We write and preuse the reviews for kgirls in order to gain info before taking the plunge or to inform brother mongers about whom we’ve experienced. I’ve never understood it when a monger will mark a girl down on appearance because she has an attitude or is not feeling it (that’s what the performance number is for). I always run across ratings where an RA who may normally average a 7 or 8 for appearance but because the client wasn’t happy with her performance she gets a 3 or 4 (okay if you’re drunk).  This is some misleading bullshit. An RA could be having a bad day or just be a plain bad performer and look hot or gorgeous at the same time. Downgraing her looks to soothe a bruised ego doesn’t help anyone. Some of us may not mind a DDG with an attitude or lackluster service. Silly attempts to fuck it up for the RA are not welcome nor informative. Keep bad performance to the performance section.  

On the flip side:

Many a BBFS RA seem to get bonus beauty points for giving it up raw. Its not quite as rampant here as in other places I’ve mongered but there are some swampdonkeys who have been upgraded to hottie status fo BB. I don’t care how big of an earthshattering nut I bust, no amount of ecstasy will change a busted chick into a dime. I guess this turned into a rant rather than an observation but we defeat the purpose of these reviews if the bareback or pisstivity goggles affect our objective opinion.  

Which Norcal girl are you referring about?

so I agree with you 100%.  Reviewers are upgrading BBFS girls on both looks and service JUST BECAUSE these girls are letting them go bare.  For me, the tipoff was few years ago when the BBFS girls started getting contradictory reviews.  Some guys would inflate scores, as you have pointed out, but others would point out in their narrative that the girl was below average in looks, and didn't do much in the way of service, but they would still give a higher score than they would have given to a GFE girl with the same deficiencies, just because they got to raw-dog her.  This is one reason I don't see girls who advertise BBFS.  They are slacking off on service overall.  

 
It seems the PSE girls have also figured this out.  They are pushing the limits to see how poor they can do in overall service and still get a decent review score because they are going bare.  I had a few girls tell me in the last year that they openly added BBFS to her menu because they don't have to bust their ass on the service.  They can pretty much just lay there and allow the BBFS, and they will get the same scores they had to work their asses off for when they were strictly GFE service.  These are girls that I had seen in the past who were strictly GFE, but getting a little older and not as athletic as they used to be.  BBFS seems to be the great equalizer for these girls.  The guys that are inflating review scores for BBFS girls are the ones encouraging these girls to provide a lesser degree of service.

What you have described has been going on since TER started...in 1999.  It's not something that's exclusive to K-girls.

 
Welcome to TER, Rickjames_.  

Yeah man, I know. I guess a couple reviews just irked the shit out of me and needed to vent. Seen the same shit in other forums in the past. I try not to white knight for these chicks but when its clear that some dude puts out misleading info cause his feeling got hurt or a chick didn’t meet his lofty or unrealistic expectations its annoying.

Probably should have included that for reference. So the latest one I saw was for Yuna who is no Miss Korea but far from swampdonkey status. The reviewer got a crappy session and reported it accordingly. The fuckery starts when he rated her as “okay if you’re drunk” for appearance. If this were a first time visit for the individual then based on the overall rating consensus and my own opinion I may argue that it appears this was done to punish the provider. But this was not the monger’s first visit with Yuna. He’d seen her before and marked her higher (my subscription lapsed so I cant  provide the exact numbers right now) for appearance. If she were a dog then, I dont think he’d be doing a repeat unless her pussy has the G.I. Joe kung-fu grip and it made his head spin like the Exocist.

He gave an 8/9 in the earlier review. How you go from an 8 to a 3 even if stressed and in need of a break is hard to understand.

 
BTW, while this is an extreme case the current TER poll seems to indicate that dinging a girl on looks rather than giving an honest score is fairly common behavior by those pissed about either the pics not being her/recent or the performance given. Then again, who ever believed the average review (good or bad) was actually objective.

Yeah, Ive seen many reviews over the years from salty mongers for one reason or another. Most valid and others not so much. This one in particular because of the rating disparity in looks from visit one to visit two from the same guy was motivated by his displeasure and a desire punish the RA when it wasn’t merited. Performance sucked. Cool, grade accordingly. He only discredits his own reporting by reducing the appearance grade. I used to see shitbricks in A Hawaii forum who would brag about taking down a girl with his grading and forcing her to go elsewhere. This guy doesn’t seem to be that but thats where such bullshit starts.

It certainly shouldn't affect much. Agreed.  

 
I can see Yuna getting a below average grade for looks, I do think she hovers around average-ish.

 
However, her getting a much lower grade for looks the second time around for same monger makes little sense, unless he made some kinda mistake. Nothing from her looks have changed so drastically.  

 
About bbfs yeah I agree. It's dumb that bbfs is considered a reason for raising a grade. My woat session had the girl pulling me in BB half-limp. I gave her a two out of ten  
in service, and I was being generous.  

 
If there's one thing that's good about bbfs going into the itemized upcharge direction, it's that now it won't be judged as part of the grade for service. Hopefully.

-- Modified on 8/15/2021 7:48:47 PM

the reviewer says he paid the upcharge price for BBFS.  If he just says she allowed BBFS, she could be a YMMV girl who is being outed.  Either way, when there is BBFS involved, we should always be on the lookout for upgraded scores that are solely because of the BBFS.  Likewise, we should always wonder if a girl with a substantially lower score than her average is not the subject of a revenge review for refusing BBFS to a reviewer.

Yeah, sucky people suck in a bad way.

 
But let's be real. Other than it manifests itself in the TER review this type of crap is found everywhere because that is just how some people are.  But you're right; it should be called out here if for no other reason that to point out the reviewers inconsistency and so lack or reliability in that person's reviews.

One issue is that for at least TER, I think there is only one service price for all the reviews, per girl profile.  

 
So unless the reviewer mentions explicitly how much he paid, it will be tough to distinguish the difference. Although if a girl advertises bbfs for upcharge, I assume she does not let anyone hit it raw for free. So in that way, all reviews for girls who upcharge the BB stuff should be less ambiguous imo.

for different session lengths.  If it doesn't have the price for the session that you did (for instance, it only has the hour rate and you went 90 minutes or two hours), then you can use the contact us button at the bottom of the page and ask them to add the additional rates to the profile.    I have seen some already that say one hour for $360 or $380.  We all know that this includes an upcharge for the BBFS rate.