enjoy

-- Modified on 6/14/2006 6:16:08 PM

check mark a box stating that she has seen you, then could be a good thing...if it is something similar but provider can add comments, not so sure that is such a good thing.

Until now, if a guy wanted to see somebody new, he had to identify one or more of his past providers and/or agencies, and the new provider would ask if the old provider/agency would vouch for him.  That arrangement often resulted in calls/messages to the client, by the past provider/agency, saying everything from "just checking in" to "why haven't I seen you" to "we've got something better than the girl you're planning on seeing."

Now, before everybody's head explodes and the defensive statements start to fly, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the above practices.  In fact, in my business, if I found out one of my clients is talking to a competitor, you bet I'd be on the phone doing some customer relations.

My point is that this White List is going to eliminate the need for some of the traditional reference checking that has been standard around here for a long time.  Providers/agencies will no longer find out so easily if their regulars are going elsewhere.  It ought to be interesting to see who wins and loses (if anyone) in the process.

ADDED AT EDIT:
I see some serious flaws in this concept.  First, providers/agencies may be "vouching" without actually seeing the clients.  Thus, "vouches" may become a traded commodity.

Second, it appears that there will be no connection between reviews and "vouches".  Thus, a hobbyist may have a dozen providers who have vouched for him, but no data for others to review that explains what it was that led to those endorsements.

Also, providers will have to be careful to know whether or not their clients want to be vouched for...does the word "confidentiality" come to mind here?

Finally, this system over-simplifies the referencing process, and not in a good way.  When providers share information and insights during referencing, both they and the clients benefit.  How hard will it be for LE to buy VIP memberships and get a few checkmarks on their profile's White Lists?  IMHO, a provider who uses this new system without still communicating personally with a known provider reference is asking for trouble.

-- Modified on 6/15/2006 1:06:03 AM

I agree, but like all the other reviews and discussions we read - everyone will have to do a lttle more than check out the name and proceed. Considering the source, etc. It will be very interesting to see how it works out.

most of the provider forums...the bias exist in many communities and thus agencies will not be allowed to "vouch" for their clients as they are not allowed to post.

While there may be many advantages to this List the exclusion of so many results in the List not being a credible source for many to consider.

With all new things there will be a few bumps along the way until all the kinks are worked out. The only problem I can see besides not including agencies is the fact that if someone reviews a lady and then the provider verifies the gentleman as someone she has seen both are now targets for LE.

sprinkled in with reviews on hair salons and all the good sushi places you will find interesting tidbits on us johns on the gals back channel. Personally I'd be suprised if a gal utilizes this at all, just asking for trouble IMO. My advice (to the gals)is dont take shortcuts, do the references the "right way"....

will be if guys use it to circumvent the referral proccess. "Gee, I'm a known "White list" guy...take it or leave it. Eventually it might make it tougher for the gals to do referrals right...personally I wouldnt trust a list like that (no disrespect to TER or the idea). Simply a shortcut that might comprimise the gals safety IMO.

-- Modified on 6/15/2006 8:13:52 AM

I know most the ladies talk anyhow...just don't want stuff posted about me on here for everyone to read.  I think most of the ladies (given a woman's nature) will want to have more of an assurance than a "white list".  AGree that references should be done the "right way"

The reviews (ficticious and fantasy ramblings of those like myself with a rather small, amorphic brain) are offered by us gentlemen without a lady's or agency's involvement or consent. Why would any gal want to connect herself to any of this stuff and most especially to my egotistic musings? Seems dangerous to me for the lady or agency.

-- Modified on 6/15/2006 9:18:26 AM

-- Modified on 6/15/2006 9:20:35 AM

... I do not like leaving reviews, although I have had many an appointments over the last year (e.g., with azmystiques, etc.)?  probably not

There have been two "gals backchannels" in the past couple years--both YahooGroups, and both started by agency owners (and participated-in by agency owners and indies).  Because I've been included in that communication loop, in order to answer legal questions, I can assure you that they have never discussed sushi or hair salons, and perhaps surprisingly rarely discuss hobbyists (except in the context of warnings about serious matters).

I think most of the communication about what hobbyists are like occurs  at the personal (email/phone) level, during referencing.

I agree with you, however, that this TER feature is unlikely to generate much useage unless it is modified in ways that are more sensitive to provider security.  I wonder if this is an attempt to do something like RS2000?