Is there not a better way of rating this.
I am not having a go at any of the ladies on the list, but only two of the top 10 have over 50 reviews, and only two of the top 20 have over 100.
The top two ladies have just 57 reviews Between them.
I don't doubt they are very good at their job, even excellent, but surely a lady with high ratings over a larger number of reviews should be higher up the list, IMO.
Much easier to be rated 9.5 over 30 reviews, than be rated 9.3 over 200 plus reviews.
For example Nikki Avalon has an overall rating of 9.14 over 429 reviews.
To be rated that high over that amount of reviews and time surely deserves a much higher place on the top 100 list than 25th.
And No, I have never seen Ms A.
Personally I think there should be a system put in place where you can only be placed so high in the top 100 list until you have been reviewed so many times. Be that 50, 100 or more.
Anyone can be great at their job 20 weeks of the year, including me. To be great 52 weeks of the year is the true test of a top provider.
BTW. I am great at mine 52 weeks of the year.
Just to bad I am not a provider, or a woman for that matter (
This is something I have pondered for a long time.
We have similar things happening on the SD top 100 list where the "top providers" have higher review average but much much fewer reviews. I am glad you point out that ladies with few reviews are higher on the list but that ladies with more should somehow have that averaged in for their ranking.
Be well
Goldie
obviously a gals that has been in the biz for quite some times has more reviews and I do not think she should have a better position based on that..I, for one, could care less about such list..there are great providers that have less than 20 reviews and some do not have any at all.
What can be bothersome is that some of those in the top 10 once they got to those positions ask their clients not to review them anymore so they do not risk a drop in average...if you look at the top 2 they have not had a new review in months.
if you don't have many reviews then your average goes up or down based on each new review. I have so many reviews that no many how many 10's I get my rating stays the same.
Some girls won't allow reviews because of that (they also see their numbers dropping and want to stop the slide downward).
And, to the people who say the reason they have no reviews is because they're low volume isn't true. It's a manipulation to keep their listing high. Who goes two months with seeing so few people that they have no reviews. I couldn't live like that and I'm pretty sure neither could anyone else
I also don't agree that just because someone has been working for 12 years vs. someone who has been working for less should be ranked higher.
BTW you need a minimum of 20 reviews to be placed on the top 100.
I think they should pick a number, and based the ratings on the most recent 20 or 30 or 40, etc. reviews. In golf, the round you played three years ago (good or bad) doesn't matter. Performance for the ladies from three years ago shouldn't matter.
I am not really concerned with the length of time a provider has been working. Rather I am very impressed with the ability to sustain high scores over many reviews, like Nikki Avalon has. I actually know of a provider that offered a very low rate and went all out in her performance (to a level that is unsustainable long term) just to get 20 reviews to make it to the top 100 list. That is relatively easy. But when you find a provider that can sustain their high scores across hundreds of clients, then you know for sure you have found someone who is top quality.
Maybe a good middle ground is to require that if providers go 3 or 4 months without a new review you fall off the list of top 100 providers. This may serve as a disincentive to request clients stop giving reviews that pull down their average score.
I agree that the criterion of the top 100 mathematical system is seriously flawed. Regardless of the number of reviews that the current #1 provider has in her profile it will only take one low rated review to plummet her down to a considerably lower ranking.
My low ranking is mainly due to a 6/3 score that I received from a client whom I had the misfortune of meeting at the beginning of my career before I was even aware of the existence of TER.
VIP’s can read it here and make their own judgment on fairness : http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/showReview.asp?Review=47070
However, I am fortunate & truly grateful to have obtained such a large & loyal client base long before the “top 100” rating system was implemented.
Love, Lust & Gratitude,
Nikki Avalo
Dang, nobody ever told me. And to think I've only been hanging with a Top One!!
Great responses to this post..
There is somebody in that top 10 list for Vegas that's tearing it up since returning back to the business. 29 reviews since January with only 4 9's and the rest are all 10's and well deserved in my opinion. Her numbers would be even higher if the reviews from years ago were not on there.. reviews from even 4 years ago really don't mean too much to me because a lot can change with somebody in even 1 year IMO.
Not that I pay any attention to the top 100 list except for entertainment purposes... Reading a ladies most recent reviews (especially from respected hobbyists) is more important for me and I have my own top 10 list
... Not much to add to the excellent comments made by others especially Arden, but perhaps some of you remember The Mathesar Report, a statistical analysis that turned out to be a far more accurate barometer than the existing rating systems, or top "whatever" lists. Now THERE was a rating system that should have been implemented on a larger scale.
As Far As I Am Concerned, there can be no such thing as a definitive top list of providers because there is so much variety and choice among both client and provider. My top 10 list will be very different than the next guys. It's all subjective at the end of the day.
