Why are these posted now on TER?


-- Modified on 9/4/2011 6:31:06 AM

Some ladies wished to be delisted from this site.
It basically shows they(admin) could care less of what a provider wants to do with her profile.

So do they have to submit another request to be delisted again?

Its kind of weird and defeats the purpose since several ladies listed are now retired or delisted/banned.
It should be re named "hall of fame" or something.

I'm not sure what harm this causes.  I clicked on a few of the ads and they have removed any phone number, email, and website information.

Its only removed on some of the reviews, otherwise if one was determined they could try to track her down.
Nevertheless it needs to be renamed, just makes more sense IMHO

on the other hand some have recent reviews and are also running ads.

Wait, what is your point?

This is a new feature. An hour ago there were some providers listed who for very good reasons delisted. I see now the page is blank. Hope you keep it that way. TER.

My mistake. Here is the proper link. The names are still up. My point is these changes are making it more difficult for providers to control their business. More importantly, their privacy & safety. The point to having the option to delist was supposed to allow for the provider to erase info. about themselves when necessary. This does not support that goal.

I don't see the point in it.  First it serves no useful purpose.  And second, "classic" in whose opinion?  If it is the opinion of the folks we put up with to approve reviews, then I'm definitely not interested.  

I don't have any idea what a "Classic Review" is.  Anybody have an answer to oleoneeye's
question?

Its across many discussion boards about how its not really a good idea.
Idk what admin & webmasters were trying to accomplish by doing this I mean what's next?  
Make a board with all the banned provider profiles and say why they're banned too?  
How about a public review board of hobbyists?  lol now that would be awkward.

One of the posters on the General Board made an excellent point I want to echo here about TER's posted Privacy Policy

They say:

CHOICE/OPT-OUT
Our site provides users with the opportunity to opt-out of receiving communications from us at the point where we request information about them.

We also give visitors the following option for removing their information from our database, should they no longer wish to receive future communications, or our service in general:

Contact us requesting that you be removed from our database.

So these 'classic' reviews seem to fly in the face of their own posted policy.

I feel that it is extremely unethical. I find this situation appalling.

Women can be reviewed without their knowledge or consent.
They are not notified that they have reviews.
Some women request to be delisted once they discover that they have reviews.
Now their reviews are back.

There are also many legitimate reasons for requesting to be delisted and wanting to stay that way.
Now their reviews are back.

I was able to look up four or five providers that I KNOW delisted voluntarily. I'm talking about highly regarded women who need or prefer a higher level of privacy or have retired.
Now their reviews are back.

According to some posts on the General Board, even the reviews of some deceased providers who had been delisted are now back.

This new "feature" appears to violate TER's own  privacy policy as well as the European Union's Data Protection Directive.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/info_policies/privacyPolicy.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

I would wonder whether a website that appears to be so willing to violate their own privacy policy in this area wouldn't willingly violate it in other areas as well.

If TER is going to keep this new area, they might as well re-name it: Providers that are delisted, banned, retired, or deceased.

It really makes no sense at all. If someone wants to opt out of a review board, then TER needs to abide by their own rules and remove their information from their database.





-- Modified on 9/4/2011 6:31:06 AM