How the provider looked compared to the pictures posted in the ad/internet site, etc.

A play-by-play detailing every activity is useful but not many seem to state how the provider looks compared to how the provider is presenting herself.

Anyone else agree with me?  What else should be included in reviews that isn't normally?

There already is a category in reviews regarding if she looks like her pix.

well I guess I'm sensitive to this after trusting TER reviews that said the provider's pics were accurate when in reality they were not...

and a lot of times pics are old, providers gain/lose weight, lie about their age, etc...

I miss (duhh). I wonder if she is still around posting under another alias, or if she disappeared.

Seems pretty obvious, but reviewers end up talking about themselves.  Go figure.

.....I would think some would not find it necessary UNLESS she DIDN'T  look accurately like her pics anymore (hair color/length, bigger boobs/bigger ass, lost 20 lbs, gained 20lbs). Basically if something different dramatically stood out from pics she's using that they'd point it out.

As Scoed says below, the profile is set by the first reviewer and doesn't change without submitting a Problem Report. I think a lot of reviewers don't know that. Once I figured that out, it was a lot easier just copying all the answers except the ones I thought were significantly different to warrant a problem report.

From other guys who have seen the provider. Providers cannot please everyone all the time. Maybe you thought she looked different but another reviewer did not.

Listing the alphabet is nice, because it provides a concise summary of activities, but her attitude toward those activities is infinitely more important.   Whether she looks like her pics or not can be addressed with a Y/N drop down menu item in the review, but if there is a substantial variation (heavily Photoshopped, terrible acne, over weight or my favorite, she states she's 31-35 and is actually 45+ then I'd like to see a little commentary.

she came!

Oh wait, that is what's in most reviews

If the pics are fake, or not a fair representation, then you should submit a problem report to get that fixed, but it also can be included in the commentary. If she looks older, bigger, etc than the pics show, or if the pics are photoshopped, if she has lots of tattoos etc, that the pics don't show,  that is nice to know.

I like to know about the attitude and personality of the lady also. Not every review needs to read like the Pentouse Forum. And I like to know about the lady's performance, not the guy's performance. A lot of reviews tend to emphasize the hobbyist's performance.

A little humor in a review is always fun if the guy can write humor. Not everyone can.

-- Modified on 6/19/2012 11:54:49 AM

Well, that leaves me out of the reviewing business. I didn't know you had to have a big dick. Maybe I could put write how they've complimented how cute my little dick is? Would that work just as well?

You'll never know until you write your FIRST review

Yeah, I'm not sure that I'm going to write any reviews.

-- Modified on 6/20/2012 8:16:26 AM

True, but from what I've read the reviews are required to have plenty of detail. I've always been a person who likes to keep what happens in private with a lady... private.

But I'll think on it. Maybe I should start posting reviews...

explicit or graphic details then they don't have to be that way. Get a month's VIP membership. Read a lot of reviews to get an idea. Especially read the reviews written by swimtrekr ( the host of this, the newbie board). He tells what happened without being especially graphic or explicit but the story gets told. It doesn't have to read like the Penthouse forum.

I'm already an VIP, so I can read them all. And yes, every review I can recall ever reading is pretty graphic. Like I said, I like my interactions with the ladies, whether it by my wife, a swing partner, or a provider, to remain private.

I'll see if there's discreet way to handle the reviews, since I've been told that reviews that aren't explicit enough are rejected or removed. That's just what I've been told, not sure how accurate it is.