The article here (I will summarize briefly for those who can't open) gives us another view of catfishing, which is different from the 'pig butchering' schemes previously described.
It interviews people hired by dating apps (it doesn't say which ones) are instructed to keep conversations going to keep folks on their platforms. While it's not the criminal enterprise of the pig-butchering scheme, it does suggest extreme dishonesty and manipulation by these platforms. I'd be interested in finding out more and specifically which apps do this. https://www.wired.com/story/catfishing-customer-support-love/?redirectURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%2Fcatfishing-customer-support-love%2FThanks for sharing, 'Mouche,
Many here have frequently speculated on the number of profiles that are fake or run by "scammer farms" that the host service either tolerates or perhaps even encourages and funds.
The article mentioned several services that all more Tinder-like than sugaring. But that doesn't mean much.
Just like the big social media companies like Facebook and Snapchat, a key metric for them (KPI) is number of active monthly users. I presume that Seeking and the other sugar services track a similar metric, especially those that charge for each message.
What should we take from this? IMO. nothing new really. The need to carefully vette a new profile remains a key skill in the Sugar Bowl. Your Spidey Senses are still your best friend, while your predilection to let the small head override Spidey can be your pathway to scammerville. Add to that the recommendation to move messages offsite as soon as practical is still a best practice for us all.
The only question I still have unanswered is: if I get one of these jobs can I make enough to retire in Angeles City, Philippines? :p
Life is good
The Cat
Miraculously they usually happen to be in my town or close enough. They are more than happy to hook up (yesterday one said $100/hr). Set an appointment. Then you get the I need money sent message.
Then you have the crypto and forever ladies. I'd go back to pros but the number asking north of $1000 is a joke. Thank God for rosy palm.
Sites that are "adult dating" or "cheating" probably have 100 guys to each real female. And a million bots. Cuz why give it away for free when you can sell it.
.
However the incentives switch on sugar sites, because lots of real females are looking for a payday. I think female bots on those sites are for lookeeloos who haven't subscribed. Once you are in, there are plenty of chicks competing for your entertainment dollar.
.
So there is a major distinction between "dating" and "sugaring" sites, as well as a difference between window shoppers and paying subscribers.
what you are reporting 'mouche was years ago. Back in the "before time" Before I'd discovered TER, let alone SA. I was reading the fine print on Ashley Madison because so many of the profiles there seemed to be written by the same person. You can tell when a voice is unique or not, even just reading a few lines. Sure enough, AM Admin admitted to using articificial profiles they called "Ashley's Angels" purportedly in order to "enhance the users' experience" Yeah, right.