Resubmitted it. Thanks
My last review was turned down because it was Inconsistent. Could someone tell me what that means?
Not sure if it helps but....
MY REVIEW WAS REJECTED FOR BEING INCONSISTENT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
This occurs when the reviewer pens a great review, yet gives the provider low performance ratings or vice versa. Also, if a well known provider who continually gets glowing reviews and high performance points is suddenly at an all time low, our suspicions as to the veracity of this review are aroused. We also use this term if the review states facts that other members have contradicted. The burden of proof is on the member who wrote the review.
I actually gave her a 9 on looks and 9 performance. I actually thought about telling the wife I wouldn't be coming home after that day(hee hee). Didn't write anything out the ordinary, maybe LFK to DFK. Not into that anyway. Standard stuff.
And should be weighed subjectively. It is TER's position to modify ratings based on criteria as outlined in the policies, yet when rejecting due to inconsistencies it withholds possibly important information such as a trend or change of character in this provider.
If another review was posted stipulating the same condition as a previously rejected due to inconsistency, would that also be rejected therefore limiting those who make decisions based on their ability to interpret what was said as a truth, or lie, and a piece of literacy fiction (15. We consider all reviews to be fictional stories that are posted by TER solely for entertainment purposes. )?
I can understand if the reviewer has shown a history of writing extraordinary examples of fiction or possibly it being the first review, but in this case I think it should be reconsidered, modified to the extent TER deems fit to adjust ratings, and allow the reviewers voice to be heard.
Just my opinion.
Resubmitted it. Thanks
How do you prove that a provider, well reviewed, gave you an average or less session?
Case in point. I visited a provider with good reviews and had an average session. I didn't review her that way but I didn't review her as high as most guys. I thought it was me but since, I've seen and reviewed other ladies and a couple of I haven't reviewed. It wasn't me, just a lackluster performance on her part. We didn't click, that's ok, but if I had that kind of performance now I would rate her at average and it probably wouldn't get posted. No one would believe it.
Also, I believe some guys review higher so they can come back for some more of the ladies particular services. My review didn't past muster with her, so I've been snubbed, in spite of the fact she said she didn't read the reviews and she got a gift and a tip.
I would assume by building a reputation for fair and accurate reporting. Again, this is subjective. It is still your opinion, your point of likes and dislikes over others.
There is nothing wrong with someone’s view that shows less of a rating over another (or vice versa). Mine might tend to a give higher rating for looks for one type over then next girl, be it race, color of hair, eyes, et. et. (I Love Asians).
The content of the review - in my opinion, fairness in the language or choice or words is more critical in cause for rejection. This is subjective too, not easy to evaluate. And from the TER perspective, totally at the discretion of the individual charged with accepting or rejecting our reviews.
But, if a review was showing a significant shift in the rating, and the reviewer went on a rant about this session, rather then giving a fair reporting by limiting words that would incite most to riot or start a flame war, I believe TER would be responsible enough to accept.
This has verifiable proof, go search providers reviews in the rating level or a 9 and 10. There you will see many who while consistently getting high marks there is always one that lets us know she was having a bad day or possibly a case of YMMV..
You have to keep your mind open along with your eyes when reading the reviews posted, try reading between the lines, then make the best guess if this is someone you want to see or not.
It will always remain a gamble, which you are willing to take or not, and subjective to your likes and dislikes mixing with the providers.
But in her case, she might be having a bad day or worse, forgot to tell you she doesn't see this or that and you obliviously get bad treatment, go back and write a scathing review beating her up with words - only to find it reject later. Was it inconsistent - yes - but that was the freaking point you wanted to express - could you have put less emotion and more objective and fair language - probably.
I am not who I say I am, or do what I say I do, I am a piece of literary fiction, not artful, not inspiring, not funny, not informative, I am a review. I might entertain some, but not all, do and don't judge me on my content and literary skills (or lack there of) I am nothing more then a review, please accept me.
My review was in line with everyone else. Someone just gave her a 10. Never been big on writing reviews, I am from the old school you never kiss and tell. I know it does not apply here but it has to be better way to get these things approved.
RCP.. I wrote back on your previous post.. of course, you and no one from TER ever answers..
but this is absurd.. "The burden of proof is on the member who wrote the review. " HOW can this rule be any more illogicai? Unless someone from TER is sitting in the room observing what's going on, the only 2 people who know what happened or how good or bad a time anyone had is only them..
If a guy posts a bad review based on HIM having a bad time himself, how is his review any less valid than the one who had the best time ever? Just because a provider reviews generally high doesn't mean she didn't have a bad day or simply didn't like the guy.. Maybe he smelled funny.. Maybe he ate a garlic/onion/limberger cheese sandwich an hour earlier and she was grossed out and didn't want to kiss him.. WHO KNOWS..??? Not me, not you and no one from TER knows..
So, using the rule of complacency to decide a review is absurd and probably worse.. The rule says conform to other reviews or get your review denied.. So, that says.. if you had a shitty time, lie if you want your review accepted.
I have no idea how this policy helps anyone.
--JB
I've written the same stuff as you just did so often that I now have "keyboard tendinitus". KT is different from KTS only in ANGER. Seems these "guys" in California never get out of their "ivory tower". Certainly they turn off anything we have to say (they have done it so often). RCP's job is to just state "policy". He has little latitude to spout his REAL opinions here, and keep his "job" (volunteer as it is). Frankly, the world has too many other problems for me to continue to get angry about this nonsense. We're stuck with doing the best we can under limiting circumstances (irrespective of the validity of those limits and policies). But keep on spouting out all that venim. I luv hearing somebody ELSE doin' it besides ME.
The review went thru after some modification. I look at some reviews and they are so simple and bland and wonder how they made it thru. Not mad just a learning experiences.