TER has a rule that a provider must have 20 reviews to be in the top 100 List.  A provider with 20 to 30 reviews can has a higher ranking and can be in front of those gals who have 60 to 70 (10/10) reviews because they have a few old 9-9 reviews.   I think to be fair to all; we should suggest that TER change that rule to 50 reviews.  For example:  Jewels Star has 76 reviews and 62 of them are all 10-10.  Also Hollie of Miami has 97 reviews and 62 of them are all 10-10 reviews.  It does not seem fair that well-reviewed gals with all those 10-10 reviews should be below the well-reviewed gals who have only 20 to 30 reviews which are all 10-10 reviews.  There are many more examples of well reviewed gals with many 10-10 reviews for you look at: Dolly Jewel, Caramel Dime, Halle Moor, Kendra Simone, Victoria Westwood, Kelly Johansson, etc.  I have nothing against those gals who have great reviews with much lower numbers, we love them all.  But mathematically it is much harder to move up the rankings if you have 60-70 (10-10) reviews than if you have only 20 to 30 (10-10) reviews.  I think that TER should change that rule to 50 reviews to make it much fairer for all, and a more level playing field.  Just curious what you all think.  Happy Holidays to all in this wonderful business.

I've been thinking on this very topic for some months, and would like to propose an alternate solution:

First, it's important to keep in mind that some ladies actively pursue reviews, or have a style that tends to attract the reviewing type, or else are high volume enough to simply pull in enough reviews purely based on the numbers....and some don't. 20 reviews is a reasonable amount to develop a real understanding of whether a lady is consistent, or not, and where that level might be at. It also provides enough input from a wide enough range of gentlemen (at least 20) to confirm an average appraisal of her looks is not too heavily influenced by someone who might have drastically different tastes from the norm. Allow me to suggest an alternative approach that levels the playing field all around, while not limiting the rankings to the very small handful of ladies who either only come from a certain style, or else have been around for a decade.

I would propose that TER create each lady's averages (used both as a search tool and in rankings) from the past either 20 reviews, OR past 2 years, whichever is longer. For example, if a lady's past 20 reviews are over a period of 4 years, then she falls under the qualification of those most recent 20 reviews. If a lady has 60 reviews in 2 years, then all 60 reviews play into her average. This provides a number of benefits:

1) While it's true that a lot can happen in 2 years, quite a bit more change can occur over 5, 7, or even 10. Ladies gain and lose weight (or otherwise just get surgery), improve in maturity and skills, ripen or begin to rot, clean up or start a drug cycle, sometimes go crazy, change their style, MO, or target audience, etc, etc. All of this can have a huge influence on her reviews, and it does not benefit either the gentlemen or the companion to see an average that is reflective of anything but where she is-and what she is capable of-now. Including who she was half a decade ago will often inflate or deflate her review averages, thus distorting a reference designed to help clarify matters for gentlemen.

2) Ladies often tend to gather steam on the review front early on in their career, and then review frequency will often drop off. Part of this may be due to seeing the same gentlemen repeatedly, and also because many men have expressed a lack of interest in "repeating what's already been stated" when discussing established women with many consistent reviews. Keeping the 20 review minimum for ladies who have accumulated less than 20 reviews in 2 years means the visible market/rankings are not dominated by the newer ladies (the very problem you are taking issue with now, thunder), and also ensures that ladies who are slow to receive reviews are still represented accurately by considering a span of 20 reviews, and not simply the 12 (or whatever number) they achieved over the past 2 years.

3) If an outlying review (good or bad, but we certainly hear the most about bad reviews) pops up, it's also going to shake out of her averages in 2 years, or after the 20 review mark for slow review receivers. Perhaps most importantly, I believe this may reduce some of the wailing and drama that we've all seen/heard with a bad review, because it gives the opportunity for a lady to genuinely move past an outlier, or a vindictive review. It might also encourage her to participate more in the review process (ie-being more reviewer/review friendly) to dilute the impact of that review over the 2 year or 20 review span. On the flip side, it means that positive outliers-sometimes written by a quirky reviewer, sometimes "encouraged" by the lady, or even paid for by the lady-only have a limited breadth of impact, which may (and I emphasize MAY) reduce the motivation in the case of false positive reviews. Another way of putting it, maintaining the risk while reducing the reward may discourage certain behaviors.

4) Lastly, and perhaps most troublesome to discuss, is the shift in scores post rankings. I think we can all agree this has had an effect, and regardless of whether you look at/care about rankings (some do, some don't), it does appear to have had an effect on individual scoring, ie-the review process of the individual reviewer. Creating a time minimum puts all ladies who came before and after that change on an even playing field, and additionally minimizes the effects of any other trends on a lady's reviews. Any reader may or may not feel that the present review approach is fair/accurate, and may feel that past approach(s) were more or less fair, but I think we can all agree that a review system becomes far less useful/accurate if a lady's valuation is based even in part on when she popped into the system and what reviewing trends she's been through, rather than basing her valuation in whole on her qualities as a companion.

As a last addendum, I would suggest that TER provide a showcase ranking and average score in profile only for those ladies who provide the following additional qualities. **Please note that like above, I am only referring to a lady's public ranking, and her on profile average score, and searchability through such. I am not recommending that TER remove such individuals' profiles entirely, or make them unsearchable though any other means save average scores.**

1) A continued presence on their profile via a live link to a site or ad. I've seen a number of ladies who have kept their profiles up for one reason or another (perhaps a hiatus, or I've heard that sometimes that it can be overly difficult to get voluntarily delisted). I cannot imagine the frustration a gentleman might experience when searching via average scores (with or without other search qualifiers) and receiving a list of potential ladies, and THEN having to go through and see who is even still active.

2) At least 1 review every 2 years. Fitting in with my suggestions above, this means that a lady's review average has at minimum something recent to suggest their average is actually valid. Obviously, if she is receiving reviews so minimally, then even that one review will play a major role in an average of 20 reviews. This means that if her performance or appearance has dramatically changed in the last 2 years, a single review over an average of 20 will reflect this heavily enough to make a noticeable dent (whereas it won't reflect much of anything in a pool of 60 reviews accumulated of the span of a companions' career). Ladies who have not received any reviews over 2 or more years often aren't active, or are avoiding reviews.

Again, all of this applies to personal/profile review averages, rankings, and searchability through either only. I am not suggesting that we remove certain ladies from the system entirely, or make the entirely unsearchable. A profile with only 5 reviews posted 7 years ago can still be valuable if the lady in question was a ripoff, and phone number search pulls up a string of names connecting the ad you're eying now to that old ripoff profile, and several others. I am merely suggesting that we tweak one area of the system that's been a long point of discussion in a way that benefits the gentlemen, and balances things out for the ladies.

The gaming of the review system by providers has made the Top 100 a joke. Some of these providers wish they were a 10 in looks.

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Agreed but maybe keep two lists -- one for last 5 years (equivalent to recent Hall of Fame) and one for last 2 years (Hot 100). No reviews for 6 months? Off the list. Get a new review? Eligible with all reviews from last 2/5 years.

I like that the lists recognize excellence and service even if you have to take them with x-grains of salt.

-- Modified on 12/11/2013 1:35:01 PM

Love your ideas Eve. I'd only suggest that a lady should have at least one or two reviews per YEAR to still be considered active. One review in two years (despite how much that review will affect her) is not enough.  

Kiss me,

Kate

It has not only created rifts between hobbyists and providers, it has created them between providers themselves. Since the implimentation of the lists, the 10/10's have soared as well as the grade inflation below the 10/10's. The reviews are less credible and the #'s are almost useless these days.

I couldn't have said it better! Take your pick of how corrupt the review system has gotten. We have folks bartering, ladies outside of listed regions lying saying they live in a listed region just so they can be listed in the top 10. How frustrated you gents must get contacting a provider thinking she is in MSP, Mn only to discover she is actually in Bismarck ND? Then there's the vengeful blacklist reports, retired ladies keeping their profiles up "just in case" fake reviews to earn VIP giving scores of 9+ assuming the provider won't fight it because he gave her such an awesome score & oh yes the back biting among ladies themselves. UFFDA!

I doubt this suggestion will become a reality & I will say if the top 10 continues to be in existence the suggestion of increasing the qualifying number to 50 is reasonable. It is way too easy to be on your "A" game & accumulate 20 reviews in a short period of time & scammers know this. Now 50 may be a tad tougher. We should all have to work to earn such an honorable position. I would also add if a lady receives no reviews in a 12 month period she should be bumped out.

The #1 Provider in LA has 25 reviews, and she has been on extended vacation for MONTHS! In my mind that is simply a manufactured 'review moratorium' to protect her position.  

  I near lost the hearing in my right ear about a year ago when a provider called me SCREAMING about the score I gave her and how it would lower her goddamn published score aggregate.  

I'm confident I'm not alone in the above experience.
Savvy providers are "Re-branding" themselves, planting, coercing, cherry-picking, and regularly petitioning for the removal of any review scoring less than desired.

  TER used to require 2 or more complete sentences in the "General Details" and 4 or more complete sentences in the "juicy Details". Currently one does not have too search long to find a 10/10 review consisting of 3 sentences TOTAL!  How can a "Once in a lifetime experience" be vindicated in 3 or 4 sentences?

 20 reviews is WAY too easy for a provider to manipulate too her profit, and it unfairly handicaps HONEST providers who have been with us for YEARS.  

Twenty five reviews total, Twenty five 10/10s, and a $1000/h donation!  
How big of a pile of shit must it be for TER to smell it?
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?ID=186048

...no attention to it in terms of deciding who to see. I'm attracted by pics, posts and I do back channel. I'd be ok if they did away with it. It seems to me many people go overboard with it. However, it's only natural do want to be at the top of whatever evaluation system exists. The shady methods sometimes used to achieve it are the problem.

a companion's present state. As I mentioned in my counter suggestion, I believe TER should consider making a companion's last 20 reviews, or last 2 years worth of reviews (if greater than 20) the only reviews relevant in her personal averages. Regardless of whether the Top 100 stays or is abolished, ensuring that a companion's personal average reflects where she is now, and not where she is now and where she's been over the entire duration of her career (3, 5, 15 years, or more), provides the patron with a much clearer idea and quick reference on what to expect. This benefits the potential patron, and is something every man should be behind.

Furthermore, requiring a lady to stay updated with her reviews (I suggested a minimum of 1 every 2 years, but others have suggested 1, or more, a year, which also has merit), or else lose her personal averages visibility (meaning she would neither be eligible for ranking in the Top 100, or be searchable through average scores) ensures a lady can not abuse the system and just hold her average to her benefit (while possibly providing sub-par experiences)

Indeed, the system may be ripe with abuse, but that does not mean we cannot correct some of it to make it more relevant and useful for patrons.

But I guess if the list is reduced, you will make by attrition, lol.

If so, you are hired.

my most recent 20 is from the past 3 years, not the past two, and that the very worst review I've ever received might make a pretty significant dent in my high score if it were included in a pool of 20, rather than a pool of nearly 40? Let's add to that that not every score of mine over the past 20 is a 10/10, and that includes post Top 100 rankings. I've never done the math, but my guess is that I have a pretty significant chance of going down, not up, and given that I tend to wind up with a review less than once every six months, it's highly likely that if my scores were knocked down, they would stay there for quite a while. Personally, I haven't done the math, and I doubt you have either.

If we remove dishonest behaviors, let me clue you in on where genuine reviews DO come from:
1) Appearance
2) Performance
These we know, these are the given. Here's the kicker, and what cannot be underestimated:
3) Target Audience
This is the degree of alignment the patron fits with the companion's style, and, if she's crafted her website and ads for a target audience, how closely he fits in that category. This one can make a 7 a 10, and a 10 a 7. This is also why a man should pay closest attention to the style of the men who review a lady with the highest marks. The quality of your experience with her is largely predictable by the quality of experience a like minded man/men have with her.

I knew from the start what my ideal style of companionship was, and I also was willing to work up to it. A few years ago, I dropped the single hour option entirely from first dates. This resulted in a shift in both the my scores, and the quality of the reviews themselves. I was seeing a different group of people, with different preferences and ideals of companionship that were closer in line with what I wanted to provide and experience in this lifestyle. Later, permanently knocking single hour dates off the table for anyone, regardless of how well we know each other, created an additional subtle shift in both the review style and the type of gentleman who came knocking at my virtual door. Going further and requesting that first dates begin with cocktails has ultimately pushed me all but entirely off the review map-very, very rarely do I come across a gentleman in person who reviews on TER. Many are passive researchers, and several more have never used TER at all (which I've had to yell at them for, so that don't land their cute little butts in hot water )

Are people who travel nationally and internationally more likely to rate you higher than a person who sees you for an hour (or less) and has a relatively 2 dimensional interaction with you? Probably. However, is that rating going to settled on in large part based on her mental/emotional/worldly capacity to be an interesting and worthwhile traveling companion, particularly in the intricate balance that is paid companionship? You bet your ass.

I never excelled at the 1 hour encounters, or 2 hour first dates or "one offs" of any sort. I most prefer the longer engagements-the dinners, clockfrees, and travel experiences-with long term friends, and I am very, very good in this arena.

A quick note on appearance and performance-you choose to operate under an alias, but if I had to guess, based on your negative remarks about a woman's aging process (particularly given that the person you've replied to is a mere 32), that you probably like 'em young. That's YOUR target group, and that's A-OK. However, I would caution you from assuming you speak for the group. A woman's image can certainly improve with age, but most important her presence can improve remarkably as she gains worldliness and maturity, and I assure you that presence plays an immense role in how a gentleman views a lady's appearance, and how deeply he is swayed by it. Regarding performance, if you are convinced that what a lady can bring to the table is that simple and mechanical, then I assure you that you are missing out on (or are just blind to) the great breadth of experiences available in this little subculture.

Finally, to touch on your pointed inquiry as to whether or not I influence my reviews, of all of the reviews I've ever received in the past 20/3 years, I've actively requested only 3, and every review I've ever received has only received 2 directives-keep my personal information/location/life out of it, and keep it honest. If you were to contact any of those reviewers, rather than making assumptions and ignorantly crying foul on the board, you would already know this.

You did a great job in removing all doubt. Can we pick up this conversation of the provider only board? Go ahead, you first. Lay out the welcome doormat for me.

I don't wish too be redundant; but the current manipulations have gotten so obvious I'm surprised it isn't proving counterproductive for those employing them.

 A recent contender in the LA market has TWO reviews (Oct & Nov 2013); both are 10/10s, and both of the reviewers have given many 10/10s in their review histories. She commands a $1200/90mn minimum, and one of her reviewers even shilled for her on her recent advertisement.

  Is there a University turning out courtesans with PHD's in Beauty and Man pleasing?  
Once upon a time you could chart a provider’s learning curve and ascension. Where and how did the aforementioned provider become so 'perfect' at her craft? Or could it be she closed down her prior franchise and has now "Re-branded" making full use of the knowledge and friendships acquired in the last?  

  What happens when there is more than 10 providers in LA with 20-25 total reviews, and they're all perfect scores?  


-- Modified on 12/15/2013 10:48:34 AM