Staff recently stated in a related thread that there is a profit/membership loss factor in establishing a permanent, easily researchable NC/NS list. However; it has been said many times by various 'moderators' that posting a NC/NS incident on your regional board is an acceptable way of both venting and alerting other hobbyists.
The problem with this is that for the most part it is temporal in that once the page turns on the discussion board the report falls into obscurity.
The ANSWER?? = Make them Search engine retrievable via UNIFORMITY
If we all start beginning these regional board NC/NS reports with the "subject" field reading NC/NS [name of provider]& their TER ID#
IE:
“subject” NC/NS Bertha ID=99227
“message” Last Sunday I scheduled with Bertha and after driving for 1.5 hours in heavy traffic………………….
The discussion board search engine(s) will be able too easily identify the like characters and give the hobbyist seeking this valuable information any and all posts, old & new, in a chronological listing.
Too protect against rampant abuse of the above system it should be considered a serious breach of rules to post such a report under an alias, and the various moderators already have the ability to see behind a poster’s alias(s) too effectively police this.
The providers would have a built in voice to rebuke the NC/NS post with one of their own merely by posting with the similar “subject” field of NC/NS [provider name] ID#, and then their explanation in the “message” field of the post.
Maybe there should be a zero-zero option in reviews- Appearance 0= no-call/no-show; Performance 0=no performance?
The reviewer gets to vent, other hobbyists are warned, and the community can keep score (also providers--one provider told me yesterday that three other providers to whom she has referred hobbyists in the past have respectively 50%, 75% and 90% NC/NS records on those referrals).
I admit I doubt that we should get review-credits for 0-0 reviews, since there's no juice in the details....
Clearly this remains an issue, and it should be addressed (staff?).
The downside to your proposal, as I see it, is that it would affect the ladies "average", sometimes unfairly. Placing highly in searches can make a huge difference in a girls income. With the system you suggest, an otherwise responsible lady risks a 0,0 review if she decides not to keep an appointment for any number of legitimate reasons. It also opens the door for rivals or others with ill will to easily lower a girls average by posting bogus 0,0 reviews, which wouldn't be thrown out as uncharacteristic due to their very nature.
IMHO, the NCNS database should be seperate from the review process, but should show up in conjunction with her profile. Additionally, each entry should allow for a brief response from the lady in question. This would allow her to explain a given instance (bad vibe, inappropriate phone conversation, whatever) but would still easily allow a pattern of this behavior to be seen and noticed.
So,let us converse.
1. "IMHO, the NCNS database should be seperate from the review process, but should show up in conjunction with her profile." Or why not have its questionnaire activated via an offramp from the review form, linked via a high-ranked button that says "No Call/No Show" and, "pressed," jogs you over to to a different survey/ventingplace from the questionnaire for reviewers, with different questions (like "How long did you wait before giving up?"; "How many times did you try to meet her before realizing this would not happen?; "How many different excuses did she supply for non-appearance?")
One could imagine many others. No doubt our readers will offer a few!
2. " Additionally, each entry should allow for a brief response from the lady in question. This would allow her to explain a given instance (bad vibe, inappropriate phone conversation, whatever) but would still easily allow a pattern of this behavior to be seen and noticed." This is exactly right, and I absolutely endorse your proposal.
3. "Placing highly in searches can make a huge difference in a girls income. With the system you suggest, an otherwise responsible lady risks a 0,0 review if she decides not to keep an appointment for any number of legitimate reasons." I see your point, certainly, and it is again very valid.
Fraud reviews exist, and we should not increase the incentive for anyone to spend time to manufacture multiple net-identities so as to be able to swamp us with bogus NC/NS.
Perhaps the 0,0 could come up via an initial link by provider name, yet not be calculated for the production of the averages? But yet a calculation could be made of the proportion of all reviews that are 0,0s, or 0,0s from different IMPs? How can we best raise the cost of fraud, and/or lower its rewards? (staff views?)
3. "It also opens the door for rivals or others with ill will to easily lower a girls average by posting bogus 0,0 reviews, which wouldn't be thrown out as uncharacteristic due to their very nature." This is a good point, and worrisome, though less so if the 0,0s don't lower the average (item 2 above). I do not have an immediate answer to the fake-review problem, which I belive is very real.
Clearly staff has the message that "we" would like them to address this issue, and make no mistake it IS an issue.
The basics for several workable plans exist on this page. All that seems to be lacking is the initiative for staff to take appropriate action to inmprove this hobby and this site (again, for their PAYING customers).
Many of us have outlined what we feel would be a fair system to document NCNS. After all, it's an issue for any of us that have fallen victim to it and we as a hobby community should be able to help each other out so that we can minimize the chances of having to experience this. However, it's apparent that Staff feels it doesn't have anything to gain by acting on any of these suggestions. So look to other sources for NCNS info. They're out there.
Staff recently stated in a related thread that there is a profit/membership loss factor in establishing a permanent, easily researchable NC/NS list. However; it has been said many times by various 'moderators' that posting a NC/NS incident on your regional board is an acceptable way of both venting and alerting other hobbyists.
The problem with this is that for the most part it is temporal in that once the page turns on the discussion board the report falls into obscurity.
The ANSWER?? = Make them Search engine retrievable via UNIFORMITY
If we all start beginning these regional board NC/NS reports with the "subject" field reading NC/NS [name of provider]& their TER ID#
IE:
“subject” NC/NS Bertha ID=99227
“message” Last Sunday I scheduled with Bertha and after driving for 1.5 hours in heavy traffic………………….
The discussion board search engine(s) will be able too easily identify the like characters and give the hobbyist seeking this valuable information any and all posts, old & new, in a chronological listing.
Too protect against rampant abuse of the above system it should be considered a serious breach of rules to post such a report under an alias, and the various moderators already have the ability to see behind a poster’s alias(s) too effectively police this.
The providers would have a built in voice to rebuke the NC/NS post with one of their own merely by posting with the similar “subject” field of NC/NS [provider name] ID#, and then their explanation in the “message” field of the post.
Wouldn't this work well only for established providers? What to do about newbies with no reviews and no TER ID#s?
This very real, very common problem that you have raised here (as well as on other TER discussion boards) is and has been one of deep contention for a very long time. Many of the providers tend to band together and say that there are not enough safeguards against a NC/NS list being abused by both vengeful hobbyists that possibly didn't pass(or refused)a providers screening, or a competing provider / agency trying to unfairly sully another providers good record.
Add to the providers voice the usual legion of WhiteKnights willing to champion the most unreliable and often the most vocally opposed providers; it has been an uphill battle from the git-go for both hobbyists trying to construct a standardized and recognized list as well as the true mavens who relentlessly strive for professional ethics and moral high ground of common courtesy.
There will ALWAYS be new, un-reviewed, below radar, non TER associated providers. Lets try to get THIS sand box policed before worrying about policing the world.