Initially responding to BigPapaSan about consolidation but to many others about getting better data into the Profiles.
I have proposed, and want to do so again, that TER add a "hidden" field for so-called expired URLs. A lot of the URLs remain active but the girls move on to another local house or another city. When that happens, TER usually removes the URL and it becomes difficult or impossible to prove to them that Coco in OC is the same girl as Coco now in LA. Sometimes, you can remember or find the expired URL if it's just a name (www.FavoriteAMP.com/Models/Coco) but that's becoming more difficult with random URLs (www.FavoriteAMP.com/Models/#563!241 = Coco's pictures). When TER Admin update a Profile and remove or replace a URL, they should cut-and-paste or otherwise archive it in a non-displaying data field for those URLs. That way, when someone reports that the two Coco's are the same, TER can look in the old "hidden URLs" list and do a quick comparison to confirm the problem report. For TER, it's easier than archiving pictures (which has also been suggested). My other question / suggestion is what happens with conflicting information on new Reviews that do not immediately change the Profile (based on the first Reviewer). I want to believe that TER keeps the entire Review form data and, if someone reports a problem, check to see what others have reported since the most recent Profile update. If the first profile said "shaved" and the next 6 reviewers report "natural" that won't change the Profile. But if someone asks for the change and TER can scan that field on the more recently submitted reviews, that could confirm the report and save a lot of wasted time or back and forth email to TER trying to prove your point. So I tell Newbies to fill out the form as they saw things and not worry about effecting immediate change. The cumulative info should support any changes to be madeI just notice the better pictures posted today on CV of certain K-Girls in O.C. Especially Nancy and Winnie, both of whom have been in OC for a few weeks. I hope this is a new trend; I'm tired of the cloned pics of Rita, Darby, previous Winnie, Cami, Tina, and a few others.
a welcomed trend. I felt the same way. Before, it looked to me like one set of photos was tweaked to represent many different girls. I have seen and reviewed Winnie, and I agree the new photos are a better representation of her true appearance.
For some reason I have a problem with the photos where a stock face picture is pasted onto the head. I don't get angry but I just feel somewhat revulsed (which is weird, not sure what is happening in my mind) then quickly click away from the post/ad. The few times I see real faces - Cola, Sally, Bobo are some I recall - it is refreshing and helps to bring some nice memories!
Many times there is one photo in the ad that looks a little different from the others, and is often a more realistic representation of her face. Its because its harder to photoshop the face at certain angles.
I know what you mean about needing to look away from some of them who are downright creepy-looking.
I can verify that Nancy's pics are accurate. I saw her tonight. She is really thin and 5'6" without heels, super cute face and smile. Her hair was tinted in those pics. It is still long and full and black now.
I don't want to be shilling or to read other shills, but perhaps the Kgirl fans would care to comment here from time to time on the accuracy of photos on girls they have seen that seem to be heavily photoshopped in the ads. Many here seem to value looks over service (I am the other way), so it might be of help to those that are considering seeing a girl to know how close the photos are, but not to recommend the girl (they can read your review for service info), just to provide factual info about looks. Just a suggestion on how to counter the heavy photoshopping a little. What do the rest of you think?
I am up for that. Hopefully it won't turn into a shilling fest.
That was my one concern, that the pimps here abuse the idea by promoting their kgirls. Haven't thought of a way to get past that. Perhaps a gentlemen's understanding that outright recommendations will be completely ignored by everyone and that we would only consider seeing a girl where factual info about the reliability of the photos is all that is provided.
-- Modified on 3/23/2016 2:00:06 PM
Yes, just like reviews, we will need to rely on our own perspicacity to distinguish between the promotional posts and the factual ones. Can always PM once we know who the fact posters are, though that is less convenient.
...since I don't hobby much, but when I do, I need to land both looks and service. Reviews stating that the provider is incredibly hot does little since beauty is too subjective. Besides, who would be disappointed if the provider ends up looking like the actual picture? The problem is that they often don't but the pixs are the only objective intell. So describing physical appearance relative to the advertised photos are really helpful, i.e., waist bigger and legs shorter than pixs
Just trying to understand exactly what the idea is here. Add such comments in the juicy details or is to to post a thread here in the K-girl forum -- something of a mini review on the images?
Seems it would be appropriate for the forum however I suspect it will ultimately be of less value than some might hope for.
An alternative might be just PMs to those that are interested. Doing this in more of a back channel way has some other advantages as well.
It all goes back to having only the first reviewer's checkbox information show up on all the reviews. They need to change that. In meantime if the reviewer just lets everyone know if the pics are generally accurate in the "General" part of the review should be sufficient enough. It's pretty much an objective statement. The more the reviews, the better (as always); as you can see what the general consensus is. By the way, I noticed K-Girl Ruby was only here in O.C. barely one week (and the pics were her's). She was awesome; she is in San Diego right now. I noticed I was the only one to submit a review while she was here. I am hoping she comes back.
reviews being "objective" at all, regardless of the section. For instance, you say Ruby was "awesome" but gave her a 7 for performance in your review, and even went to the trouble of finding out she is in San Diego now. For me, "awesome" is a 9. If I gave her a 7 I wouldn't even care where she was next because I probably wouldn't be seeing her again. There are many more girls out there who are 8's, 9's, and 10's in SoCal.
Saying whether the ad photos are accurate or not is an objective observation for most people, because its a simple comparison, while review content is a completely subjective experience between a unique hobbyist and a unique provider and is subject to all kinds of emotions stemming from the connection (or not) which may affect the tenor of the narrative and the final score. With that said, if we all agree to put in the general section whether the photos are accurate or not before getting into our subjective evaluation of the experience, keeping the two separate, that may suffice for now to allow other hobbyists to know if they will be getting what they are seeing in the ad.
That is what I meant as far as just comparing pics to their actual looks being objective and performance subjective, as we all have our own unique expectations of what occurs in the bedroom. I think saying whether the pics are close to reality is objective. As for Ruby I meant to give 8 for performance, not 7, just based on preferences. Her attitude and personality were 10.
-- Modified on 3/24/2016 5:03:38 AM
Aren't attitude and personality part of the performance score for you? Not judging, just trying to clarify so I know how to read and weigh your reviews since you are also an OC guy and see many of the same girls as me.
Absent clarification, which I hope you provide, I would guess that if her attitude and personality were a 10, but the final score was a 7, then she may not have any provider skills at all to please a man with.
With regard to my observations about Nancy's pics: I was just looking at all of Nancy's pics and think only that two of them are her's (the pics of the girl wearing the pink bikini) based on her facial structure and her boobs). The other pics of the girl with the black bikini I don't think are her. If you examine the face closely you might agree they are two different girls. Maybe we should hire a forensic photographer to go over all of these pics. LOL.
about your scoring of Ruby, slightly off point, but a good question nevertheless. That is what I was seeking clarification on. Please reread and respond. I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Yes, I don't know I scored Ruby 7 on performance. I should have put 8 or 9 based on the whole experience. But she is gone now, we'll see if she comes back. Hey, if you try Annie out, post a review. There is only one review, and I want to see at least one or two more to get an better idea of this new K-Girl. Carpe Diem.
Thanks. Perhaps you should see if TER admin will let you correct the score if you think it is incorrect. Might be inadvertently hurting her business, since it was the only review up. TER will also likely consolidate the first SD review with yours regardless of the different working names.
...have to be proactive and report providers who have two profiles under different names but are actually the same girl.
Yes, as you say, they have to be reported by a reviewer in order to be consolidated. Have done a few myself on Kgirls I have seen in more than one city.
Initially responding to BigPapaSan about consolidation but to many others about getting better data into the Profiles.
I have proposed, and want to do so again, that TER add a "hidden" field for so-called expired URLs. A lot of the URLs remain active but the girls move on to another local house or another city. When that happens, TER usually removes the URL and it becomes difficult or impossible to prove to them that Coco in OC is the same girl as Coco now in LA. Sometimes, you can remember or find the expired URL if it's just a name (www.FavoriteAMP.com/Models/Coco) but that's becoming more difficult with random URLs (www.FavoriteAMP.com/Models/#563!241 = Coco's pictures).
When TER Admin update a Profile and remove or replace a URL, they should cut-and-paste or otherwise archive it in a non-displaying data field for those URLs. That way, when someone reports that the two Coco's are the same, TER can look in the old "hidden URLs" list and do a quick comparison to confirm the problem report. For TER, it's easier than archiving pictures (which has also been suggested).
My other question / suggestion is what happens with conflicting information on new Reviews that do not immediately change the Profile (based on the first Reviewer). I want to believe that TER keeps the entire Review form data and, if someone reports a problem, check to see what others have reported since the most recent Profile update. If the first profile said "shaved" and the next 6 reviewers report "natural" that won't change the Profile. But if someone asks for the change and TER can scan that field on the more recently submitted reviews, that could confirm the report and save a lot of wasted time or back and forth email to TER trying to prove your point. So I tell Newbies to fill out the form as they saw things and not worry about effecting immediate change. The cumulative info should support any changes to be made
...consolidate two profiles for the same girl. But it's also in TER's interest to have as many profiles as possible. So there's that.
FYI. Winnie is a provider in OC, her pics are the same as Luna's in Los Angeles.
So I am seeing the same round face with heavy mascara again on the new Ashley profile posted for the O.C. Looks like the same face on Tina/Rita/Callie/Darby. Also the pics of Irin in O.C., a new posted provider, do not match the provider's review submitted by one who took one for the team. Guess someone has to be the first one to find out.