws. Becoming verified is simply a false sense of piece-of-mind for those who have been burned in the past by people with fraudulent pics.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 10:22 PM GMT
    To clarify, profile verification is face verification. We thought about doing body verification, but it would have been too challenging and open to fraud. The process isn't perfect, obviously, but we definitely appreciate those members who take the time to verify their profile. It takes about three minutes total and it's free.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2007 10:27 PM GMT
    Yes, thanks to RealJock for the clarification.

    And, we should try to separate out the problems people might have with following the instructions on getting Verified, from the "philosophy" behind verification. That's what the original post was about.

    Yes, Boxshorts2007, it's true. There is a grand plot for hoaxers to take over RealJock.

    However, I know...




  • mtkroll

    Posts: 15

    Mar 06, 2007 10:32 PM GMT
    You should get verified too RealJock... LOL, who knows who you really are ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 6:18 AM GMT
    I tried to get verified,but it didnt work either for me. But I will try again.
  • 2thTEE

    Posts: 637

    Jun 17, 2007 6:54 AM GMT
    I was once not cool...but then I became verified and I am now part of the Cool Club. Thanks RJ!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 3:03 PM GMT
    Maybe some guys are not reading how to get verified. You should send a clear full face shirtless with most of your body in the pic and an index card with realjock 123 on it. I got verified no prob. I would like to see more verified members so I know who I am talking to, but I have still chatted with non. I'm a taken guy and very happy-so it doesn't make as big a deal to me as to some. Verified or not just be real. At least have some pics!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 3:25 PM GMT
    If I were going to steal pics, it would certainly be someone hotter than myself. And younger. With a better smile. Thicker hair. A come-hither sparkle in the eye. Better overall grooming. An 11-inch dick.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 3:27 PM GMT
    For me, verification is just another tool in what has become a pretty surefire arsenal against fakes. I say in my profile flat-out that I only chat with guys that 1) are verified or 2) have a webcam or 3) have a numerous candid face pics available (either in public or private). Though even with number 3, I am still very alert to make sure the person seems real and matches their profile pics/personality. This policy is working out quite well for me - I've weeded out a lot of fakes that have IM'd me by sticking to my rules.

    To be on topic, I love verification. It's not foolproof, but what is? We still have our instincts. In this day and age, I just feel like there is no excuse to not have your likeness readily available if you're going to take part on a site like this. If you're closeted, that's one thing; otherwise, welcome to 2007. Everyone's online. You're phones aren't going to be tapped if you get verified. I'm with those that think not being verified should lead to major site restriction. I think anyone whose time has been wasted by a fake would understand this. And I am definitely suspect of anyone that is adamantly against verification, it reads defensive to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 3:46 PM GMT
    I verified because I was curious to see how well the video chat works, and the video feeds are restricted to verified members only.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 4:00 PM GMT
    Verification is a good first step. These days I pretty much prefer video chat with folks, and if someone doesn't have a cam, they shouldn't expect to see mine.

    I'm basically a trusting person, and have been scammed a few times. So now I take a harder line than I used to. It's a shame, in a way, but I don't like being "played".

    I agree with Andy regarding unlocking without a message. In fact, on other sites where people can send gropes, winks or other things, if these are sent without a message, I feel free to ignore them.

    On the other hand, if someone takes the trouble to type out even a simple message, they'll get at least a simple response. That seems to me to be a reasonable response.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 4:08 PM GMT
    I agree with Obscenewish. If someone wants to steal my pics go ahead and good luck with THAT. LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 4:36 PM GMT
    Photos can be manipulated a hundred ways.

    I know this because I do it for a living. I could have done much better lighting on mine and a ton of retouching. But there is no point, because I'm going to cam with anyone I'm interested in.

    Angle, lighting, photo retouching, and of course body shots from ten years ago all make a difference.

    The only things that really work are:

    1) Webcam - very hard to fake and

    2) Live meeting (extremely hard to fake)

    I have met a bunch of guys who look NOTHING like their "real" pics online.

    However, I do appreciate the attempt by RealJock to try to filter some of the garbage.

    If a system like this is going to work, it is VITAL that fakers get busted.

    There is a website called If you see someone on here who has no candid shots and all the shots look like model shots, check for them on fakersbusted.

    I've already tagged one fake on here. It was hilarious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 8:03 PM GMT
    "silly fat people looking for advice and shaping up "

    Er, are out of shape people unwelcome here if they're looking for help? There's a 12 week program that seems open to anyone willing to try it. Even silly fat people looking for advice.

    I get weepy during Biggest Loser. I've never been fat, but I've been terribly out of shape which would definitely have been avoided had I encountered this site 10 years ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2007 8:45 PM GMT
    "Silly fat people..."
    I'm a less-fat and more in-shape person partly because of this site (just as silly as ever, though). I don't use it to meet people. Let's not ban unverified guys from Realjock. If you want to meet somebody, only reply to verified guys. That seems pretty easy and preserves the health/fitness areas of the site for those of us who want only that.
    Most people I met in my 64 years are pretty nice and I assume new people are the same unless they prove otherwise.