Agree with vbvb on his points.

Though better than before, it's still not a fair system as there are a lot of awesome ladies missing from the 10 to 20 reviews bucket that should be on the list. And I'm surprised that a poll was not conducted amongst all TER members to arrive at a majority consensus before the new rules were enacted.

It's hard to believe that some of the most talented and hottest ladies currently around are no longer on the list ie Eden Adams and Edrienne Cole  

Maybe worth raising the issue to TER to poll for a fairer system and change the rules again.

H

They really should not be "measured" against natural women.

...I can tell you that sites that "rank" never stop tweaking the algorithms.  There are infinite ways to slice and dice the data and it takes a tremendous amount of effort get it right.  Some thoughts just shooting from the hip here:

1) Segmentation: There are obviously different classes of service and providers being offered here and it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare apples and oranges.  If I were advising TER I'd start by making them really think through the segmentation strategy of the site in general.  There are the obvious (massage, escort, s&m) but there are likely multiple subsegments within each that may or may not roll up hierarchically.

2) Moving average: getting into the math itself you can use a moving average rather than a lifetime average.  Early scores can drop off completely or can be weighted lower.

3) Weighting of criteria: The simplest approach is simply to average all numeric scores but that's often the least accurate as well.  It's much easier to get a single 10 than a series of 30 10s in a row, to some extent they've minimized this by setting a lower boundary to the number of reviews needed but a similar approach could be had by using a weighted total over an average or using number of reviews in the scoring mechanism and weighting it appropriately (some form of logx(numreviews) as a bonus).  You can take this further by weighting individual reviewers based upon the amount of feedback they've given or incorporate a "like" feature to the reviews and weight helpful reviews (and by extension reviewers) higher than those that weren't.

4) Statistical analysis of the trends: there are plenty of ways to really refine once a good base is in place.  Calculate the standard deviation of the set and provide a bonus to the tighter stdevs, this would give a boost to the providers who consistantly hit the same marks over those that may have gotten a bump by a couple good reviews.  You can use similar techniques to throw out the outliers, any score more than X * StDev from the mean gets dropped so that one disgruntled (or bought and paid for) reviewer doesn't distort the norm.

Site quality is generally pretty good at TER, I'd expect they have some sort of architect that would be researching common approaches used in other industries and providing a solution here that's flexible and configurable so that it can be tuned over time.  Of course priorities and resource bandwidth ultimately drive what gets attention so one small widget on the home page may be near the bottom of the to-do stack.

The most fair system is to eliminate the ranking system completely...

The ranking system is misleading IMO.  I have seen providers in the top 100 list asking me to write a review with at least a 9/9 score.  She said if I don't give at least a 9/9, don't bother writing one.  She didn't want to lose her ranking obviously.  Needless to say, I didn't write a review.  Besides, the search function is a great tool for searching for top ladies.

I don't think it works to eliminate the ranking system.  We just live in the kind of world where everything needs to be measured in every industry.  Everyone always wants a way to know who or what is the best.  We do it in sports (the Olympics), we do it in acting (the Oscars), so why not in this too?  Now, we can't exactly hold "Provider Competitions," so we rank based on cumulative performance and opinion.  

I do think, though, the rankings need to be re-organized and segmented based on services provided.  

For example, I do not do PSE.  Its just not in my bones to offer to that kind of experience (though its awesome to watch someone else doing that!).   The PSE experience is totally different than a GFE experience and I think it takes a different set of skills and energy to offer each one.  So why should we be ranked against each other when we are in differing segments of this service?  We would be competing against each other to be the best in our own separate fields?   That's like judging a top skier against a top snowboarder, it doesn't work.   And gals that do FBSM or Fetish stuff should certainly have their own list, because that is really judging apples against oranges.

I think that each review written should be written for which service the provider offered you and not just the provider, because there are providers who do offer PSE, FBSM, and Fetish.   That way, she can be ranked on several lists and the lists are more specific.  

I do agree that a provider who has been around a long time should not have reviews older than 2 or 3 years used in her average score and total ranking.  The women who have been around the longest are to be respected because they are obviously some of the best in their field and I think its wrong for them to be so low on the list of top providers.   The mere fact that they've been around that long should count for something, right?

*On the note of about it not being possible for a girl to be low volume when she has several reviews go up in one month....
Not all the reviews posted for the month listed actually happened in that month.  I am low volume provider.  Its important to me for the sake of maintaining the quality of my service that I don't see many people.  It just happened to me that one of my reviews recently posted actually happened 8 months ago.   I have had a whole bunch of reviews go up at once (and I just did) and it did not truthfully reflect how many people I saw at that time.  

Guys tend to hold onto their reviews and then post them whenever they feel like it, and there is nothing you can do about it as a provider.  So, while it comes off as, "Oh wow, she saw a lot of guys that month," it is usually not the case.

If a player hits .225 his rookie year, then .275-.280 next couple of years, then gets his professional groove on and starts hitting .325 in year four and five and smacks a smoking .350 in year six, should it all be averaged out to give him a BA of .275?  No, of course not.  It is the recent average that counts.  When I look at a providers reviews, if she had ten or fifteen 8/9's, but a year ago had a 6-7 because she was new to the business, I just strip out that 6 from my consideration....

Of course, if the provider has a recent 6, I usually pass her by....  Maybe TER could give the provider an opportunity to reply to the review.  Would certainly be interesting to hear that the guy who gave her a 6 showed up 30 minutes late, unshaven, dirty and wanted Greek when her ad said NO GREEK, e.g.....  RT

i dont like the new ranking system.  Personally, I think if someone has been working the business 4-5 years, they are bound to have herpes and other diseases.  1 in 5 have herpes HSV2 genitally.  The odds arent in your favor.  I think TER's new ranking system is making things unsafe.

# of reviews is irrelevant to me..if a gal is good she is with 0 reviews or 100..

The ranking system should be dynamic to each individual. TER can have their current ranking system as a general display. But, each individual should be able to tweak it to their individual liking. As an individual, I have my own criteria in women. Others may share in what I like and other my be turned off to it. So, I think TER should allow for tweaking!