Maybe I imagined it but I could have sworn that within the last 2 weeks a relatively negative review for Nakita Denise was posted.  It now appears to have been removed or changed to be positve.  Can anyone else confirm seeing the somewhat negative reivew just so I know I'm not losing my mind.

Per Staff that review was rejected because it

1- Was Not Objective
2- Was Inconsistent
3- Was Not verifiable
4- Not enough general details

Shouldn't that have been determined before it was posted?  Aren't the reviews looked at and approved before they're posted in the first place?  What changed from the time it was initially approved by the Staff and was posted to when it was removed?  My guess is nothing.  Approving a review, posting it and then removing it for the alleged reasons you provided, without more, gives the impression that something else is going on and/or some influence/pressure is being asserted to remove negative reviews for high end performers.

TER’s new employees in Amsterdam offices are very new and still in training process.
The subject review was approved by a new employee, which later rejected by their supervisor. Please be patient with us as we are in the process of updating our soft wares, and increasing our customer service.

so it's ok for p/s 's to rip off unsuspecting guys then eh and because the moderator doesn't like it the review gets withdrawn

I recently posted a review that called into question the credibilty of CityVibe's "Verifed Photo" listings... as we all know, CityVibe buys advertising on TER. I was skeptical as to whether or not TER would post my review, but I wrote it as I saw it and TER posted it. (I took a risk with an unreviewed ad and took a shot for the team.)

TER is a self policing community.  As a member of this self policing community, Mr. PuYi has a right to question our decision. (Keeps us on our toes)  

Here were the “Juicy Details” from the missing review:

“Met at hotel, nice as can be until she got the money,$$$$$$$.5, then the upsell starts. No was heard a lot in that room that hour. No, Anal, No BBJ, despite a prior review stating. Gave me a lap dance and played with herself while I worked myself, and that was going to be it unless I came up with $$$ more. Rock hard and horny, I decided to give in for the $$$. She started with a very uninspired CBJ. went to mish ans she literaly kept looking at the clock next to the bed! Very mechanical and she was definitly going through the motions, fake moans, just awful. I had to come and get out of there. For the hell of it, I asked for a second pop to see what she would say, and I but you can guess the answer to that! There are so many good providers here in Las Vegas, I will stick to who I know is good. YMMV!”

Now we look at Nikita’s history on TER:

http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=19155

Not one review says anything even close to the experience this member reports. I am not sure what happened but it does not sound like the pattern Nikita and this agency have shown over the last 4 years,  In this case I would give Nikita the benefit of the doubt and pull the inconsistent review, wouldn’t you?

You brought up a very good question. Why was the review approved in the first place? The answer is “we are human and we make mistakes.”  It happens. Luckily someone contested the review and it was removed.

-- Staff

I appreciate the follow-up response from TER but I have to be honest.  I'm a little more disturbed by this reply than the prior ones from the Staff.  This seems to be saying that it was pulled not because it was "not objective", "not verifiable" and "not enough details" but because it was "inconsistent" and pulled because someone (who?) contested the review.

I don't see anything wrong with the details offered in the review, nor is it disparaging. If TER is really self-policing, then if the review is technically correct and as descriptive as the one in question, it should stand even if it is "inconsistent" with prior reviews.  It should be up to the TER members reading the positive and negative review to determine if the review is inconsistent and whether to give it any weight in determining whether to book Nikita or not, especially in the case of more expensive PSE's.  

Maybe it was a bad night for her or for him.  Maybe the reviewer doesn't have a long history, which might call into question his objectivity.  Maybe its the start of a new trend.  I don't know and the Staff in its post admits it doesn't know either.  

In the case of Nikita, since she has generally received very positive reviews, that would likely be taken into account by those that read the negative review if it had remained posted.  It should be up to those who are paying the $$$ whether to give her the benefit of the doubt.  If she has 4 years of positive reviews and 1 negative review, I'm sure the vast majority would.

Maybe I did not make my point clear.  Sometimes, at 3:29 in the morning, that happens.  When a member posts a review of a provider the provider has the ability to contests the review.  To you, this is just a bad review. To the provider it may be the difference between making and not making this month’s mortgage payment.

Because we really do not know what happened, we have to make a guess based upon the history of the member and the history of the provider. We look at both approved and unapproved reviews. Based upon this we decide to pull the review or not.  In this case we pulled the review.  

-- Staff

Maybe I didn't make myself clear . . . initially Staff didn't say anything about the review being contested.  It simply went through because of incomplete training.  Now, you've said it was contested, apparently by either the provider or agency.  If TER is really self-policing, it should welcome that a "bad" review can be posted among many great reviews and allow the other TER members to make their own conclusions.  What happens if another TER member posts a negative review for Nikita Denise or another Body Miracle provider and comes back with the same or similar experience?  How many will it take until they're allowed to be posted?  

I recently bought an expensive TV and read a number of online reviews about various models.  Not even the most expensive model got all 9s and 10s.  Occasionally, there was a bad review for even the best reviewed model.  If there was one well reviewed model with only a couple of mediocre reviews, I accepted that it may have been a bad unit (or, in this arena, a bad night) or had something to do with the preferences of the reviewer.  If it was a model that hadn't received very good reviews and suddenly there was one giving it 10s, I took that review with a grain of salt.  You don't give the members of TER enough credit in being able to review information and make their own decisions and conclusions.  The problem is they can't make those decisions when they don't have all of the information!

How can you really write with a straight face that a less than stellar review is going to take food out of Nikita Denise's mouth or cause her to be evicted?

I'm not saying that every review should be posted but there's no reason whatsoever that the review in question should have been pulled as written, even if the provider or agency contested it.  The review itself even included a caveat that "YMMV".

The situation you describe is totally different.  First, I never questioned whether TER allows negative reviews.  There are plenty of negative reviews on TER.  Second, Cityvibe doesn't care if one of their customers gets a negative review.  They aleady have their money.  The negative review isn't going to affect them.  Third, how would you feel after having the experience you had if TER posted the review and then took it down because the provider contested it?  Better yet, how would you feel if after having the experience you had, you found out that someone else had previously posted a review of a similar experience but that TER withdrew it because the provider contested it?  Would you still be giving kudos to TER because that's essentially what happened here.

In deciding the merits of a new review, are the dates of reviews already on record taken into account?  In the present instance, the historical record for Ms. Denise included only two reviews from 2005 and one from 2004.  The rest were all from 2003 and earlier.  

Frankly, I don't know (and I mean I really don't know) how much weight such old reviews should be given vis-a-vis a newly submitted one.  Clearly, the provider's historical performance may no longer be valid.  Therefore, some additional criteria should come into play than would be the case if the provider's history were relatively current.  What those criteria should be, I'm too new to the discussion boards and to TER's inner workings to hazzard an opinion.

The policy is if a review is 100%, true and legit TER will approve it regardless of ratings, unless otherwise requested by the reviewer himself.

In the case of a contested review, TER's act would be to first Investigate the case then make a final judgment based on evidence.

We understand your concern, but what you see is just the review, the reviewer and provider's profile, on the other hand sitting at the other side of the table, we at TER see the hidden facts, the truth behind usernames and the data on TER's almost over exuberant security program.

We work hard to keep TER a reliable source for this hobby, we believe in honesty and integrity in business and service, any decision made is based upon nothing but facts, we hold no grudge, neither have we taken sides.

TER is open to all critics as they make us work harder.
Thank you for being a part of TER and appreciate your support.

If you wanted to answer all the questions, you would post all of the super secret info that led TER to pull the reivew, such as who contested it, what was the basis on the request to have it pulled, was the reviewer contacted to get his side, etc.  Instead, TER's Staff talks in well written generalities (and offers no specifics) that actually say nothing and raise more questions instead of providing answers.

If the above is truly the case, then you should advise all TER members that it isn't self-policing and that TER's prior statements to that effect were in error.  I said at the beginning of this thread that the acts of TER gave the impression of impropriety and influence being exerted.  There's been nothing in TER's responses that provides any assurance that my suspicions aren't true.  If anything they have only strenghened those suspicions because the explanations aren't consistent.

TER members point out questionable reviews on this board and the LA Board often, begging TER to act and nothing happens.  But, a high end, agency girl gets a couched, mediocre review and it gets pulled after its been posted beacuse it was contested, apparently by the agency.  Highly suspect.

TER is on the wrong side of a slipperly slope here.  If I can't trust TER to post apparently legitimate mediocre reviews regardless of whether the provider is a high end provider, what use is TER to me or anyone else?  Given this incident and TER's "explanations", it would seem that the history of every well reviewed, high-end provider should be questioned.

clearly, they are different... I was just impressed that TER allowed my review to be posted when I drew into question CityVibes credibility... If I were you I'd be upset too.