I always thought that requiring that a provider engage in what is primarily unsafe sex in order to get a high rating was absurd. If a provider practiced safe sex but still was extraordinary in the sack then she shouldn't have a rating limited to a 7. The rating should only concern performance, not the method in which the performance was done.
I've noticed that very few people actually follow the guidelines pertaining to ratings. I constantly see ladies, both pornstars and "regular" providers, who don't kiss and/or don't provide bbbj's with 8's, 9's and even some 10's.
FROM THE TER RATING GUIDELINES:
"In order to keep our performance ratings consistent, we set up the following system: An escort provider may only earn up to a 7, unless she also performs the following during a session: Kisses With Tongue, Bare-Back Blow Job, Really Bi, Anal Sex, or More than One Guy. The addition of each offering will raise her score by one point".
Personally, since I don't think most of us do a whole lot of threeways with boy/girl/girl, and even less with boy/girl/boy, I wouldn't give the "really bi" or "more than one guy" category as much weight as the others, but since the people who read this particular forum are primarily concerned with pornstars, my suggestion is to use this board for all of us to act together as a commitee to develop an agreed upon standard rating system specifically for pornstars.
Since looks are subjective, we can't really standardize that rating, but in the "performance" category, here's my thoughts, as a starting point for discussion:
A good meeting would receive a base rating of 7. This would indicate that you felt you got your money's worth and were not disappointed with any aspect of her overall performance, but without taking SPECIFIC criteria into account. In other words, the base rating is more of a rating of her attitude and demeanor. This would allow for variations in preferences... If a guy doesn't care if a girl provides DFK, BBBJ, GREEK, etc. and had what he thought was a great time, he'd give her a 7. If a guy DID care about BBBJ, etc., didn't receive them, but OTHERWISE felt she had a great attitude and was fun to be with, he'd ALSO give her a 7, relative to his experiences with other PSE's. Importantly, there would be NO deductions for NOT providing DFK, BBBJ, etc.. That way, a 7 would indicate that WITHIN A PARTICULAR LADY'S RULES, she gave 100% - a 7 would be considered a very good rating.
An 8 would indicate that the GFE aspects were met, which would be defined as BBBJ, DFK and DATY, in that order. To receive an 8, at least two of the three would be required, but any missing acronym being notated at the very beginning of the body of the review.
A 9 would cross over into the PSE range, which would indicate that GREEK was available and that she showed a certain amount of "pornstar attitude"
A 10 would be reserved for the creme de la creme, the top of the heap. It should indicate that she acts (at a minimum!), EXACTLY the same as she does in her videos, such as facials, dirty talk, (with the obvious exception of BBFS) A 10 would be reserved for the Anna Malle's, Miko Lee's, Ava Devines, Kathy Willets, etc. types. A 10 would require a degree of objectivity on the reviewer's part, but he can plead his case in the body of the review and let others judge the validity of his rating.
Any exceptions or additions would be clearly noted in the body of the review. For example, if a lady is really over the top, worthy of a 10, but doesn't do Greek, you could still give her a 10, since she obviously would rate higher than an 8, but the lack of Greek would be the first thing mentioned at the very BEGINNING of the body of the review along with any of the missing GFE components. Additions such as swallowing, spitting, Russian, Asian, etc. would also be listed then.
While it's not perfect (we'd have to learn to ignore the descriptions that are listed with the numbers - "I forot it was a servide, etc.). I think of it as a starting point, and I'm interested to hear what others ideas people have.
-- Modified on 11/21/2003 11:19:28 PM
Eddie,
How do you figure out the correct amount of point's when you put down I "don't know"?
I always thought that requiring that a provider engage in what is primarily unsafe sex in order to get a high rating was absurd. If a provider practiced safe sex but still was extraordinary in the sack then she shouldn't have a rating limited to a 7. The rating should only concern performance, not the method in which the performance was done.
I too refuse to give a provider 7 or less just because she and I don't wish to have unsafe sex. After providing 3 reviews and having them be rejected for that reason I gave up - I'm surprised that fasteddie found numerous reviews that got by the staff. But I've accepted TER's right to run things the way they wish. My priorities: looks (person who opens the door matches the pictures on the website - face, hair, and well toned body), safety/cleanliness of her incall location, promptness (doesn't cancel at the last minute or is chronically 20 minutes late), personality (friendly and fun to be around for 1 hour), service (is an escort - intercourse to my completion, not a masseuse). I don't need them to lie and stroke my ego - if I thought I could pick up women with looks in the 9, 10 range in the real world and get laid, I wouldn't be involved in this hobby.
Well that's the whole point about what I'm saying... but you have to get beyond the concept of thinking of a 1 through 10 rating with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best. In my suggestion, a 7 would replace the current 10 in regards to pure performance. The additional numbers 8 through 10 can be thought of as "modifiers", much the same as the modifiers used in the TV rating system, where the base rating suggests the age range and then letters are used to specify. SC = sexual content, AL = adult language, etc...
Since we don't have the luxury of using letters, we can use the last three numbers as modifiers... a 10 doesn't have to represent the best... just as in movie reviews, some conventions use three stars, some four and other five stars to represent the critic's highest recommendation, or even thumbs up and thumbs down. We can define the ratings any way we choose, as long as we all agree on which convention to uniformly apply.
Even if only I decided to use it, as long as I let everyone know my system, people would know that my 7 was equivilent to other's 10, and would be able to judge the rating effectively
-- Modified on 11/22/2003 1:23:15 PM
-- Modified on 11/22/2003 1:24:45 PM
Eddie,
While I agree some-what with your concept and also am a big Greek fan like you. I still think that the rating system holds up and those other items like Greek, BBBJCIM and those other items are what you say just modifiers that can be covered in the review.
Implementing your system and then trying to get reviewers educated`to it would be difficult. But I am open to your suggestions about improving things.
As I said, I threw my "system" out there as a starting point... I'm also open to suggestions. The rating system now in place really doesn't hold up, because few people follow the guidelines as written. Which, when you really come down to it, is the weakness of ANY rating convention we could come up with... it would require everyone to follow it.
Posting details in the review body is fine, but there's a lot of people who aren't members who wouldn't get to see the "modifier" in the review. Now I know some guys will say, fuck 'em, if they're too cheap to spend the 20 bucks a month, why should we help them, but I'm assuming that when we have a great time with a provider, we want her to do well, and by standardizing the ratings it would allow everyone to know exactly what to expect, which would make it better for the hobbyist and the lady alike. There's nothing worse for either of them than for a guy to show up expecting something he isn't going to get. He gets pissed off, the lady feels uncomfortable, and he ends up giving her a bad review, which lowers her overall rating. My system or something similar would help to minimize that.
Plus think about this... Remember when Samantha Sterlying was so upset about guys posting false things about her? Well, my rating system would in some ways reduce the effectiveness of the false posts, because at a glance you could see that a PSE got, say, mostly 8's, and you would then be able to judge more easily which posts were valid and which ones weren't. If we took it one step further and had singleton generously volunteer to do some ratings averaging, rounding off to the nearest whole number, it would tend to statistically eliminate the false reviews.
Also, consider this. The way the current TER system is designed, the first guy to post a review gets to define the girl's specific performance criteria... For instance my review of Raylin... when she started out, her bj's were covered... they no longer are, but if you only read her performance statistics you'd never know that. Standardized ratings using the 8, 9 and 10 as modifiers to spell out the lady's performance will also solve the problem of a PSE who's changed her actions since her first review was posted.
Again, mine is only a starting place. But so far all I've seen are posts telling me what people think is wrong with my system. I was hoping to use it as a starting place to build on, with others throwing out their ideas, either modifying mine of suggesting a completely different one.
Hey Ed,
I've never been with a 10, but I did f@#k five two's once and that should count
George Carlin
Speaking of 10, I know it pisses the hell out of you George, but try as you might you'll never be 1/10 as funny as me (and I'M dead)!
The only problem here in heaven is that the guys in the band were always the hippest cat's in the room, but all jazz musicians go to hell.
Anyone got any heroin ???
-- Modified on 11/22/2003 10:59:21 PM