On each review, we have "appearance" and "performance" fields. We should also add a "YMMV factor" field. It will describe how much YMMV there was in the encounter. Instead of numbers 1 thru 10, we can have five descriptions: minimal, low, moderate, high, and very high. I'm sure they're all self-explanatory. Obviously, it's impossible to have no YMMV whatsoever, because of the human factor in the hobby, but "minimal" comes close. If a provider won't give you a CBJ while her reviews say she allows BBBJ (assuming the hygiene part was taken care of), it's clearly a case of YMMV.
What do you all think about this?
with the discretion that a provider needs to make YMMV a reality in the first place.
Some things just don't lend themselves to neat and orderly solution and I think this is one of them.
Maybe instead of a field where the reviewer fills it in, there could be some statistics over performance. Someone who scores an 8 on 80% of reviews would have less YMMV than one who has 7 on 40% and 9 on 40%, and more than one with an 8 on 100% of reviews.
A ranking of statistical spread, that is.
I think you can get a feel for YMMV from reading many reviews. If a service was not provided which was listed on the profile, that would for me automatically lower the performance rating & could be included in the review description.
Being able to see ALL fields each reviewer fills out would let you see variations, though you could't tell if it was because client didn't want/ask or if provider refused.
The notion that YMMV is both expected and required has been widely trumpeted and circulated through this hobby. Its justified by an assumption that where people are involved one should not expect that any given interaction will be available. This is of course false. Any reasonable consumer of any service has the legitimate expectation that whatever is on the menu is available. Hobbyists are frustrated because they would like to have confidence that they will be able enjoy the services that they have been told are available. YMMV is the caveat that says in essence "you get what you get". It would be useful and appropriate to have a rating in the review that expresses the confidence of the reviewer that the described experience will be available to other. In other words how likely does the review think it is that others mileage may indeed vary.
I don't think this would be difficult to implement and I think that it would provide value.
-J