Very good observation you make.
I'll give you a perfect example:
I've seen Hanna Hilton and she ranks at the top of my list. However, the very next day I saw her, another hobbysit saw her and did not agree with my rankings-in looks or perfromance. So, unfortunately for looks, it really varies and depends on each individual. I've actually found that I've had to revisit what I consider to be a 9 or 10 now than what I used to consider it to be 6 months ago...I guess new experiences give you new perspectives???
But in my case, yes most of my reviews are ALL 9's and 10's.
Why????
That's because I decided 9 months ago that I was only going to see A-list providers and not waste my time with anything less - I was sick of the bad experiences and wasting my money. So now, I only see the girls that bring their A-game. It takes time, but I do my research, post on here like a mad man, talk to people, and get advice on whose worth it, whose underated and whose overated.
Not trying to sound cocky, but its just how I've decided to hobby. Hope this helps clarify your observation.
Very well said. That's my attitude exactly. It really doesn't take much effort to do the research to find out who is worth your money and who is not. Hence my abundance of 9s, as well as a few 10s in appearance. (And yes, a 7 in performance. Even well-researched providers can disappoint.)
What always mystifies me is how some people can vary so much in the looks department. One of my reviews is of a Seattle agency girl named Talia. She is without a doubt one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen, in the hobby or anywhere else. Pouty full lips, high cheekbones, and eyes that you plunge into the moment she turns them on you. I gave her a 10, one of only three people I have given a 10 in appearance (Jenaveve Jolie is one of the others and if you have ever seen her in person you know what I mean.) Yet other reviewers have given Talia 8s and even a 6! I'm sorry, a 6 is someone left in the bar at the end of the night who think will have to do.
I know beauty is by nature subjective. But come on, how can some people be so far off?
You have no business criticizing it.
I must agree with you, Boston. However, and this is a bit off the original point but not much, I have noticed where there are sometimes performance evaluations that are rated higher than the TER guidelines should allow. For example, someone who provides only a CBJ should not be receiving an 8 or 9 in the performance category, yet over and over it seems to be allowed. As I recall, this example should merit a 7 at best. Perhaps whoever is checking these reviews and approving them should revisit the site guidelines. My name is CarltonS, and I approve this message.
Actually that's not the case at all. The base score is a 7. A gal who does CBJ can still get an 8 if she meets any of the other three criteria for awarding additional points. If she kisses with tongue she can qualify for an 8. If she Kisses with tongue and is really Bi or does anal she can qualify for a 9. In fact, if she kisses with tongue, is really bi AND does anal she can qualify for a 10 while still doing only CBJ.
Your response to my post doesn't really have much to do with my reason for posting it but I would suggest that you revisit the review guidelines and understand them fully before you criticize them.
-- Modified on 12/5/2008 9:06:36 AM
-- Modified on 12/5/2008 9:08:27 AM
Perhaps YOU should revisit the guidelines; I made it easy for you by providing a link.
I'm not seeing anything that contradicts what I have already said. I suggest you keep reading it until you actually understand that ANY, not ALL of the four services mentioned will raise a gal's score by one point.
It's really pretty simple math.
BBBJ = 1 point
Really bi = 1 point
Kisses with tongue = 1 point
Anal Sex = 1 point
Any way you slice it 7 plus 1 equals 8 and, as it would logically follow, 7 plus 2 equals 9...and so on...
Look, all that is true and is not in debate, but my observation is that if a girl does NOT do BBBJ, she's obviously not doing the other stuff. Which translates to a mathematical equation that looks like this: 7 + 0 = 7. Granted, I have not read every review and I have not met every girl, but the total that I have met is closer to 200 than it is to zero, and the fact that I have observed is that CBJ does not lead to Greek or any of the other items that would boost the score beyond 7. I thought I made that clear enough, but perhaps I did not. Is it clear enough for you now?
-- Modified on 12/5/2008 3:40:50 PM
I am not arguing opinion here and you were not either three posts ago. If you read the rules further you will also note that the lady does not have to actually perform ANY of the four services to get a higher score as long as they are listed in her profile.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on what you feel is a fair score. This back and forth didn't start over opinion however. It started over misinterpretation of the facts as TER has outlined them when applied to how high of a score a given provider is eligible for based on her profile. Weather you choose to give it to her or not is of course up to you. Weather she is eligible however is not.
"Listed in her profile"? I think the key phrase is actually "offered". We all know that if the first guy to post a review lied about services he may have received (and it happens) that it causes tha aforementioned profile to differ GREATLY from what is actually offered. More than one time I and probably you and many others got fooled by what was listed in a profile that was far from accurate as to what was actually offered, and as a result had a meeting that was not up to expectations. Opinion becomes fact where reality meets textbook. The textbook says that if you meet a certain criteria then you add points for this and that and the other thing, but the reality is that if the first one of these extra items (that generally being BBBJ) is not on the table it is a virtual certainty that the others are not on the table, as well. That's where I think the review ratings are at times dysfunctional. Appearance is all opinion - what I may think is a 10 may in your view be a 3, and that's all a personal thing. Certain parts of performance are too, of course, but I have read more reviews than I care to list or remember with a performance rating of "9" with no Greek, no kissing, no BBBJ, and whatever else is required to boost it over a 7. I am sure I'm not alone on this.
Again, you are now stating opinion, not the facts of what is contained in the policy.
That may be where you wound up, but it is not where we started and it's really not where I intended to go so I'm done arguing in circles with you on this.
I would suggest however that if you see a review with a performance number that is mathematically impossible based on available services in a gal's profile that you send a problem report to TER. I have done so many times and they have adjusted the number accordingly.
I guess now is the time to finally ask this, it's been bothering me since I found out the rating system. Anal sex (with a condom) is risky, but at least offers SOME protection. BBBJ and DATY are totally dangerous practices! Why would this be a plus? Aren't you guys (and gals) worried about STD's? True, most of them can be cured but herpes is EXTREMELY transmittable this way and is incurable. Even HIV can be passed that way. What gives?
Valerie
Since you're new to the porn star board (welcome, by the way) you're unaware that this subject has been discussed extensively. If you're interested do a search with 1000 days in the number-of-days field and you can read the previous discussions.
Keep in mind that PSEs are a bit different than "regular" escorts because if the PSE is actively shooting porn she is REQUIRED by the industry to be tested monthly, so the risk of contracting an STD from a porn star is, in theory anyway, less than that of a regular provider who's testing status is unknown to the hobbyist.
BTW, there isn't ONE verified case of HIV ever being transmitted through oral sex.
But I bet the client isn't. And as I remember, the company I worked for (Elegant Angel) only required an HIV test-not all the other yummy stuff you can transmit orally. But I'll read the discussions you mentioned and see if I can find something to reassure myself.
No, it is you who should revisit, see the cut and paste, the words are verbatim, emphasis added by me:
"An escort provider is only eligible to earn up to a 7, UNLESS she is willing to perform ONE OR SOME of the following during a session: Kisses With Tongue, Bare-Back Blow Job, Really Bi, and Anal Sex. For each of these services that are offered, her potential max score is raised by one point, with 10 as an absolute maximum."
Sounds exactly like BostonGuy's explanation to me.
Who says he has no business criticizing it? Constructive criticism should be accepted, even expected. Sometimes, the best sources of constructive criticism are parties that are not directly involved and don't "have a dog in the hunt." What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.
Boston, he was just asking a question. Your response was "he is knocking it??"...as you know = there is a difference between what TER expects you to write and what is the truth at times.
We're not dating your grandma here, these are women who are beautiful to begin with, some on par with SI's swimsuit/VS models. Some are Penthouse Pets and Playboy P'mates and most rate 9-10's right out of the gate on looks. We've made a conscious decision to go for the best and it's reflected in the ratings.
TER has written on their Reviews FAQ page, they explain it well.
For looks:
10- She was a one in a million.
9 - She was model material.
8 - She was really hot.
But, it is __relative__ to what the Reviewer considers. Otherwise, I am sure we would have actual pictures to base off of.
For example, if you are a hobbyist interested in Rubenesque ladies, you would not think the FHM, Maxim, ladies would warrant an 8/9/10.
Or, if you are visually attracted to petite ladies, a rating of a 10 for a Playmate of the Year would be meaningless.
I think the 'Looks' rating should only be taken in the context of the category into which the __Reviewer__ 'sees' the lady. In other words, as Delano said, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Things like tatoos, piercings, natural vs. 'augmentation', amount of eye make-up, can all play into a rating.
Since the reviews almost always link to a website with pictures of the lady, you can get a feel for whether a particular reviewer shares your taste in the 'visual' realm.
(Personally, I wouldn't consider myself a Maxim/Playboy type of person as the pinnacle of the definition of beauty. Doesn't mean they aren't attractive, but to me all beauty is enhanced by a great smile and a twinkle in the eye, things which often aren't found/conveyed in men's magazines. )
Finally, if a lady is 'one in amillion', with the world's female population over 3.5 billion, that means there's potentially thousands of women who could get that label! 
I think the problem is with the short explanations that accompany the 1-10 ratings. "Once in a lifetime" means that you should only give this rating to one girl out of all the girls you see ... ever .. period! But that is just not realistic.
Everyone has seen the movie "Ten", and so it is natural to think of the "10" rating as "among the very best". I think "10" should have the explanation "drop dead gorgeous", instead of "once-in-a-lifetime". Because that is the way most guys use it. Then, "9" becomes simply "gorgeous".
At any rate, these ratings are subjective, and in the eye of the beholder, as was aptly pointed out above.
Also, don't forget that we are getting a weighted sample (yes, I know a bit about statistics); providers are not going to survive very long in the industry unless they are at least better than average in their looks. (Yes, I know there may be exceptions to this.) I personally would never see a provider that (in my mind) was less than an 8, and for the most part, a 9 or a 10.
SI or VS models, especially on paper, are photoshopped images. Secondly, they're standing there wearing top-of-the-line fashion clothing, which certainly helps to accentuate their looks.
However, they're not smiling (necessarily), they're not talking to you and there's no personality.
And finally, maybe it's just me, but I kinda think a gal standing in some pose just isn't as "once-in-a-lifetime" as some hottie with her ankles next to her ears.
(Also, have you seen some of the SI/VS models without p'shop and super lighting and 3-hours of make-up? Splotchy faces, puffy eyes, cracked lips...)
