Los Angeles
Why the TOP 100 PROVIDERS IN LOS ANGELES list (on the TER Beta site) is garbage. (Long)
The first problem is that the list consists of the 100 providers with the most reviews. Arguably, these are the most popular providers. However, most popular does NOT mean the best by any reasonable criteria of which I am aware.
As old timers on this board may be aware I did “The Mathesar Report” until the summer of 2006 on this board (with the approval of TER management). I attempted to analyze the appearance and performance scores. And I had a lot of feedback from both providers and clients on what “best” might mean.
Everyone agrees that higher scores are better than lower, but from that point on it gets tricky.
The first problem is that reviewers are NOT randomly assigned to escorts. Since this assumption is not true any statistics are only approximately true.
The second problem is that TER uses the performance number two different ways: (1) to indicate WHAT an escort does and (2) to indicate how well she does it. One number can’t serve two different purposes well. TER also “adjusts” numbers (sometimes). Statistics can deal with random errors in data, but does not deal well with systematic alterations.
Given the preceding problems, one would be justified in saying that NO meaningful statistics could be done on the TER data. However, I decided to ignore the problems and plow ahead to see if the results of doing statistics on the data seemed to give results that correlated with personal experience.
It was clear that there were major problems with TER’s presentation of its own data. For one thing, average appearance and performance scores were “lifetime” scores over the escort’s entire history on TER. This would be fine if appearance and performance never changed—more data would mean more accurate estimates. Is there anyone who believes that performance and appearance do not change over time? Given that these things do change, the shorter the time period used to create the averages the better. On the other hand the shorter the time period the more uncertain the results. I ended up using the most recent year’s worth of data as a compromise. Although it is a compromise at least the same time period is used for everyone, there is usually enough data to form a reasonable estimate of the appearance and performance scores, and the frequency response is reasonable.
I was not only interested in “best.” I was also interested in finding a correlation between appearance and performance scores and price. Much to my surprise (and I was surprised) the PRODUCT of the average appearance score and average performance score (both averages over the most recent year’s worth of data) gave the best correlation with price. Because the correlation was good it gave an indication of who was overpriced and who was a bargain. I felt that this information was useful. (NOTE: I refer to the product of the two average scores as the OVERALL SCORE in profiles I created.)
Ashley Shye pointed out to me that she was number 66 (now 67) in the list of THE TOP 100 PROVIDERS IN LOS ANGELES on the TER Beta Site. She seemed happy about this, but I felt that it was ridiculous that she was so far down the list.
I still have my old software on my computer. (Not all of it still works, but enough does.) So I ran her numbers and attached them to this message. (See ASHLEY SHYE’S NUMBERS below this message.)
Does anyone really feel that the TER list is meaningful and that the 66 providers above Ashley in the list are REALLY better than she is? (Since price is not given, the implication is that it isn’t a factor and we mean “best” regardless of price.)
My own opinion—and it is just my personal opinion—is that TER didn’t know how to do statistics in 2006 (and before) and that they still don’t.
I do not like the use of numberical numbers like you like to use to decided who you will see.
A provider might have "good numbers" but have no personality whatsoever. So what is the fun in that?
The use of numbers reminds me of what the cattle industry does to grade its meat. While those numbers help the ladies in the top 100, what about the other great ladies out there that did not make the list? How does that make them feel?
You might be a numbers guys but I am people person. I want to be with someone that I truly enjoy their company and not just because their numbers were good. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to read a lady's reviews, send her an email, start up a little conversation to see if we connect then book an awesome session. I always like to leave the slide ruler at home.
So the answers to your questions:
"Does anyone really feel that the TER list is meaningful "
NO because several of the ladies on that list(1 being in the top 10) have been horrible in booking and one has flaked on me leaving me to pay the room and never apologized. But, there are a few ladies I did see that on that list who were wonderful and I feel their "ranking" is too low. So the list is subjective.
" that the 66 providers above Ashley in the list are REALLY better than she is? (Since price is not given, the implication is that it isn’t a factor and we mean “best” regardless of price.)"
Hard to say but at least they did not cancel on me.
I mentioned this in one of my previous posts. More reviews does NOT mean better. In fact, I prefer less. But thats just me. I prefer low volume over high volume ladies. Ashley is indeed a lovely lady and if this were an actual "Report" she would certainly be in the top of that list.
She is number , what is it 66 on that list and she is one of our most loved and highly rated on this site.
So, I agree with Mathesar on this. That list means zilch other than the ladies on it have a lot of reviews.
In The Beginning, I went through the same deal with Felicia Foxx (not the porn star from OH), Big Doggie put her on the National Top 25 (11th I think), and something like 4th in LA.
Realizing it immediately as a marketing ploy and little else more, one solely to generate conversation and attention to TBD, it begged the question what did #s 1-10 do, or how did they appear, to be superior to Ms. Foxx, who was a Hall of Fame provider and additionally one of the nicest people you'd ever meet anywhere.
As we've discussed before, quantifying a list has many pitfalls, and assumes too much, IMHO. The judging is too subjective to begin with, and it goes downhill from there fast.
Reviews are important, yes, but that's to make a purchasing decision, and not a whole lot else. To give the reviews more meaning than what they're actually worth might actually lessen the value of them in the long run.
The final thing, at the end of the day, women are women, and I tend to think that ranking them against other women sends the wrong message. In this business, women only compete against themselves and not each other. Sadly, too many ladies don't seem to get that.
has many pitfalls. However, I do feel that a list can serve as a useful index to the reviews. Even so, some lists are better than others and in my opinion the TER list is a particularly bad (i.e., useless to the point of being misleading) one.
Incidentally, Felicia was one of my first experiences in the hobby. I learned about her from the site you named. She was a lovely lady and I greately enjoyed the time I spent with her. I was able to introduce her to Wow Nikki and the two of them made quite a duo for some time.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
