In order to give a consistent meaning to numerical ratings, there has to be some standards, which TER has set. There will always be subjective interpretations, and that's what the narratives in the General & Juicy Details are for. The guidelines do not mandate giving a higher rating because a provider performed certain services. It only states that a higher rating cannot be given unless certain services are performed. So, a poor bbbj can still be given a low rating. No rating system is perfect, but devising a more complex rating scheme will also make it more prone to misunderstanding and, therefore, less useful & consistent.
There is confusion now because reviewers aren't following the guidelines.
I submitted a review and gave a performance rating a 9. The review was posted with an 8 due to the standard “and escort provider may only earn up to a 7 unless she also performs...”. TER has chose to only include kiss with tongue, BBJ, really bi, anal, or more then 1 guy on that list of “unless she also performs”.
I’m not going off on a rant here. I understand the system as it is. My issue is this... why is this limited to these specific tasks? How is it determined that “touch pussy on the inside”, two girl action, multiple pops, lick pussy, no rush session, etc., are of lesser value in determining a providers “performance”score?
I’m sure most of us are looking for, or value very different things when seeking out a provider. One may not care about anal while another may not care to kiss. If you rate a session a 10 because the session included two girl action, lick pussy, multi pops, and CIM while not being rushed, the best score you can give is a 7? That’s more on the lines of censorship then it is keeping things consistent. I can understand the correlation between performance & services offered, but with this system how can we accurately rate the performance of what WAS offered?
Two ways this could be addressed. Might I suggest a new section in the reviews... “GFE” or an actual “Performance”? Currently there is a section for “General Info”, “Appearance”, one for “Services Provided”, and one for detailed review. How about adding a section for GFE to include the standard. Include the appropriate methods of determining a GFE score in that section. Another would be to simply remove the performance score ties to the services offered and/or make it a separate section.
Under the current system, we can’t accurately rate a “performance”. At least I can’t. In a nutshell, I have received a CBJ that was worthy of an 8-9 for effort & skill, but I’ve also received a BBJ that was only worth a 4-5 based on the same standard I would use. I don’t think a provider who will not allow DATY, but will do anal while reading a magazine and rushes you out the door deserves a better score then a provider who does an enthusiastic CBJ with multiple pops. Does a pathetic BBJ effort rate a score of 8 simply because it was done? We need to be able to give a score on the actual performance of what performed, not just have a score based on what was offered regardless of how bad it was.
I would be a lot more confident that the statistics I publish in THE MATHESAR REPORT on the LA Discussion Board meant something if the Performance Rating was strickly the reviewer's rating of the provider's performance.
In the current system, different providers have different maximum performance scores based on the services available. This means that one number is used to rate both what the provider does and how well she does it. In my opinion, the end result is that it is very difficult to determine what the number actually means and the value of statistics based on the number is very questionable.
Fake reviews need to be ruthlessly tracked down and eliminated or the whole review system is meaningless. However, I am very uncomfortable with the reviewer's choice of numbers being modified in posted reviews. This almost certainly will introduce systematic bias that statistical analysis can not eliminate.
Although the present system was designed with good intentions I strongly feel that it would be improved by posting the reviewer's numbers without subjecting them to change by a complex set of rules.
Services offered can be determined from the profile.
Since it is possible to link to a list of all of a reviewer's reviews it is possible to form a judgment about whether the reviewer has opinions that match the community. This becomes more difficult to do if the numbers posted are not the ones the reviewer submitted.
The bottom line is that if submitted numbers are subject to being changed everything gets very fuzzy and the validity of any analysis is open to serious question.
In order to give a consistent meaning to numerical ratings, there has to be some standards, which TER has set. There will always be subjective interpretations, and that's what the narratives in the General & Juicy Details are for. The guidelines do not mandate giving a higher rating because a provider performed certain services. It only states that a higher rating cannot be given unless certain services are performed. So, a poor bbbj can still be given a low rating. No rating system is perfect, but devising a more complex rating scheme will also make it more prone to misunderstanding and, therefore, less useful & consistent.
There is confusion now because reviewers aren't following the guidelines.