I read your post (OP) this morning a little before 7 a.m. EST. I responded and posted about 6 minutes after 7 a.m. EST. The figures I gave in my reply came from what I saw. They were there. They were on the top of her profile too. When I read your reply about 8:40 a.m. that they were not there I checked and indeed they were not. I was bumfuzzled to say the least. I got off of my kindle and came to my desktop (had to turn it on) so I could do things faster and low and behold the numbers had returned. It's now 8:49 a.m. EST where I am.
This has come up before. It has to do with the update cycle of TER. I think. When a new review is posted the resulting averages, stars, etc won't update immediately. It will happen at the "update" time whatever that is for TER. I can only assume that this has something to do with why the numbers were there when I first checked but later were not. It's curious that her numbers were the same when they reappeared as they had been before. I just checked again and they are still there. Generally when some providers have numbers etc. while others don't you can assume it's due to the update cycle of TER. There is a post on one of the boards from a year or so back that explains this better (GD board maybe). But from time to time you will notice a provider has reviews but the numbers are not showing or are not complete and the update time is the reason. Some provider could get a new review posted today but the averages etc. won't show up accurately until sometime tomorrow morningLooking at the New Reviews page for Minnesota today, there are a couple women who have numerical ratings shown in the list after only one review. Another woman has four reviews, yet no numerical rating is shown. It's a very common pattern. When I browse that list the ratings are a big part of deciding whether to open her Profile and look at some reviews. Anyone know why this is so inconsistent?
It does seem inconsistent to me as well but to answer your question, minn4evr, I believe it has to do with menu offerings and services offered.
A "body rub/HJ" lady can never get a "10" unless she's offering FS, BBBJ, etc., etc.
I don't know what the exact requirements are but I'm sure one of the technological geniuses here will let you know by attaching TER's link or some crap like that that is above my level of "interest" lol.
I learned long ago that some higher rated ladies are not all that and some lower rated ones have been a diamond in the rough...just a matter of YMMV as always.
Actually, this seems to happen less for MN than other areas. Try looking at new reviews for All Cities and see what you get.
...any provider with less than 5 reviews has no "star" rating and no composite (if that's the right word) rating followed by ratings in parentheses. Those with one review have their scores for that review showing. Those with 2 to 4 reviews have an average of the appearance score and an average of the performance score showing. Providers with 5 or more reviews have a "star" rating as well as a composite score which is the average of their appearance average and performance average. The composite is shown immediately following the word Rating which is followed by the appearance average/performance average in parentheses. Ex: Lexi (first provider listed has 93 reviews) has 3 ¹/² stars a Rating of 7.2 and (7.8/6.7).
The first provider with only 1 review is Red. She has no stars and the scores on her 1 review are 7/6.
Angel (5th provider down) has 4 reviews. She has no stars, no Rating, and her appearance average for her 4 reviews is 6.5. Her average for performance is also 6.5. This is shown without parentheses.
Providers need a minimum of 5 reviews to have a single number rating and star rating.
-- Modified on 2/26/2015 7:27:02 AM
You say "Angel (5th provider down) has 4 reviews. She has no stars, no Rating, and her appearance average for her 4 reviews is 6.5. Her average for performance is also 6.5. This is shown without parentheses.' I do not see appearance or performance averages when I look at Angel, in parentheses or not. That was the focus of my question. Are you saying that those scores for Angel are visible to you in the list? My question is, Why not? I am viewing the new (not classic) TER format, using the most current edition of Firefox, and those average scores are not visible for Angel.
I read your post (OP) this morning a little before 7 a.m. EST. I responded and posted about 6 minutes after 7 a.m. EST. The figures I gave in my reply came from what I saw. They were there. They were on the top of her profile too. When I read your reply about 8:40 a.m. that they were not there I checked and indeed they were not. I was bumfuzzled to say the least. I got off of my kindle and came to my desktop (had to turn it on) so I could do things faster and low and behold the numbers had returned. It's now 8:49 a.m. EST where I am.
This has come up before. It has to do with the update cycle of TER. I think. When a new review is posted the resulting averages, stars, etc won't update immediately. It will happen at the "update" time whatever that is for TER. I can only assume that this has something to do with why the numbers were there when I first checked but later were not. It's curious that her numbers were the same when they reappeared as they had been before. I just checked again and they are still there.
Generally when some providers have numbers etc. while others don't you can assume it's due to the update cycle of TER. There is a post on one of the boards from a year or so back that explains this better (GD board maybe). But from time to time you will notice a provider has reviews but the numbers are not showing or are not complete and the update time is the reason. Some provider could get a new review posted today but the averages etc. won't show up accurately until sometime tomorrow morning
Thanks, I think you are probably correct. Angel's scores are now visible to me, as well. Odd, though, that they apparently appeared and disappeared repeatedly. Absent on the 25th, present on the 26th, then gone again, now back. All with no apparent change in the numbers reported.
Technology is wonderful.
Any thoughts, Admin?