I have had two providers request no reviews. In each case that request was honored. Had I written them, however, they would have been easily 9/9, not a case of which you speak.
The fact that the provider is listed on TER opens her to the possiblity of reviews. If you don't do it, someone else may. So it is a tightrope the provider is walking if she wants to be listed but not have reviews.
I think reviews themselves are a combination of facts and interpretation. You have certain expectations of the way the session will go based on profile and reviews; i.e., atmosphere, appearance, what occurs during the session. Then you interpret what those facts mean to you and how the session progresses, thus the ratings and the narrative.
Now in the circumstances you presented, what would I do? I'd evaluate, using my own process, how much the provider and session varied from previous reviews and then whether it was enough to signal to others that there is a dramatic difference. And I would be as factual as possible; i.e, the profile and/or previous reviews indicated that these one, two, or three things consistently happen, but in this particular session they were off the table. There's a clear, factual, objective reason to make a distinction. Then decide what is the level of that distinction and value to all of presenting something that was not what it seemed based on those facts in deciding whether or not to post a review.
If it was my *interpretation* or suspicion that the session or provider varied from the profile and/or previous reviews and/or there were other potentialy nefarious background issues, it becomes my interpretation versus others on subjective factors. I'v picked up words others use to describe something because I liked the way they phrased it versus the way I did; odds of that happpening on multiple back to back reviews, however, I agree are slim. Another example, those one, two, or three things mentioned above were on the table, for example, but felt they were average versus what others wrote. The boundaries of difference then become less clear. In this particular case I'd be inclined to honor the provider's request.
Sorry for the long-winded answer. I may be overthinking it but that's how I'd do it. It is important to me to be able to put my finger on a substantative difference rather than an interpretation difference or suspicion difference when there is a dramatic difference from other sessions. You may be completely on the nose with your suspicions but, *for me*, unless I could show them to be factual rather than interpretative, I'd be less inclined to use them and, therefore, honor the provider's request. My right answer may not be any better than someone else's right answer.
I'm sure there's many other ways of looking at it and I hope you hear other thoughts. Good luck.
-- Modified on 9/12/2007 1:42:55 PM