Well, from the SD side, I think Seeking have actively chased away many, many genuine Daddys.
- Random bans
- Word police
- Double standards
- Difficult to protect anonymity
- Changed Seeking emphasis, which
- Changed atmosphere (for the worse)
- Recruiting different SB set

SBs disappearing?

I got booted from SA 4 years ago and moved to SB r years ago. Definitely some scams to burn credits, however, my past week proves it still works. Monday and Tuesday.  My #1 and #2.  Thursday AMP girl. Friday new SB. Quite the hot and horny one. Saturday a Milf fitness model wanted to meet me at a local casino. I found out she just wanted to bang in the room. No poolside time. Canceled. Sunday.  New girl back for round 2. Total cost $1600. A whole lot better than independent escorts.

This is why empirical data is the least useful in objectively measuring a system or a process.  

 
Without the objective data held by Seeking, we can only observe small slices of the system and try to infer the overall trends and other information.  

 
A while back, maybe 4 years ago, I did a painstaking process to build a spreadsheet analyzing profiles in my local area.  I did this by using filters to control for age range, distance, ethnicity, body type, "requested support level," and other factors. Then I would do a manual count of profiles in my search results that were active withing a certain time range.  

 
This was a pain in the ass. And though it did give me some useful insights (which I shared here) it was never really useful for predicting how many viable POT's would be available to me or, more importantly, if they would likely be interested in me.    

 
I refreshed the data a year later. That was also a pain in the ass.  Today, this would be even more difficult to do, as some of the key filters needed are no longer available, and the search result page format has changed such that I would need to look at each profile (several thousand) to get the desired info (if it was available).  

 
Why am I talking about all this?  Because it's easy to, as the saying goes, "not see the forest for the trees."  We may be looking only at the tress right in front of us and so never see the entire forest all around.  

 
Are there fewer SB's? Are there fewer SD's?  Only Bandon knows. But we do know that even if the forest is getting smaller, there are still trees right in front of us.  Let's keep climbing!  

 
Life is good

 
The Cat

Filled my roster in two months which is the typical results.  I dealt with fewer scams so the filters are helping there.

Increase in unrealistic allowance expectations for sure.

Number of one time or sporadic BCDs are up.  Meaning they only reach out when rent is due.

Number of flakes are the same.

Number of girls wanting a higher allowance and refuse to go bare or even discuss tests is higher.  That leads me to believe there are more first time SBs around than ever.

Number of pros are definitely a lot higher.  Which is funny since the site definitely doesn't want them there.

Your observation, while completely valid may well just be the menu du mois.

 
If you recall, last month it seemed the SB were coming out of the woodwork to have sex with us!    
 

So, having just returned from 3 weeks from the Iberian peninsula, in the past I would  typically will log onto Seeking and find dozens of ladies I missed during my time away.   This time, only 2-3 caught my interest.  Might well be my #1, and for that matter my #2 are honest 9's on the women's rating scale, so I suppose it's going to be exceedingly  difficult to replace or to  supplement them.  Sexual encounters with both are 'over the top,' meaning I don't have overwhelming reasons to drift afar.  

I also agree there seems to be a number of pros or semipros, which is good or bad depending on your approach.

 
Herb's point, as always is well expressed, but I'm not so sure it's just confusing the trees from the forest.