I would have to say I agreed with admin that delisting a provider who posts their own reviews.  If someone is capable of that, they pose hightly potiential threat to the clients.
As for #2, that should be a call left to the provider.  Think is review is questionable, they should be able to have it pulled and be left on the review boards.  BUT... lately, and particularly in Chicago, many providers have had their profiles pulled because of their own security and without question, this should be permitted.  Bottom line here is that they are trying to protect themselves, clients have to accept this.

It's happened many times - high profile providers usually post
a message on the boards when this happens.  The thing is, TER
weighs the provider's case against the reviewer's case and
sometimes the reviewer wins - even if in reality the review was
false.

As for your first point, I totally agree with TER.  One reason
is just to be practical.  If TER were to let these provider's
back into the fold they would have to be monitored for false
reviews.  Why take up TER resources to monitor the bad apples
when those resources can be used for something else?

Also, this has been discussed in depth before on many a TER
board.  Search the LA and NY boards for instance.



-- Modified on 12/6/2004 7:32:06 AM

I agree with jet, although a good point was made about monitoring, it could take up some of ter’s recourses but they could send a welcome aboard email to providers that have listed email. The email could explain just what ter is and it’s policies and the positive benefits. I don't agree that every provider that submitts a review is a "bad apple" that poses a risk to her clients though.

Also what prevents a provider from using another name anyway.