At least one poster here has shown an inability to keep it civil.

I believe I was the one who started the thread on the Policy & Sugestion Board, and what Poppy has written is close to the point I was trying to make.  When a provider starts out, she may have great enthusiasm, and generate high ratings/scores, and then, as the career advances and the enthusiasm wanes, the scores decrease; or the skill set and presentation of self just aren't there at the beginning but are acquired as time goes by; or she may start out at a level and maintain that level throughout her career.  My original suggestion was that scores be weighted--less weight for a score from early in the career, more weight for a score later in the career.  (I think lots of hobbyists actually do this intuitively/unconsciously anyway when using scores to decide whether or not to see a provider.)  And it is the case that, statistically, the more reviews/ratings/scores you have, the harder it is to change your overall average, for better or worse.  So the system of averaging gives no room for improvement/longevity.

Maybe have some of HHs July reviewers come on here (who are not regulars of this board) and say they are all true. There really is no way to really verify if they are true or not. Its true with any providers reviews. They're all fiction anyways, according to TER. Or pm them and see if they respond.