I am disputing my latest review as it occurred in May, and not in November as I keep a detailed record of whom I've met and when.  

According to TER's submission guideline #10:  

"Each review should recount a visit that took place within the last three months in order to be timely. A lot can change with a provider - even in this relatively short amount of time."  

Nonetheless, I've contacted Sakura_44 and I've yet to hear a response. While I'm waiting, I like to encourage everyone to post their reviews in a timely matter.  

Happy Hobbying!  
- Adrienne

END OF MESSAGE

I mean good luck to you, but I have a recently posted review that is older than two years. TER decided to disregard their own rule and keep it without explanations.

So sorry to hear that! TER really does need to adhere to it's own rules but this whole damn thing is nothing but a racket anyway.  

When folks are making $$$ off of other people's erotica, you really can't expect much I guess.

I agree with your point about reviews being posted in a timely manner.  
The discouraging aspect of your post to me is " I keep a detailed record of whom I've met and when". That provides a paper trail if you are hacked or questioned by LE. My understanding is most providers DON'T keep records as such. Once verified, all information is discarded is what I've been told. That would raise a red flag to me.

...hahaha, sorry I'm easily amused.

Newsflash: All providers keep or maintain records about their clients to some extent. How do you think blacklists even exist?  

Personally, I delete all communication/personal information but the tidbit that I do keep is no more revealing than a review posted on TER which includes: your handle, the time/date of the appointment and a bit of info about our date (sans incrimating acronyms).  

Furthermore, that small record is encrypted on a private database, located off shore just in case. Most importantly, if a provider asks me for a reference request, I can easily look at my records and give her a reference with due diligence.

Thanks for the spell check.