In my opinion it is unfortunate that one San Diego provider raised the issue of performance ratings in the July 4 ad of another provider.  (Catty?)  The issue warranted a separate post; therefore I am doing so again.

Apparently no one who responded to that thread on this board reads the general board, where I raised the issue a month ago:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewall.asp?MessageID=450999&boardID=12&page=9

The somewhat strange requirements that still are listed under "submit a review" apparently were established by long-ago-departed-Dave.  His requirements that anal and "more than one" were irrelevant to my interests.  In the past year or two it has become obvious that more than a few reviews were approved that do not justify the performance rating given, perhaps because Dave no longer was overseeing the operation.

Here is my vote for a revised requirement:

1) Get rid of the "merely offered".  No restaurant critic reviews a restaurant on menu items not sampled.

2)  Drop anal and "more than one".  From reading reviews, it is obvious most guys do not care

3)  Allow one point above 7 for eroticism of the experience.

4)  Allow three points above 7 for CIM.

I know of one provider on the other coast who does not kiss nor offers FS.  Her menu is limited to BBBJ with swallows.  Such an experience should be eligible for a 10 rating in my book.