With every day that goes by, there is a new site that catches my gaze. Just a couple of weeks ago it was Velvet22, and weeks before that it was IvySocite. Even though those directories are great in their own way, I’m looking at a new one that could be just as good. UR Little Secret seems to be the next up-and-coming directory, with it still getting its legs as they build themselves up. Whether this directory meets the expectations of a client remains to be seen, but you all know I had to take an in-depth look at the site for myself to see if it’s worth it.
URLS found me on BlueSky. They liked some things I said on there, which had me go to their profile and take a look at what kind of platform they were. Obvious to everyone, the platform is an escort directory. Clicking on their link, I was taken to a directory not unlike what we’ve seen today. I was met with the URLS banner at the top, with a giant picture of a woman in a suite alongside “Empowering Independent Escorts” in bold. The highlight of the entire directory right there for everyone to see, and it gave me some gratification that this wasn’t just any other site. You could tell that a lot of the power is in the providers’ hands and they’re just using the platform for its intended use, unlike other platforms that have profiles made with intentions of showcasing OnlyFans, among others.
The directory is based in the United Kingdom. Like the other more independent escort platforms, it leans toward giving providers all the power they need to be professional and advertise in a like-minded community. So far, while on the site, I can see where their intentions are, but it isn’t pulling me in as much as others do. I’m not basing this off the providers themselves, but more on the look. It seems very copy-and-paste, not really giving it the originality you would want it to have, though this is just my opinion. The profiles aren’t too different from what we’ve seen, offering all the usual information like name, city, contact information, and most importantly, socials. Again, it doesn’t need to look fancy only give the information we need as clients and URLS does just that.
In the middle of the website, you’ll find everything the directory promises: verified profiles vetted by the site to ensure who you’re talking to is just that who you’re talking to; trusted photos of the provider you’ll eventually be booking; and real reviews from real clients.
The look of the site doesn’t really matter as much as what it delivers, so I decided to give it the same test I gave Velvet22. I picked five random providers from five random cities to see if their profiles were real and if their intentions were truly for escorting and nothing else. The five cities were New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. Out of the five providers, there were only two I would feel safe contacting, while the other three felt pretty suspicious. It wasn’t the lack of social media or information in general, because like any other client, I go beyond that with my own research. It was the fact that there was no information I could use to do my own research. Where other small platforms lead me to do a little additional digging after finding the provider, URLS leaves me with no choice but to do an almost full investigation. Sadly, this reminds me of one of the biggest directories and that isn’t a compliment.
URLS feels like a directory that knows what it wants to be, even if it hasn’t fully figured out how to get there yet. The intentions are solid, provider-first, verification-focused, and clearly trying to separate itself from the clutter of content-forward platforms but execution still matters. Right now, URLS asks a lot from clients in terms of independent vetting while giving very little to work with upfront, and that imbalance is hard to ignore in a space where trust is everything. That doesn’t mean it’s a lost cause; it just means it’s still early. If the platform tightens up transparency and gives clients better tools to do their due diligence, it could absolutely grow into something worth bookmarking. URLS won't be my go to platform, however, it sits firmly in the “watch and wait” category. The directory is promising, but not quite ready to earn full confidence.
URLS found me on BlueSky. They liked some things I said on there, which had me go to their profile and take a look at what kind of platform they were. Obvious to everyone, the platform is an escort directory. Clicking on their link, I was taken to a directory not unlike what we’ve seen today. I was met with the URLS banner at the top, with a giant picture of a woman in a suite alongside “Empowering Independent Escorts” in bold. The highlight of the entire directory right there for everyone to see, and it gave me some gratification that this wasn’t just any other site. You could tell that a lot of the power is in the providers’ hands and they’re just using the platform for its intended use, unlike other platforms that have profiles made with intentions of showcasing OnlyFans, among others.
The directory is based in the United Kingdom. Like the other more independent escort platforms, it leans toward giving providers all the power they need to be professional and advertise in a like-minded community. So far, while on the site, I can see where their intentions are, but it isn’t pulling me in as much as others do. I’m not basing this off the providers themselves, but more on the look. It seems very copy-and-paste, not really giving it the originality you would want it to have, though this is just my opinion. The profiles aren’t too different from what we’ve seen, offering all the usual information like name, city, contact information, and most importantly, socials. Again, it doesn’t need to look fancy only give the information we need as clients and URLS does just that.
In the middle of the website, you’ll find everything the directory promises: verified profiles vetted by the site to ensure who you’re talking to is just that who you’re talking to; trusted photos of the provider you’ll eventually be booking; and real reviews from real clients.
The look of the site doesn’t really matter as much as what it delivers, so I decided to give it the same test I gave Velvet22. I picked five random providers from five random cities to see if their profiles were real and if their intentions were truly for escorting and nothing else. The five cities were New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. Out of the five providers, there were only two I would feel safe contacting, while the other three felt pretty suspicious. It wasn’t the lack of social media or information in general, because like any other client, I go beyond that with my own research. It was the fact that there was no information I could use to do my own research. Where other small platforms lead me to do a little additional digging after finding the provider, URLS leaves me with no choice but to do an almost full investigation. Sadly, this reminds me of one of the biggest directories and that isn’t a compliment.
URLS feels like a directory that knows what it wants to be, even if it hasn’t fully figured out how to get there yet. The intentions are solid, provider-first, verification-focused, and clearly trying to separate itself from the clutter of content-forward platforms but execution still matters. Right now, URLS asks a lot from clients in terms of independent vetting while giving very little to work with upfront, and that imbalance is hard to ignore in a space where trust is everything. That doesn’t mean it’s a lost cause; it just means it’s still early. If the platform tightens up transparency and gives clients better tools to do their due diligence, it could absolutely grow into something worth bookmarking. URLS won't be my go to platform, however, it sits firmly in the “watch and wait” category. The directory is promising, but not quite ready to earn full confidence.
