I'm looking to get back in the water and was viewing my favorites list. One is Darby who I'm interested in meeting. I read a few recent reviews to see if anything has changed with her and the consensus in all her reviews is that she's pretty good looking, getting mostly 8s and 7s with couple of 9s. But, one reviewer gave her 2 points for looks! "Ugly". I haven't seen her yet, but geez! Within his review he stated that he gave a bad review to Rebecca, but Darby was worse so he had to give her a lower score. He rated Rebecca in looks with a 3 ("Homely") and claims she's 45+. Now, I've met Rebecca and she's very attractive, no question and she's still considered top tier as far as I know. I haven't seen her lately, but if the recent reviews are any indication, Rebecca still has it in the looks department. If Rebecca is in her 40s, she looks incredible. When I met her 40s didn't come to my mind at all. Reading his Rebecca review it could seem like a hatchet job more than just having a bad time. Just my opinion.
Maybe for some not having a good connection with a provider makes her physically unattractive? I get that to a point. I believe the reviewer stated that there was a lack of connection in both of those reviews. Or, maybe the reviewer is just a tough customer based on his 4 reviews. Rebecca and Darby are both in L.A. I posted here because they are both K-girls. If you had a bad time with a provider, K-girl or not, I can see her attractiveness being a bit less, but to be scored a 2 and 3? I think most of us have been with a provider who is beautiful who didn't give the best service or there was no connection, but would still rate the provider high for looks.This has been a continuing problem for a lot of us trying to make sense of reviews. Looks and Service are supposed to be independent, but as you pointed out, its pretty common for guys who have a bad session to also complain about her looks. I have seen a handful of girls that were 9's in looks, but the service was bad. Its hard to tell if this is just complacency on the part of the Kgirl because they know they are hot looking and that's the main reason guys are seeing them, so they don't put that much effort into the service.
I agree that Rebecca is a winner for looks AND service regardless of her being in her 40's, but I haven't seen Darby yet (she's on my to-do list), so I can't give an opinion on her. I have already decided to take the plunge. I just have other girls I wanted to see first who may be leaving before Darby does.
I think one of the big problems mongers have is that they review like it's yelp. When we review on yelp, there's a documented tendency to rate attributes on some kind of logarithmic curve, where we downplay negatives and give an RA a 9 instead of a ten if we think she's ugly or fat or whatever.
If you look at the specific descriptions given on TER with the number ratings you see that 5 is average. But in out minds giving a five seems mean because we're brought up on these logarithmic interpretations where 60% is an F. We think we're being mean, but if you use the numbers in a linear way, you'd rate most of the RA's 5, since most are 'average'.
We've been pulled into that space where we think we're giving a super bad score if we call an average experience a 5.
I don't write bad reviews. Part of my style, and I know other mongers hate that because I'm supposed to help out and flag bad experiences. If I did write bad reviews when a session sucked, I'm sure I'd use lots of 3's and 4's. C'mon, read some reviews and you'll see 6's, 7's and 8's because the guy is afraid to tank an RA, but in the verbage he writes that the session sucked, no DATY, pussy full of lube, toothy BJ, stinky attitude, etc.
Don't be afraid to use a two if you think you should've stayed home. That's how it's supposed to work.
Does this make sense? I've had a couple beers.
sag
Makes all sense in the world to me.
The only thing I'd say I wouldn't compare it to yelp. Many more people on yelp aren't afraid to give 3 out of 5 stars. Which is slightly above average.
In fact, 3 out of 5 is equivalent to a six on a 10-digit scale, but how many people on here actually have the gall to give a six to a provider and have it not be a strictly negative connotation ? A three star review on yelp isn't necessarily a bad review. It could be a diamond in the rough, gold but deeply flawed, or simply average.
Give a girl six points here and people will act like you deeply insulted their relatives or spit in their food or some shit. Everything is hyperinflated. Yet I'm sure people don't inflate shit in their backchannel group.
So this inflation is mostly there for perception reasons. The reviews end up more of an advertising tool than an actual evaluation tool. People on yelp don't care about image of restaurant, they give their three stars and keep it moving. Image is oh so important for providers here, it's hard to overstate the impact that reviews have,especially for new commodities.
5 is defined as average in performance. For looks 5 is Plain -- I suppose you might say that is average but ...
Average usually refers to the arithmetic mean.
The arithmetic mean of 1 to 10 scale is 5.5
Is it really too far fetched to say 5 is the average?
"If you look at the *specific descriptions* given on TER with the number ratings you see that 5 is average. "
Clearly Sag is not making a statistical/simple math calc claim.
I did not think he was referring to specific wording of "average" spelled out. Only now I got what you meant and what your point was.
Fair enough. TER wording for each gradation of looks can be a lot better, no argument from me there.
I'm not following this too well, either. On the review form for Performance,
1 = A total ripoff ... 4 = She just laid there
***5 = Average***
6 = Nice time ... 10 = One in a lifetime.
.
(For Appearance, 5 = Plain.)
.
According to the "meaning" or "intention" of the database definitions, 5 is supposed to be Average. However, if you take the average of all 1,654,844 Reviews, which I am NOT going to do, the average of the scores (data) is probably NOT 5 or even 5.5. The "average" score is probably something higher.
.
But my main reason for replying is the ask what the "A" in TATTT is. "TSTTT" is usually "too stupid to talk to." From the general topic, my first guess is "too average to talk to." Am I right?
"If you look at the *specific descriptions* given on TER with the number ratings you see that 5 is average. "
Clearly Sag is not making a statistical/simple math calc claim.
For a scale of 1-10, the average would be 5.5
If we have 1 million reviews and 500k of them gave a a 10 and 500k gave an 8, the "average" review score given obviously won't be 5.5
This doesn't mean you're supposed to give average girls an 8,it just means people give anything that moves and fucks an 8. But I guess, also depends on viewpoint.
I think your bit about averaging out all the reviews for a given provider -- or even the entire TER database to get that mean/average number is the only sense in which we should be talking about average in that sense.
The individual scores are qualitative data and not good for tools developed for cardinal number data analysis.
It might be questionable to try taking the average of all the review scores and then making any strong claims about just where that person fits on the TER qualitative scales (and I'm ignoring the whole problem of just how a real rip off even compares with a so-so session or a good session as they seem to be in entirely different classes of experience).
But I think you are correct that those calculated averages over all the reviews will be above a 5 or 6. This is a competitive market and for the most part those that are no competitive get weeded out. Those that remain will be higher quality so above "average". That should create a skew in the data towards the higher graded than the lower grades without having to make the argument Sag makes.
That's a pretty naive view tbh. First, the data collected of average review scores, says more about how people tend to grade - and if large analysis is performed, it would certainly showcase that people try to grade differently than what TER mandates.
I don't think subpar product "weeded out" is the reason people to tend rate higher. Many people simply don't want to anger the provider. Many people don't use anything below 5 at all. If you grade 1000 girls and you haven't used a grad ebelow 5 ever, what is more likely - that you never had a subpar session or that your scale is different from the scale ter urgs you to use? It is clearly the latter, as possibility of never having a subpar session gets asymptotically closer and closer to zero the more sessions you have
The modern review scale is skewed more and more toward nonsenical, non-unirorm scale altogether. Some of the modern review scales such as YouTube or Facebook are purely binary. If people remember, YouTube had a star system when they started out. They ditched that for likes/dislikes, which makes the video harder to quantify - many videos I don't like but not dislike either. The average gradation there is harder to achieve in such a binary system..
Here is another picture, this was pertaining to video games, but in fact it is true for many things nowadays. It's not that overall quality of a consumer good is higher these days, it's just review scale that is skewed.
I’ve never seen a working kgirl who deserves below a 5. Anything below a 5 is essentially some degree of ugly as I understand it. With a 1 being so bad that she looks like she’s been smoking crack and living on the street for a few years.
As I’ve said before, it’s just like a movie review. If the movie genuinely deserves a 1 it’s because it looks like it was made by one of the very least technically savvy kids in kindergarten. But people walk out of movies that just don’t fit their preferences and give it a one star out of 10 with no consideration of production values, acting, directing, etc. You can find movie reviews like that where the reviewer thought the actress was fat. And that gives the movie a 1.
This type of scoring makes no sense to me.
But I know different people have different opinions on this. And all are free to use their own interpretation.
I don't think below five is some degree of ugly at all. And I definitely don't see what "deserving" has tod o with grading scale of people. Now of course, for many people the scale really only starts at five, and they want to to treat it as "shit sux" in my picture above.
And as far as kgirls go, here's an example
This girl Bryce in DC:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/bryce-5713221681-359389
Out of 7 reviews, 5 were 3 or below in looks. The other two were six and five. And the six is a double review by someone who gave her a 3.
Maybe DC folks could chime in? Preferably those who dont sweep things under the rug and who don't inflate the girl's perception. How bad was Bruce on the scale that she scored so low on reviewers scorecard?
Here's what I read under general details of one review
"I should've turned around and left, but I was more afraid in damaging my reputation with the agency and decided to stick it out"
Hm, I wonder....where has anyone heard this before on this forum? Oh, right.
Another tidbit: "Twenty minutes in I was running for the exit" from another review. Sounds like she "deserved" at least a five.
I realized that I should post the actual text from the TER review guidelines for those who may be confused by some of the misinformed info that is frequently posted here by various trolls. Here you go:
Number Appearance Service/experience
10 She was a one in a million. It was a one in a million.
9 She was model material. I forgot it was a service.
8 She was really hot. She went the extra mile.
7 She was attractive. It was really hot
6 She was nice looking. It was a nice time.
5 She was plain looking Average
4 OK, If you are drunk She just laid there.
3 She was fairly homely. It was barely worth the effort.
2 She was simply ugly. I should have stayed home.
1 I was really scared. A total rip-off.
Five is “plain looking”. Four is the kind of ugly you can overlook only if you’re sufficiently drunk. Three is the kind of ugly/homely you see in a Norman Rockwell painting. No amount of alcohol can disguise that. After that, you get just plain, undeniably and unavoidably “simply ugly”. And one is that old, fat, dirty crack whore I mentioned earlier. Her situation does make me sad and I will give her money when I see her on the street. But if she was wearing a barely there outfit and opened the door I get to after I’d made a kgirl appointment, that would indeed be scary.
-- Modified on 6/6/2021 5:49:44 PM
And then attempts to link a crackhead to the score of 1,not once but twice.
Nowhere does the ter description have "crackhead" . It simply says "I was really scared". Some are scared of crackheads, some aren't.
And the only place that "ugly" makes appearance is for grade of 2. "Homely" is a step up from ugly and so is "OK if you are drunk"
Trying to say "OK if you are drunk" is equal to ugly is pretty dishonest imo.
Now you are just arguing semantics, or more accurately, arguing just to be argumentative.
On the TER scale once you get below a six, the differences are pretty much irrelevant to me. Who is uglier, Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno? Answer, does it REALLY fucking matter?
Just because it's irrelevant to you, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to anyone else.
Yes, it matters to me. I've posted a damn picture on review scales. Gradations are important. All grades below a 5 constitute around 40-50% of providers.
To lump close to half of providers into one "ugly" category is unfair both to providers and readers, imo
That the reader doesn't want to differentiate between a 2 and a 5 is more of a reader problem, less so an evaluator's problem.
Making a reliable and distinct scale is important in evaluating anything. Not binary garbage like like/dislike. If we were three, then maybe. An adult human brain can distinguish so many shades and nuances, it is a disservice to human brain to dismiss 50% of population as ugly without quantifiers imo.
A fun thing about the TER number ratings.
There are only four levels of ugly. But there are 5 levels for good looking.
..objective analysis in a highly subjective system.
The reality is that some guys are acutely critical of slimness or body weight. There are a number of us like that here. I am one of them. If a girl is 20 pounds overweight it doesn’t matter to me that she might have a pretty face and what some might call a full, womanly figure. If I see that, I’m going to walk. I’ll do it politely. But you can bet I’ll walk. But, because I didn’t have to subject myself to a session with a girl who deviated significantly from my appearance preference, it’s not hard for me to recognize that there are quite a few others that would still find her very attractive.
Some guys are looking for a specific set of facial features which they define as pretty. A significant variation from their personal standard and they won’t care that most guys might still think she’s hot enough to get a 7 or 8. She doesn’t meet their standard. But, for reasons that many believe are valid (I’ll save the discussion of whether all the blacklisting propaganda and fear is valid for another time and place) they’ll stay and then grade the girl with an appearance rating below a 5 because to them she is on the ugly scale. And the negative experience they had with her makes it very difficult to see her any other way.
Even though I won’t write a review in my example above, because I didn’t actually session with the girl. I will tell people who ask that her appearance deserves at least a 7, for example. But, since my preference is very slim women, she was too plump for me. In my experience, most mongers don’t do that. And that’s cool. But it makes using the reviews of those with whom you don’t have some frame of reference more than a little haphazard.
The list of subjective beauty standards is another topic that we can cover at another time and in another thread. Suffice to say that what I’ve described above is far from a complete list. And it doesn’t even cover the complexity of all the variables that can exist for one reviewer. For some a great smile might just override their preferences. It could be anything. Or any combination of things.
The net is that the rating “system” (it’s misleading to even call it a system) upon which we all rely to some extent, is far more art than science. No amount of statistical analysis will ever address all the variables that exist. It’s a system of simultaneous equations for which we not only don’t know all the values. We don’t even know all the equations.
Note: I am not saying that a better solution than our current numeric ratings exists. I am simply pointing out that it’s usefulness can only go so far due to its inherent and unavoidable shortcomings.
a ten-foot debate thread, but in my humble opinion, I already have a better system and I'm sticking with it. Lol
I believe you covered it very well in your post about a guy's particular likes and dislikes or preferences that can sway a score higher or lower within an imperfect scoring "system". I was going to attempt to write something, but you nailed it.
I'll just add that a friend of mine saw a young woman from our beach volleyball group recently and he told me that she put on 20-30 pounds of "Covid" weight. Yikes! Well, I just happened to run into her a day or two later and I couldn't believe how wrong my friend was about her weight gain and I called him out on it. She looked nearly the same to me. At most. she put on 5-8 pounds.
Exactly!
We’re analog creatures with many a logarithmic function trying to map our preferences and behaviors in a digital domain.
I mean, those who tend to make a girl look and sound better than she really is, will continue to do so.
And vice versa.
I don't think personal preferences have to do much. I've seen good looking girls who were awful in bed. And girls who would be considered hurt by most people in here that could FUCK. Both sides I could easily separate the looks and services. The fact the second girl was great in the bed didn't make her sense any less bag-worthy. And the first girl being a dead fish didn't change her looking pretty good.
Being a service guy, I'll see the service girl and I wont see a dead fish, but I will give them an according grade FO each component of what they're offering for sale. To do otherwise is imo disrespecting reviews..
Just my two cents.
My understanding is that for reviews to be helpful they should give truthful info and an honest rundown of the session! I can see where lack of chemistry/connection could bring down an appearance score, maybe a point! But, it should be explained. When you help a monger out by giving an honest review, they in turn help you out, by giving truthful info in their reviews! I've been with Darby, she does not rate a 2!!
-- Modified on 6/3/2021 11:51:07 PM
Well, for context he did mention that he was comparing them to legends of yesteryear. Maybe the recent lack of quality coupled with nostalgia and high standards is the answer here?
Now, heres the question I want to ask back. A two or a three is considered an extreme score here, but how come a 9 or 10 - the extreme scores on the other side of the bellcurve- are not questioned? There isn't a thread made when someone gives a girl a 9 or 10. Why is that? Is it because people were conditioned to not use one of the sides of the bellcurve?
And this has been a problem on TER since the site was created, and not just with K-Girls.
I think the problem is part low standards, part poor eyesight and partly fear of reprisal. lol
I have said dozens of times that a TER "5" is a fucking hideous pig on the GaGa scale. Actually once you get below a TER 7 you have already reached the point where she is unfuckable to someone like me who values appearance as much as I value performance.
I get that, but my question was a bit more nuanced in terms of why the very top of the scale is considered mundane, but the bottom is not.
For example, to me, for any scale, the topmost score means GOAT category. Music, maybe only three-five albums in each genre will get that from me. Same with movies. Restaurants. Etc etc.
This makes it extremely easy to differentiate things. A 10 (or a five on a five point scale) means a once-in-a-lifetime experience (which btw I believe ter actually echoes for performance).
If people have 100 entities receiving the topmost rating, then it dilutes and devalues the goat experience. If your goat experience is a 10 and your everyday experience is a 10 also, then what does your rating say? How can I know which one you considered best? It's all a giant mess.
I don't understand why people think it's perfectly fine to give the highest grade as much as possible , but not the lowest grade.
Like you say, some people may it consider it not nice to give a lower rating, and to me that's just wrong. It's a review site, not compassion central.
who is in the top ten percent of all the girls I have seen, but in practice, the number of tens I have given to date falls short of ten percent because the past couple of years the supply of NEW 10's has been less. I think part of it is because the orgs are recruiting more BBFS girls and the girls that are DDG know they don't have to go there to make good money.
For service, I don't do MMF sessions, so unless its a double or the girl does anal, I can't get her to a 10 no matter how good she is. I think CIMWS should be added to the list for a 10. This is a much easier sell to Kgirls than anal.
a reasonable representative sample of your sessions, I'm wondering just where you would guess your scores would be.
What percentage would be in the 7 - 9 range and what percentage would be in the 6 and under. I'm leaving 10 out as that really should be the exceptional outlier for everyone and under the 1% level if we're taking the definition even a bit seriously.
-- Modified on 6/8/2021 6:16:29 PM
100% of my appearance scores would be in the 7 to 9 range. Why? Because I will and have walked if the door opens and I see a kgirl below my opinion (emphasis on this being *my* opinion) of a girl who deserves a 7 in appearance. Including my bias for slim girls.
That said, I haven’t walked in a pretty long time.
And I haven’t met a genuine 10 in quite some time. But I don’t hang out with models and actresses anymore either.
I'd be careful answering this.
Last time I laid my own breakdown, people including the person asking the question, accused me of lacking credibility due to somewhat low success/grade %. What is it called again? The No True Scotsman fallacy? Cdl even concluded that anyone who had success like mine with kgirls must be an asshole, using the fallacy above and argumentum ad populum.
-- Modified on 6/8/2021 3:07:25 PM
Bull Shit. What everyone said was that your batting average was well below what others experienced so questioned your claims about how all the reviews were inflated and how all the evil "orgs" were come to subvert TERs database with fake reviews. The "lack or credibility" you claim was applied to you was your insistence that your experience was representative of everyone else's.
Your complaint here has nothing to do with the No True Scotsman fallacy that you all too often display.
For someone who keeps on advocating others be more critical in assessing providers you're not so good at accepting that behavior when it is applied to you. Seems, well, . . . what's the best word?
I don’t know what R claimed above. But your response is completely on target with what happened at the time you are describing.
Nope, incorrect. My entire credibility in kgirl world as a monger was questioned by you and others when I presented my "batting average". And yes, it was questioned because most others have a higher average, and this is what I referred to as argumentum ad populum. Appeal to masses/majority.
No true Scotsman here is applicable because you say because I have low batting average, my credibility is questioned. It logically doesn't follow in any way, shape or form. I can never have any great mongering experiences in my life and still be a valid monger. Just like you never had a subpar kgirl session prior to 2020 season, and you're still a valid monger.
Whereas, my logic that in any monger/provider conflict each side is right on average 50% of the time, and if someone takes one side 98% of the time, they are likely biased, is quite sound.
And, I never called orgs "evil". You don't need to resort to hyperboles to embellish your points. I am careful to not choose words like this, especially in capitalist societiy where greed and ability to make money by any means are commended.
So to conclude, yes, saying that you have a low batting average on here will make it so your credibility is questioned here. This is why I started taking other people's subpar experiences and talking about them, because my credibility was under fire.
If you say you have a low batting average you will be called an asshole with no logical factors besides "how can anyone not an asshole have so many subpar sessions"? Yeah, that is No true Scotsman right there.
Looks like many people thought she was far below a five even on a TER scale. And shes a kgirl.
And looks like those public negative reviews were quite effective to get her the hell out of there fast.
Who wouldathunkit? Public negative reviews working? Must be sorcery.
And yet when I suggest just that type of result from reviews you seems to think me naive. But certainly don't change your habit of always misreading anything I write so you can pidgin-hole me into your unshakeable view of me as some agency boy or shill.
That a good response for you?
I certainly never called you an agency boy or a shill.
"And yet when I suggest just that type of result from reviews you seems to think me naive"
Wait what?
Useyrhead is the one who is on record saying negative reviews don't work. They seem to work to me perfectly fine in this fresh example. A negative review has great impact, no matter what some people would like us to believe. If they didn't, no one would care much about having a lot of them.
He's also on record in this thread that he has never seen a kgirl who was less than a five. Well, Bryce scored extremely poorly there.
Maybe Ill pm each of the guys who reviewed her and invite them to this thread to testify.
Because imo the best way to show a guy who thinks girls don't fart, that they do indeed fart, is to lock them up inside without any strong ventilation.
Anyway, I believe you said that the way it worked in nova is that no one would write bad reviews, feedback would be handled internally, and that worked out better than negative reviews. Here, negative reviews clearly did their job. Or am I missing something? Bad performer got sent down to the minors due to loud public feedback.
If you claimed this all along and I misread your posts (unlikely but possible) , then what's the problem? Then it means we need even more public, loud, negative reviews to sort out bad from the good, no?
Negative reviews work for you perfectly, ok.
The fact is you love all negative reviews and despise positive reviews.
To be fair though, you're not the only one. Apparently negativity loves company.
You'll invite people to this thread to testify? Do we need to refer to you as Senator Rocket? Seems like you want a 9/11 style commission to get to the bottom of this.
Yeah, as I click on the post message button I'll surely regret this.
Maui, It's funny how you ignore me yet want to have a conversation with me. Either take me off your
ignore or don't reply directly to me... this one way channel thing is annoying.
I don't despise positive reviews. If you had a great experience with a girl and it is a truthful recount, great! Good for you! I'm serious.
I just think negative experiences are criminally underreported, for one reason or the other. They also tend to help out mongers a ton. Many times a guy would say that he saved money and time because of a negative review. Especially in the light of current apparent quality dive and prices rising.
So I'm just raising awareness of negative experiences which many times tend to be swept under the rug in order to allow girls to make bank.
You can call me whatever, as you've already have. I prefer "rocket", but hey...
I have never said that what makes (made) the DMV market work is working via some internal feedback and not writing reviews of bad providers.
What I HAVE said is:
1) Having no reviews is just as detrimental for a provider as having some bad reviews.
2) Just adding a review that only add my personal experience but is just repeating what most of the other reviewers say adds no value or information to the review set. Why write an "average" review. Everyone already know what they need to know.
3) Providing feedback for improvements when a new girl could be better does in fact work in an Asian community when it's not done publicly. In these cases we're not talking about bad perform, just okay performance. So writing that review that says "Hey guys, you could do a whole lot worse, but also a whole lot better" just is not that helpful. I know my goal was also finding those "you can only do a lot worse elsewhere" sessions. By not creating an adversarial relationship between the mongers helps to allow improving from "okay" to "very good" and this type of interaction from the customer side with the supplier side works to deliver improved results in every market.
No one ever said don't write a review if she was just flat out bad. Though even if some might have been reluctant here it didn't really matter. There was always a rush to be the first to see the new girl and the first to review. So if someone came in and you didn't see at least 5 reviews by the second day you could be pretty sure she was leaving soon and not worth seeing.
4) I have also said that I think reviews of good providers are MUCH more valuable than the reviews of bad providers. While I don't like throwing my money away, and I know others are on a tighter budget than I (but don't put me in the I (can) see the 1000 providers group), I want to spend the money not keep it. This is not to say all positive reviews point me to a good provider -- that's just the start or the search. So I have also said I tended not to write reviews about mediocre sessions but tended to just share the good news. I would write a review about a rip-off or a "she just lay there" type session but just never had a reason to for any K-Girl I ever saw.
So no, it doesn't mean we need even more reviews. Just a hand full of reviews is generally sufficient to get everyone into the right ball park on a provider and from there it's about the idiosyncratic preferences and taste of each of us. So that means you need to find the reviewers that have similar tastes and preferences as you and ignore those that don't.
So if you hypothetically saw Bryce, you would also write a negative review? Well, that's encouraging to hear then. Or did I misread it and you still wouldn't write it, arguing that it is as good as no review at all.
Personally, I don't believe no review of Bryce would have the same impact as many completely awful reviews. . A review that actively tells to stay away is a negative acknowledgment, as opposed to no acknowledgment at all,which can mean several things.
And OK, you admit it that for a new girl a meh session feedback is best done with internal feedback. This is something I don't agree with at all. In the process of improving, this girl is getting a lot of clientele who'd otherwise not see her if she had sufficient reviews. And this clientele, who likely has limited access to backchannels,simply lacks information. Information that a review would provide. Or a public thread would provide.
For example. I'm a service guy. Everyone knows that. If I see that the girl is new and green from a review, why would I bother to see her ? I will wait and see via reviews if she improves. If I don't see info from review, I go see her, am disappointed, and you know the worst thing? Even if she improves later, I now will be less inclined to visit her later. And I'm generally more inclined to give second chances (hard to imagine I know) . Many mongers don't ever see a girl again after an average session.
Anyway. Thanks for answering my post directly and without any nonsense. I mean it.
Now take out all the words I didn't write and remove the spin you put on things to meet with your view and you might be close to restating what I was saying.
As you've very consistently shown I suspect that will be impossible for you so don't really expect much there. You seem incapable of getting out of your own head which makes any exchange with you observationally no different than one with a troll.
Just when I thought you wrote a great response without accusations, you go back and accuse me of again misquoting you.
1. You said no review is as detrimental to the provider as bad review. I disagree with that notion. You say people rush to see the new offering. Do you think once a bad review appears, people will slow the rush? I'm sure of it. A girl with no reviews is an unknown. A girl with terrible reviews, or terrible feedback in forums is something that many will try to avoid. Which girl will get less traffic : the one that has two very negative reviewa in first two days or the one one with no negative reviews in first two days.
2. You said you think positive reviews are much more helpful. Great. Do you also think negative reviews are also helpful in some capacity whatsoever ? If so, I haven't seen any from you. Your worst review from other handle barely if whatsoever criticize the experience. You falso flat out refuse to name any SPECIFIC girl in a negative light on this public forum. So you don't just think positive reviews are more helpful, your actions show me that you flat out dont WANT to be critical or negative in public. Even when you're supposed to be critical, you're not and try to make it as easy for the girl as possible in your wording of a review.
3. You said if the experience were to be very bad, you would write a review. Yet youve never seen a reason to do it with a kgirl. Well, Bryce is a kgirl and she's getting terrible reviews that basically scream "so not see". So I assumed you would write a review on her if you've seen her and had an experience in line with others. I guess, silly me for making this assumption.
4. You said you never saw a reason to write an average review after someone already has said something. What if no one has said anything yet publicly and the girl has no reviews yet? Then would you be compelled to write an average review?
5. I assume you meant adversarial relationship between mongers and suppliers. So then please tell me, do you think that negative or average reviews create adversarial relationships? We are getting very close to "suppress non-positive reviews here to make sure everyone (but guys who get screwed) are happy" territory and I want to make sure I got it completely right and nor misquoting you again.
So if you did mean that, why would there be adversarial relationship if someone wrote truthful reviews? Why do people get mad at truth transmitted publicly but not privately? Why is criticism taken as adversarial trigger, yet praise is not?
Also I find it ironic you claim I misstate and misquote, yet you do the same - I never claimed the orgs were "evil" - - I do not even use terms like "evil" - - yet you attributed this to me multiple times.
-- Modified on 6/10/2021 10:52:07 AM
Whenever the R-troll starts with his misquoting schtick, I would suggest just ignoring him. Failing that, go back and reread whatever he is R-quoting (it needs it’s own name, because it is never actual quoting). For those who remember them, his R-quotes are a far less entertaining imitation of the old Fractured Fairy Tales.
At the end of the day, this is just another troll thread about reviews of a girl he’s never seen that he’s almost certainly using (judging by the responses) to rehash his specious analysis of kgirl reviews.
All that said, what Jensen says above in points 1 through 4 is entirely in line with my experience as well.
In all of this “analysis” has anyone actually figured out what the girl really looks like? All I’ve seen so far are responses to unverified reviews. Has anyone on here actually seen her? If not, it would seem drawing any conclusions in this case is a bit.. premature.
The thread isn't mine, and it's not a troll thread.
What it is, is slightly apologist thread for kgirls who get low scores. To which I asked why is it not thread worthy if someone gives a 9 or 10 - the other side of the bell curve - but a thread worthy if someone gets a 2 or 3. If you give everyone a 9 and 10 and no one a 2 or 3 on a 10 point scale, perhaps it is your view that is biased. A fucking lot.
I brought up Bryce as an example of someone who got extremely negative reviews including negative feedback about her looks, and as example of someone who lasted very short time- as someone with her scores is supposed to.
Note no one else dared to even say her name publicly so far. It just shows the contrast of people tooting positive experiences as they like, but becoming very tight lipped suddenly when it comes to mentioning a subpar girl name publicly. Funny how it works. Me - I think the girls with extremely bad reviews should be searchable easily, so anyone who wants to search for them even without access to reviews, knows who to avoid. The easier it is to see who to avoid, the harsher the lesson that future girls can learn from.
But that isn't even the point. Bryce is an example of kgirl who got really bad reviews for looks. Did she deserve them? Only people who saw Bryce can tell us that. But reviews are extremely unfavorable, and that's with a contingent that inflates scores greatly, compared to, say, bay area scores. Occam's razor says that chances are she really isn't good lookig at all.
But we literally have people such as yourself who think that kgirls don't fart and who can't admit that the entire scale is fair game in the scope of evaluation. Why you feel the need to protect these girls from criticism I have no fucking clue, and it saddens me because in the process you fuck up the perception of fellow mongers.
There are homely looking kgirls, there are pretty ugly looking kgirls, just as there are good looking kgirls and prrettty good looking ones. Just like with other providers.
That's just the reality. And bad quality deserves to be called out by nmes, publicly, for everyone to see. Just like good quality. A rating of two or three is just as valid as rating of 9 or 10. The fact that it might get some girls upset is irrelevant. If your review is impacted by what the girl will think, a review site isn't somewhere you should be on,imo. The inability to be critical makes it a glorified ad platform.
And the funniest thing? People who claim I despise positive reviews cannot be more wrong. I am fine with any kind of reviews as long as they are truthful
and publicly accessible.
But it is actually they who despise negative reviews. They cannot fathom someone getting a low score. A bad experience needs to be handled internally, God forbid the word gets out. Negative reviews are apparently useless,even though they raise awareness and get rid of subpar product faster than anything else ever can. Subpar reviews are questioned credibility-wise far more than ones with a 9.
Names of shitty or subpar experiences are kept mum publicly, even if admitting quality is ass. I could get a confession easier than some of these people publicly saying something negative about a particular girl.
So why do people despise negative reviews, which are part of the game on any review site for any
commodity or a good?
Why can't people say the name subpar experiences publicly and aloud the same way they can and dk positive experience? Why are there double standards against negative reviews? Why is a 2 or 3 an omg awful score yet a 9 or a 10 is just ho hum?
You tell me. GaG says part of it is being spineless. Maybe. I keep saying maybe some of these people are just too nice and they rather hurt the mongers than the girls, lying to themselves that they aren't hurting the mongers. But maybe I'm wrong.
After all, after a person said there were some bad orgs, I asked him to publicly single our some. He has not done it. I've promised another person to quit all accusations and grievances I have against him, if he drops the name of some of the subpar quality he himself has admitted he experienced. The easiest thing in the world, talk about a bad experience in public with fellow comrades and say who gave you this bad experience. But nah. It is a top secret thing.
If one can't drop a negative experience name and point their finger, how can anyone be sure of your positive experience names??? Either drop both or don't drop any at all. Otherwise it just comes off as advertisements.
-- Modified on 6/10/2021 3:08:00 AM
This got two nested responses from the R-troll who seems to be the only one genuinely interested in this thread.
But so far no one has found anyone who actually saw this girl?
Until we can get someone willing to admit they’ve seen her and can objectively describe her, then it would seem any further analysis on this is pointless.
But we knew that already, didn’t we?
I hope some of them can chime in.
I was going to see her, but didn't because of the sub-par reviews. Maybe it's just me, but negative reviews are more of a deterrent to me than no reviews, because I view the latter as being a more opportunistic situation. Not to mention that some reviews take a day or two to post and coupled with the possibility of them being submitted after the provider has been here for a while, means that having no reviews doesn't amount to much, in my experience.
Right. Many mongers also post reviews a bit later than the date they went, to make sure they are not recognized by the org in terms of their monger persona and handle here. I mean, even the concept of toftt means seeing a girl with no reviews and reporting back.
I've never heard of toftt constituting of seeing a girl and then not sharing feedback.
And we all know back channel feed back is different from public feedback. I know of a "monger" who gave a good review to a girl amidst bad reviews, and who then privately recommended people to NOT see this same girl.
Edit:
I've always found it funny when people say "why do people keep seeing her with all the bad reviews". Well, the reality is many of these trips happened before any reviews were up, or it could've been only one review.
Many including myself may dismiss one negative review as an outlier but when things get consistently negative... that's where it starts being a huge red flag. The popular girls will always have some bad reviews. My atfs had some negative reviews. But their overall quality spoke for themselves.
-- Modified on 6/10/2021 1:31:01 PM
So, so many times I’ve found negative reviews to be skewed by a particular monger’s specific preferences and experience. As long as there are also some verifiable (I can talk to the reviewer) positive reviews that seem to indicate the girl might be a fit for me the negative reviews end up as a positive to me.
Why? Because they can, and frequently do in my experience, simply indicate that the girl is a bit more YMMV than usual. For a monger that can come in and set her at ease and match her energy and rhythms, YMMV girls can be some of the best experiences you can have as a monger.
So, in that sense, yes, negative reviews can be helpful. They reveal the biases of the reviewer better than a positive review can.
This is completely the opposite of what our local professed review expert repeatedly claims. As far as indicating something conclusively about a kgirl (he goes on and on and over and over on this), they most often, in my experience, prove to be pretty useless. But they can and do provide a good indication of the preferences and approach of the reviewer.
Ah yes, if there are 10+ reviews saying the girl is chubby, they are useless in telling something about the girl's appearance... you're right.
But the positive ones magically aren't useless !
Hilarious.
and clarify (though I am surprised it might be needed) my position.
First, I'm not claiming that no reviews have the same informational content as a set of consistently poor reviews has. Clearly the latter removes just about all ambiguity for someone trying to decide.
However, one of the almost universally stated bits of advice to those with budgets that don't support much error in selection, newbies trying to figure out how to play and even just the experienced who ask because they are letting their hopes about an ad influence their wants is "If they don't have reviews MOVE ON." So are you suggesting that either that is bad advice or an approach that you and most on TER simply don't follow or agree with?
My take here is that unless one is ready to accept the losses then both the advice to be given that person and their personal set of rules should be No Reviews is an Do Not See indicator just as much as a set of bad reviews. The emergence of a set of bad reviews is just confirmation that staying away was the smart thing to do. A set of good reviews is just an all clear signal that your wait is over and a new option has opened up for that person. But if you want to be on the cutting edge seeing new, unreviewed providers you sure as hell better be prepared, and able, to do a little bleeding (certainly financially, perhaps mentally and possibly even physically). Maybe that's just me though.
In the case of the K-agencies are you saying that the set of bad reviews is clear info on the specific provider as above but no reviews leaves someone with relying solely on the agencies reputation and the mongers prior experience with the agency? That setting does change the calculations a bit but the key there is not reviews but the agency, its reputation with the specific monger and agencies consistency in delivering desirable providers.
You just said that no reviews is just as detrimental to provider as bad reviews.
Ir really isn't, though - a provider loses more money with bad reviews than without them. It's quite simple and it is true in any industry that is reviewed.
If you see an unreviewed provider = you may get some financial bleeding. Correct.
Would people who rush to see unreviewed product do the same if they had information beforehand hat it is a bad product? No, they wouldn't. Claiming otherwise is just absurd in any industry that has reviews for goods and services. If bad reviews from another place she worked at were available, would she get as many toftt people? No, she wouldn't. This is why rebrand info is vital and thus is why girls change names trying to escape past bad reviews.
A lot less people will see a provider with bad reviews than with no reviews. This gap between no reviews and then bad reviews coming in, is when a subpar provider makes most money. My point is that in ideal situation this gap is minimized as much as possible.
Your point is simply that is if you see toftt providers, you should be prepared to lose money. It doesn't in any way, shape or form support the argument that the provider loses as much money from no reviews as from bad reviews. In fact it kinda supports the opposite. Only masochists or those who think they can somehow change ymmv girls (lol) or those with no o th er options will see a girl who averages a 3 on here.
The difference between no reviews and negative reviews is ths toftt guys bleeding financially. Why would you, as a consumer, want to see that? The goal of everyone should be that negative reviews are written as fast as possible for general public to see, and minimize money given to a subpar provider. Ideally, the provider is out of work after first few sessions if all of them get reviewed as soon as possible.
Let us consider a hypothetic scenario where Bryce comes back under the moniker of "Harper" (if you are in DC you should know who Bryce Harper is and hence get the pun)
If every single monger who might see her knows that her past name was Bryce and has knowledge of reviews, how many would actually see her?
Versus a situation where she has no reviews at all and people don't have any info in her.
Now, you may say, but Bryce wasn't a rebrand and you can't compare a new girl to a rebrand.
But how are these actually different? The simplest way to answer if negative reviews are more deterrent compared to no reviews is ask yourself, if people knew all the information given via negative reviews before, would they still see her? If there is a single person, who went to see her and wouldnt see her if he had access to reviews in time, it is enough to conclude that the number lf mongers who'd see her with no info is less than the number of mongers who'd see her with info (info=reviews). Hence she'd make less money, hence why negative reviews are always strictly worse than no reviews.
I struggle to see any circumstance in life in general, where having less or no info would be the better or same as having info. It just doesn't work this way. Information is one of the most valuable things in the world.
I will have to agree with useyrhead and say that I very rarely see any provider who rates less than a "TER 7" (probably a 5 on the GAGA scale) and on the rare occasions that I do, just like him I walk from the session.
So yes, I will confess 98% of my sessions would be in the 7-9 range (TER scale, not my own) for appearance.
As for performance, it's not like you are always going to know a bad session is coming before you get naked with the lady, and at that point it's really too late to actually walk out except on the rarest of situations, but I will also concede that the overwhelming majority of my sessions also fall into the 7-9 range for performance as well.
I completely agree about "10's" I would give LESS than 1% of the women I have seen a 10 in either appearance or performance.
Just for the record, while I don't write reviews I do often put little notes to myself in my "contacts" list which of course includes a LOT of providers and part of those notes is a 1-10 scale on looks and appearance strictly for my own use, which means my own scale. and I would say that it's rare that I score a girl much over a 7 or under a 6 on both performance and appearance on the GaGa scale, which is about 2 points harder than the TER scale. An 8 on my own scale would be a 10 on the TER scale and a 5 would probably be a 7, If I were to check my phone right now I think I would have ONE "10" for performance ZERO 10's for appearance, and I have next to no scores below a five for either because I tend to delete those numbers both off my contact list and hopefully out of my memory. lol
I see your point. I suppose that some guys are blinded by the service or scared of some level of blowback to score too low, especially with K-girl bookers. In my early Kgirling days I wasn't afraid at all of giving low scores to anyone because I'd done it before and this is a review site. Then again, at the time, I never met a Kgirl that warranted a low score. A few or more years in, reading the LA forum here and reading about experiences other guys had, I did pause a couple of times about how I might be affected, if at all, by giving a lower score (not below a 5) in looks or performance. Would I get I trouble with a booker for being honest? I'd read posts on how a 6 or 7 in either category could derail a Kgirl and possibly the monger who posted a "bad" review from being able to book again. I would never think saying a woman is attractive is a negative. But, giving a 7 to some providers is a terrible thing, especially when a provider has a page of 10s or mostly 10s.
If a provider is generally considered attractive and gives reasonable or better service, more guys are going to see her and rate her looks accordingly. How many provider profiles have you seen where most of the looks/performance ratings had lots of scores below 5 or 6? Sure, I've seen a few (rarely more than half a page of reviews) and wonder if all those guys discovered TER just to write the review after seeing the provider. What the fuck? Check TER first! There just aren't going to be a lot of unattractive providers getting pages of reviews on TER in my opinion. And, within this thread there is a perfect example of this in Bryce.
I gave a 9 in look to my ATF K-girl. And, I've only given a 10 in looks a few times to a Kgirl (1) and not Kgirls (2). My lowest score given ages ago is a 4 to someone that wasn't attractive in person. I tried not to be mean in my review. That same provider has some people who gave her scores reflecting that she was really hot and model material. So, for her profile those scores would be extreme and questionable in my eyes. If a guy has only seen a lot of unattractive escorts and isn't around women much, maybe someone slightly better looking than "blech" is gorgeous. Or, some guys love a great ass or a great rack so, therefore, she's hot even though she has a face that is plain or worse.
Well, the part where you say what the fuck, check ter first, I've already addressed elsewhere in this thread. Many people don't publish reviews on the first day, as they're much more likely to be identified by agencies and girls, who do read active forums and reviews sites. So it's quite possible most of those people saw the provider before plethora of negative reviews was available.
And one bad review usually can be considered an outlier and small sample size. And often the monger who wrote that outlier will be discredited by people who would benefit from this review being dismissed. I won't say who these people are, but it should be fairly obvious.
Hence imo it's paramount if someone is very bad, to get this info into public as soon as possible,by as many people as possible. That's what camaraderie is for and what a community is for.
I suspect this info does get passed quickly in private. Judging from private groups I was part of, it certainly does. But the problem is people who dont have or don't want to have backchnanel networking.
Now, I would like to focus on the "I didn't want to be mean" part. I think it's important. If it's a review, you grade accordingly and that's that imo. If you star bringing up girls feelings into this, it ceass to be an objective review imo.
Since there was no response, perhaps I could expand on what I meant here.
You don't hear someone saying "I didnt want to be too exuberant" when talking about great reviews. Which is back to my point of how people don't talk about glowing reviews as outliers, but do so about bad reviews.
Imo, good and bad reviews alike should be equally manageable to write provided one is objective and does not account for feelings. If you find yourself framing words in such a way as to "not be mean", you are likely already not objective. Ie, you have double standards for positive and negative reviews. If the truth is ugly, why apologize for being mean? You stated the truth. Do many apologize when they heap praise? No. Treating negative reviews with the same attitude that people treat positive reviews is imperative imo. Identical behavior. If you catch yourself treating a negative review differently from the way you'd treat a positive review... chances are you're biased.
Thinking how a girl would react to a review, already makes one impartial imo. Because it means bringing external factors into a review that should attempt to be neutral in terms of bias. You don't think of "how do I say this without being mean" in a positive review, do you?
A girl thinking you're mean, a girl potentially losing all business and being unable to pay debt if she had any, etc should never be a factor in review writing,if one is objective and unbiased.
Just like a students assignment is graded an F even if this means him getting kicked out of college.
You're grading work you paid for. If a negative review is harder for one to write, and one is afraid to sound mean, there's a great chance one is clearly biased towards positive reviews. That's just the truth.
-- Modified on 6/28/2021 12:56:30 AM
-- Modified on 6/28/2021 12:58:05 AM
-- Modified on 6/28/2021 1:06:16 AM
Thinking how a girl would react to a review, already makes one impartial imo. Because it means bringing external factors into a review that should attempt to be neutral in terms of bias. You don't think of "how do I say this without being mean" in a positive review, do you?
I think you meant to say "thinking about how a girl would react to a review already makes one "NOT" impartial"
Aside from that I totally agree with you, although I will allow if a guy generally had a good time, it can be hard for some guys to be overly critical or "mean" to someone they just were intimate with. That doesn't excuse glossing over the negatives to make an experience sound better than it was which will cause the poor next guy to get the same poor service because he was lied to because the reviewer didn't want to be "mean" but it does explain at least some of the reason that guys do this.
Personally I believe there are LOTS of girls who need the money, who are in debt, have to pay their rent etc. Why should I give the money I "could have" given to a more deserving girl who actually performs as she is paid to do just to squander that money on a woman who is lousy at her job. When I look for someone to paint my house, I don't choose the guy who is in most need of the money, I pick the guy who will do the best job at the best price.
Correct. To many edits lol. This is what I get for writing on Sunday night haha
bigger issue is overrating (8s 9s and 10s) just because a nice connection was made with the provider. i think it happens most frequently with the older ones. if the reviewer's preference is milf or gilf they should state that when rating one a 8 9 or 10. lots of grannys in the OC with 8s and 9s.
Many have tried to fix this. Only those who have stuck to a case by case basis have succeeded at accomplishing anything, in my experience.
Try this approach:
Pick a girl you’ve recently seen who you think has been significantly over or under rated. Then create a post that as politely and objectively as possible points out the discrepancy you perceive. Be willing to acknowledge that this is a controversial topic and that no one person is authoritative in judging another’s looks or how other’s will perceive them.
Do the same thing with a few different girls over time.
If you do it well, here’s the best result you can hope for:
Others will become aware not just of the difference in how they perceive a particular girl’s looks. But, in many cases, they will actually begin to take a more objective position when describing looks.
Be prepared to talk about things like jawline, eye shape and size, face symmetry, and so on.
And, above all, have fun with it. The more enjoyable you make the process, the more you’ll find other people willing to participate.
my reviews and posted many times on multiple discussion boards that my preferred range for Kgirl ages is 32-45. 95% of the girls I see are in this range, regardless of what their profile set up by the first reviewer says. When it comes to my ratings, all of my scores range from 7 (below average) to 10 (top 10% of all girls I have seen).
I'm interested in who is a granny in OC. I know most all of the older girls there, and while some have kids that are teens or "young adults," I can't think of a single one that has grandchildren. If you don't want to post it, a PM is okay. Thanks, Matt.
Does a girl need to have an actual child to be a "milf"? if a younger girl (19 yo) has a child, is she a milf? if a female is 40 and has no kid, is it wrong to call her a milf? What i refer to as a granny is just a female i put on the next age level. for clarification, the age threshold where i start to consider a provider a granny is about 45 with certain mannerisms, and body cues. granny is just the term i use to describe the provider since that's all we can do here is use words and terms.
95 percent of the girls you see, CDL, are between 32 and 45 because 95 percent of the kgirls ARE between 32 and 45. further, there are more older than 45 than younger than 32. this isn't based on any inside info, rather based on the fact that i am a 45'ish korean and can simply tell.
I'm not trying to out any provider and even though I know when I book a kgirl I will be most likely be seeing a 38ish female, I still monger and enjoy it. My initial post was just sort a plead to the other guys asking to try not to mix up service and looks. because a 5 in looks and 9 in service is absolutely possible.
Is she still a MILF if she doesn't have kids. I think it depends partly on the age of the customer. If she has no kids and the guy is in his 20's, maybe she's a cougar and not a MILF. Lol I appreciate you not telling who the grannies are. I already know which ones are granny-aged, but I am unaware of any in OC that actually have a grandchild.
Seriously, for me, a MILF is not so much to do with age, but the condition of her body. You can have a 40 year old Kgirl with 6-pack abs, flawless skin and tight and trim all over, and most are not going to describe her as a MILF. MILF usually means their body is starting to show signs of approaching middle age. . . . . the little pooch in the lower abdomen, a little loose skin here and there, a few extra pounds, hair lost its shine, vascularity on the backs of their hands, labia that looks like pastrami, etc. We have all seen these telltale indicators that she's at least 33-38, but there will always be a few who keep themselves in such good shape, they look 10 or 15 younger than their chronological age. These are the home runs for me.
The current TER Poll shows a similar behavior as you suggest (but doesn't mention just how much an impact). Accuracy of the photo will influence both grading of looks and performance for some. Why? Don't know -- but seems to be a human behavioral trait.
I think this just reinforces the reality that numbers are not really comparable across reviewers and everyone should be careful in using reviews by attempting to find ways to assess if some other reviewer shares their same tastes and wants. Once you can start identifying reviewers that are recommending what you want you'll get the best value out of using any review site.