With the recent demise of backpage, the scammers have definitely started to flood leolist. I despise having to sift through all the garbage/fake ads to browse SPs. Oh well...
Eros was not busted, a call center in the states was busted. No Servers there, Servers in the Netherlands. A look at EROS Vancouver today shows it is more popular than in the past!Eros was busted and not used and more.
Perb or Terb plus Leo 'verified' only for me.
To clarify. Eros in the USA demanded the real ID of SW when processing Ads.Eros was not busted, a call center in the states was busted. No Servers there, Servers in the Netherlands. A look at EROS Vancouver today shows it is more popular than in the past!
Bob
Not sure when you last looked at EROS but it hasn't had any increase in advertisers, at least in Vancouver. For the last year its always been high 30's to low 40's for advertisers. Before they were all legit, now not so much. Its like a high end backpageEros was not busted, a call center in the states was busted. No Servers there, Servers in the Netherlands. A look at EROS Vancouver today shows it is more popular than in the past!
Bob
it probably needs to be done by a lot of flaggers in order to take action, they won't just remove an ad that 1 person flagged, that would become like CL.And Leolist never takes down ads that are reported as scammers or fake pics. There's a scam review that's gone on for over a month. I checked yesterday and Leolist still has the ad active.
I think I've only used BP a couple of times so it's no loss of a source for me. It was a Royal pain to navigate with all the obvious rip off artists.
Eros was busted and not used and more.
Perb or Terb plus Leo 'verified' only for me.
You are probably correct. The thread has gone 3+ pages now and if everyone who posted also flagged the leo ad, it would most likely be removed. Another thing, if Leo asked a reason for flagging it would have higher priority if it was A Reported Rip-off vs Fake pics. JMOit probably needs to be done by a lot of flaggers in order to take action, they won't just remove an ad that 1 person flagged, that would become like CL.
Agreed. Some time ago, there was an ad that I attempted flagging on LL repeatedly and it remained for so long that I finally gave up trying. I'd rather not say publicly why I was flagging it other than to say that I believe it was highly inappropriate. If there had been a dialogue box where one could explain why you were flagging similar to what you get here on perb when you report a post, at least then they might understand why it was being flagged and maybe they would have actually taken action.Another thing, if Leo asked a reason for flagging it would have higher priority if it was A Reported Rip-off vs Fake pics. JMO
Yesterday, I reported an ad which violates the LL guidelines. It's still up as of the time of this post. When I reported it, the following message appeared on LL:Agreed. Some time ago, there was an ad that I attempted flagging on LL repeatedly and it remained for so long that I finally gave up trying. I'd rather not say publicly why I was flagging it other than to say that I believe it was highly inappropriate. If there had been a dialogue box where one could explain why you were flagging similar to what you get here on perb when you report a post, at least then they might understand why it was being flagged and maybe they would have actually taken action.
So, I guess if not enough "unique reports" get logged, the offending ad will remain posted. I guess I understand the logic but the optics of it seem lacking, in my opinion.Thank you. This ad has been reported.
As we are a community moderated site, our staff is only notified after
several unique reports are submitted for a specific ad.
I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at this...Yesterday, I reported an ad which violates the LL guidelines. It's still up as of the time of this post. When I reported it, the following message appeared on LL:
So, I guess if not enough "unique reports" get logged, the offending ad will remain posted. I guess I understand the logic but the optics of it seem lacking, in my opinion.
Just curious to what the direct violation was. I have posted some pics for verification and had them rejected because the sticker I put over my nips what nude in colour, has to be completely different colour. I was given that I can't post pics with nudity. I would say about 20% of my pics posted were not accepted for verification due to something that was in violation of terms so they seem to be moderating the pics. Can sometimes take 12-24 hours to get pics verified.I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at this...
So, I just did a quick check and not only is the former ad still up but the same advertiser has posted a new ad, which has now been "VERIFIED BY LL!" featuring even more images which are in direct violation of LL's Terms that one must agree to before accessing the site and an offer of services posted in bold font that I was under the impression are against their advertising guidelines (but I might be wrong about that -- although I definitely know that I can't mention what that offered service is here on perb... nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...)
Wow... Just wow...
Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at. The pics that are in direct violation of the terms are not verified but they are in a verified ad featuring other pics that are verified. And the same advertiser has another ad which, while it includes many of the same images, is not a "verified" ad. Does that make sense?Just curious to what the direct violation was. I have posted some pics for verification and had them rejected because the sticker I put over my nips what nude in colour, has to be completely different colour. I was given that I can't post pics with nudity. I would say about 20% of my pics posted were not accepted for verification due to something that was in violation of terms so they seem to be moderating the pics. Can sometimes take 12-24 hours to get pics verified.
If have a moment send me the link to the ad.
edit for added info: A advertiser can have verified and unverified pics in their ad. The unverified ads are not vetted, just the verified ones so the pics not conforming to the rules may have been the unverified ones.
XOXOXO Riza
Yes you are correct. A advertiser can have multiple ads on the same account and the verified pics are the same for each ad and then they can add additional unverified pics as wanted to each of the ads. (If that makes sense lol) The unverified pics are unique to each ad.Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at. The pics that are in direct violation of the terms are not verified but they are in a verified ad featuring other pics that are verified. And the same advertiser has another ad which, while it includes many of the same images, is not a "verified" ad. Does that make sense?
Unfortunately, I'm having browser issues with LL these days depending on which device I'm using, so it has become difficult for me to copy and paste links.
The rate of $140/hr s/b evidence that it's a fake.Lady that hot would be way pricier.Perb is your best resource.
Copy and paste from another thread where I made suggestions and works here also:
Typically if its to good to be true....probably isn't. Case in point:
![]()
Face pic usually tells me its not the girl in the pic, just a stolen Instagram account pic. Also the amount of views tells me its been around for along time. Probably a booking girl that farms out the work to others.
Verified pics are a good start, not always 100% but it weeds out a high percentage of fake ads.
Stick with girls with reviews here or agencies that have good reviews.
Its a crap shoot.





