Being that beauty is always subjective, I have always been wary of the TER beauty standards. In the short time I have been in the hobby, the 25 girls reviewed plus those I have not, I have met only 3 that so far have been a 10 in looks and 10 in service (not going by TER ratings). I won't give their names but will give out initials. The three I have considered were S, B, and L all kgirls btw.
Considering how some/many feel that the TER scoring needs an over haul I would agree. A "once in a lifetime" encounter should be just that. No other chance in seeing her again. Here is my proposed tier:
1 - Below Average 2 - Average 3 - Attractive 4 - Hot 5 - Model material
Just my take on how the rating could go if any changes. If it seems too simple, it may be. But sometimes I guess we get too caught up in the numbers that we forget that it is all subjective to whomever is seeing the girl.
Another way to go would be to just get rid of the looks section but keep the service rating. Just a few of my thoughts. I am sure that many of you have proabably better ideas or thoughts so please share.
I know I am not an expert here but would love to hear opinions.
I'm not sure that the current system is broken. The problem is not with the system so much as it with the users. If you go to another one, there will be overpraising occurring on it as well. For me, if a girl is an 8 instead of a 10, IMHO, when I meet her, I'm not going to be bent out of shape, unless her fee is based on her supposed great beauty. However, nearly all girls have some photos, often of the face, so a client can make his own judgement.
Yes. It is also a matter of the user. I don't want this to just focus on kgirls as that is not my intent. I would hope many would chime in on this as well.
But you are correct in saying that the user is the main "bottleneck" here. You can put in so many numbers and it will still boil down to the user of the service. For me though, the main sticking point is the "once in a lifetime" criteria. Sorry but for me, if she was that good, then I would definitely keep seeing her thus making that category moot.
I understand your point. For me, "once in a lifetime" would be someone like Sophia Loren, but that's how I interpret the scale. You take the wording more literally, which is something I usually do. Perhaps the problem is with the wording? Instead of "once in a lifetime," we could replace it with "Raquel Welch-like." Sorry, I'm showing my age in my pick of beauty standards!
B310 , you had a good topic for a general discussion but undermined it by referring to initial of 3 K-dolls which only serve to solicit responses like the one quoted below. What are you trying to achieve beside getting swallowed by a young Sophia Loren look alike boa at the top of the stairs.
The looks section is pretty subjective still I think some of those who give 10s are either too scared , too young , too old or so easily manipulated given they use the 10 more than once. The performance rating has been allowed to go to the dogs by the review supervisors because of their failure to adhere to their own guidelines .there was a time when 10 were rightly removed if the services did not warrant it now any rating will pass irrespective off the items on the menu.
We see lots of low scores of K-girls that are nor reflected by the review narrative. Sixes and sevens especially for newbie K-dolls with few or no reviews sabotage a girls ability to earn a living. Some of these low scores could be in retaliation for a girl refusing to provide more items than on her menu.
Admin was cool about it and explained why. That happened just a few weeks ago. Someone must still be watching that stuff, though maybe not as closely as they used to.
There is too much money being made by those in the know, and with the juice.
The system has ALWAYS allowed for an easy "aggregate" value system to be employed as a competitive impetus for a number of charter member providers. By the simple act of having "1" being considered a dog, and "10" being a dream incarnate; innate number crunchers, statisticians, and actuaries over the years have sought to pin-point and promulgate the number ONE highest scoring provider(s).
Several years back the annual "Mathesar report" in LA had hooker queens regularly demanding 10s from their clients so that they could either keep or improve their positioning at time of the next "report". One still currently advertising perennial had an obvious deal worked out where the minimum, prerequisite number of necessary reviews "SIX" would magically appear in the 2-3 months prior to the report's completion(often by same/repeating reviewers). And administration would ALWAYS remove any reviews that contained a score below "9" if they errantly let it slip by during the original "approval process". (I snagged a couple of her clinkers to 'file' before they were pulled) Another provider had an incredible ability to garner extremely sensitive and loquacious review writers with a knack at romance novel quality scene and mood development. She too held an incredulous number of Appearance 10s, and seldom ever a lowly "9" in performance. She too is still active, and receiving the longest, and most wonderfully descriptive "General details" to be found on TER.
The Aforementioned “Mathesar” was EXTREMELY popular with all of the ladies making the annual top 10, and for an octogenarian on a very humble, fixed retirement income he hobbied like some of our current hedge-fund, oil well barons.
THAT is why the totally subjective, infinitely flawed “Appearance” scores will never be allowed to transcend into something more objective, fair, or useful; because there is MONEY, egos, and political favors involved!!
A good point. As long as numbers are used to rank providers, or any method, for that matter, there will always be some who will game the system. One of the biggest problem here is that providers can challenge bad reviews and have them dropped. While this can prevent clients from trashing providers as an act of revenge, it also has the effect of keeping scores higher than they should be.
There is no "objective" way of reviewing people, since this hobby is illegal; and even if it weren't, it would still be hush-hush for all those who have wives and significant others. So we are stuck with a subjective system that can be particularly abused by some unethical participants.
I'm sure he never expected the notoriety, popularity, OR controversy his report fostered.
I wonder if with TER's decision too no longer include review scores for "General" memberships whether Mathesar's discussion board posted report & scores would today be redacted to insure impetus for VIP memberships.
The system is in place, you just have to take things with a grain of salt. A "10" is perfection, and described as "one in a lifetime" which is really a ridiculous hyperbole. I think I've given out one 10. And it's a personal preference; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think the system rates are actually pretty funny. "OK if you're drunk" is funny. I've been there before (in civvie life). Beer goggles are the worst!
I prefer having the two separate criteria for looks and performance.
Performance scores can vary depending on how the girl reacts to the client (how they look, smell, attitude, chemistry, etc) and also on what the reviewer expects from a session. A guy may take away a couple points because a provider doesn't do cim or rim. If I'm not into those things, my performance score would be 2 points higher.
Looks can also be subjective but if a number of reviewers feel a girl is a 9 or better, she's probably pretty hot. Having a really hot chick (a true 9-10) give you an average bbbj is still a worthwhile session for me.
So if a provider has mostly 9s in looks but performance shows one or two 6s and 7s mixed in with 8s and 9s and I like her pictures, I'll probably still see her.
I'd agree that the scale is not optimal. The scores are compressed mostly into just the 7-9 range. Maybe decimal points in the scores would help (so you could score someone an 8.7)
We should obviously separate the 2 scores on looks vs performance. The word "looks" is misleading, focussed too much on facial beauty. For me beauty includes also body (especially silicon free), inner beauty (personality) and chemistry. I have never given 10 on performance not because of the provider, but because I don't need a whole range of services. In terms of beauty, Amber and Scarlett are my perfect 10. They both look better than their CV pictures. Btw, take a look at Addison Ray. She seemed to be only Asian who received all 10/10. Not even a 9!!
Right. Beauty is in the eyes of beholder. TER review rating of beauty is different than real world. I seen her in person in Vegas, she certainly is no 10 to me. To each of his own. http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/207250326/p1/
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.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
