If they (TER) won't allow me to do that, then I think an explanation would be helpful by including x/y points earned.
I know you guys who are posting and participation on the boards probably think everyone understands the scoring system, but the majority of my clients are not involved in TER and they are unaware that someone can be ineligible for a 10. They won't know about these limitations. They won't be reading 8/8 possible or 9/9. They will see 8/10 and 9/10 unless something changes.
Yes, I know it's been said before but I think it needs to be said again. Considering how many hobbyists don't even want a finger anywhere near their butts, I think it's totally unfair to require a woman to do anal sex to get a perfect score.
Three-way sessions are just not that common even for those of us who do them (the other way to get a "10").
I just did a search on two of the modeling sites for porn stars. I did a search for models to do boy girl scenes and I did a search for models who do anal. Only 20% of the models did anal out of the models who did boy girl scenes (12 out of 64 and 5 out of 25).
I also did an advanced search on TER for escorts in San Diego who provided sex Who charged between 300 and $400. 63 pages with 15 escort names on each page came up. When I changed that search to escorts between 300 and $400 in San Diego who provided anal, the result brought up 12 pages of names with 15 on each page. Almost the same ratio as Porn stars when it comes to how many of us can/want to do anal sex.
So not only is it not fair to ask us to do anal to get a score of 10 for performance. It's also a mistake to say that anal should be included in a porn star experience (for those who seem to think that's part of the definition) because anal sex is no more common with porn stars than it is with escorts.
If TER wants to leave the scoring system the way that it is, then I want to ask them to consider allowing an extra point for allowing photos and videos, a stripper slide, Rimming, BDSM or some other things that not everybody does to make it a little bit more fair.
I work very hard for my reviews. By that I mean, I really do everything I can to give the very best service that I can give every single time. I have many scores of 10 for my performance. Now I will get only 9s because I can't tolerate anal. Can YOU, reader? I already know that most of you CANNOT. If you haven't tried it, try fucking yourself in the ass with a big dildo and see how much you like it. Some people love it. MOST people DO NOT.
I didn't see any recent discussions about this so I thought I would mention it again. I don't want to give up on this.
-- Modified on 5/3/2017 3:24:10 PM
IMO the whole scoring system is fucked. I had my best p4p experience ever, truly once in a lifetime, with a provider who could get at most an 8 under current rules for that session (she does CBJs due to absolutely loathing CIM). Scoring based on services that seem vitally important to TER's leadership but not necessarily to the members who write reviews is simply a bad system. Requiring anal sex (in MF sessions) to get a top performance score is the worst example of this issue.
Kudos to you for not giving up on this issue. TER has listened to member input and made changes before, so there's hope they'll do something about this one.
Another flaw I have often thought about is a situation where a guy wants to give a score higher than 7, so he fabricates that the provider is really bi.
Personally, I don't care if an escort provides anal or if she swallows during bj... neither of those specific things would add to my overall experience. I could easily have a mind blowing, top notch, fantastic experience without swallow, or anal, or if she is into other women, or if it was a group activity...I don't care.
So many agree with you, except the guys that count: TER Admin.
.
As everyone knows, reviews even have special categories for "Escort Only", "Escort with Anal", " with another guy", " with another girl" .... They basically make it impossible to get a 10 with just a regular "Escort Only" session. My sessions are ONLY Escort only.
.
And now it's time for me to revive the "X-out-of-Y" scoring suggestion. Set the max score using whatever criteria are agreed on. (Personally, I'd give BBBJ = base, CIM +1, Swallow +2.) Then post the performance relative to the max possible. It so easily distinguishes a 7-out-of-10 from a 7-out-of-7. And I have had some fantastic 7-out-of-7s!!
.
A quick poll of readers: Would you prefer a 7/7 or a 7/10?
I'd prefer a scoring system that rates the quality of the session without giving "extra points" for just a few specific sex acts.
I won't bore readers reiterating how that would work; I've already proposed it 2 or 3 times. If anyone's interested, just ask.
If they (TER) won't allow me to do that, then I think an explanation would be helpful by including x/y points earned.
I know you guys who are posting and participation on the boards probably think everyone understands the scoring system, but the majority of my clients are not involved in TER and they are unaware that someone can be ineligible for a 10. They won't know about these limitations. They won't be reading 8/8 possible or 9/9. They will see 8/10 and 9/10 unless something changes.
It's ridiculous that a massage lady who kisses (+1) and does bbbj (+1) is "eligible" for the exact same score (9) as full service providers who kiss with tongue, do bbbj, *AND have actual intercourse with their clients* (without anal).
Come on, that's just absurd.
The problem stems from the following excerpt in the review guidelines:
"You do not have to give her the ‘extra point’"
This puts excess responsibility on the reviewer to give a fair score for the services provided. Given that most reviewers just got their rocks off and probably aren't thinking 100% objectively, that extra point will just be added willy-nilly.
Here's the solution:
In short, Itemized service reviews and aggregated total scores.
For each of the services rendered, the provider gets a 1-10 score.
This means that, if the provider performs DFK, BBBJ, CFS, they would get 3, 1-10 scores for their work.
Then, the scores are averaged to determine the aggregate performance score.
-Performing more services would allow a provider to pad their scores with additional services only if the services provided were actually worthy of high scores.
-Performing a limited number of services would allow a provider to score higher only if said services were performed well, but would penalize a provider more if any of those services were performed poorly. It does not explicitly penalize providers for not performing certain services.
-Additional data capture would allow the search function to be more granular. Clients would be able to search for who was performing well at a particular service.
-Reviews would be more useful to providers because they would have granular feedback on which services they offer score highly and which services they could work on.
But there are so many scorable items, not just the 3 you mentioned. That requires an extremely complicated (and granular) review form / Profile. I will also compare it to many social science surveys: the same person hardly ever fills out the forms the same way twice. E.g., Myers-Briggs and political opinion polls.
.
When you get so "objectively" or quantitatively detailed, the service review scores can become even more random. ("One hour later, that BBBJ was a 10; the next day, a 9; the next day, after watching porn, a 6; a week later, I was wanting that 8 again. Or was it a 7? ...")
.
To really understand the meaning of an average - average score, the reader has to look at each item (5 DFK, 10 BBBJ, 6 CFS / 3 = 7). But if I love BBBJ, I've got to see that 10 to know to check her out.
.
I, of course, have my own agenda: the X-out-of-Y scoring ratio provides a single meaningful number. A 10/10 means read the Juicy Details (which I would do even with a string of seventeen 1-10 specific service ratings (17 x 10) / 17 = 10). Since I have no interest in anal, I might skip a 7/10 anyway. I like vanilla and a 7/7 means I want to read the Juicy Details. I have had some fantastic 7-out-of-7s; they might have even been 10-out-of-7s!
In short, Itemized service reviews and aggregated total scores.
For each of the services rendered, the provider gets a 1-10 score.
This means that, if the provider performs DFK, BBBJ, CFS, they would get 3, 1-10 scores for their work.
...
-Reviews would be more useful to providers because they would have granular feedback on which services they offer score highly and which services they could work on.
.
X-out-of-Y is a simplifying yet informative way to go. I give my suggestion a 10-out-of-10.
Yes, and we have essentially an x/y system now and it's hopelessly broken.
Yes, the review numerals would fluctuate, but if it were itemized, they would as a whole more accurate. A particular item naturally fluctuates anyway, even if you keep all the controllable variables the same. A bbbj isn't going to be the same from a particular provider twice in a row. Therefore if it has two reviews, it gets two scores and they get averaged.
Also, under this itemized system, the review would still show a x/y score. It also wouldn't depreciate the idea of reading the actual review the scores came from, but to say that the review text itself isn't just as flawed is obviously false.
If you have a score per service received, said service should be described in the review text. If it's not, the review gets tossed back for revision much as it does now, but with an individual score there's more accountability. You wouldn't be able to give a provider 10/10 and say that her bbbj was "just ok" or "pretty good".
At a glance it would make the numbers truer, and it wouldn't overtly penalise a provider for not doing something she wasn't comfortable with.
See, the issue you need to solve here is that the scores create *coercion* which is at worst criminal and at best unethical. Not every provider falls into this trap, but most that are watching their scores seem to. So really everyone wins with this system.
They tell me basically how they see it is that a 10 is a three H---possibility. A little vulgar but the mindset of a stimulated man looking for a potential partner.
No one should be coerced to perform specific acts for numbers. That is really the point- the gents need to just look at the numbers as a range. It is certainly ok to see anything from 7-10 these days and know that it could have been an amazing earth shattering time. The need for the perfect 10 is to be abandoned. Just cuz I do it does not mean they want to do it or even had a chance to get to it (ie they were too aroused so it just did not happen).
As I read the above posts, I was super surprised to know that less than FS could score as high...that seems more off than the 10 issue to me. And yes, the people the site serve have some say if the basis of common understanding related to policy. I agree with those who speak their mind and explore a more unified community.
Surely you can see the flaw here. What should be happening is that reviewers should give a score that is X out of 7/8/9/10 depending on the maximum they could give for the services provided. This never happens, what occurs is that they're tallying up the services and saying, "Yup, she did everything to get an 8, so there ya go!".
The issue with this is that it has no reflection of *quality*. The services were simply provided, not necessarily skillfully provided. It's the participation trophy handout and it's garbage.
Undoubtedly there are providers that currently max out at 7 that are giving 10/10 service, they just aren't taking it in the but, swallowing cum, doing 3-ways, or licking buttholes. Those 7/7 girls are hard to find with this system, but they might actually be the best for what the majority of guys want.
To put it another way, they might be able to give you a literal stroke with how good their BJ's are, we'd never know it though because reviewers often lack the literary chops to describe such a thing and instead settle on "Best BJ Ever".
I do see the flaws...that is why I think when gents are looking around that less emphasis needs to be placed on the numbers and more on the descriptions. A 7-10 is probably a reasonable window. We all want a good to excellent report card and that card has changed. Until changes are made again, the users of the site just need to interpret the numbers for what they are.
You make great points. I didn't want to sound argumentative, but one of the first thoughts that went through my head when I read the original post was, why would a person feel the need to have a 10? Couldn't a person feel satisfied and happy and fantastic with an 8 or a 9, for example?
And yes, I would anticipate potentially having my world rocked with anything 7-10.
Personally, when I write a review, I think about the descriptions, not the numbers. For example if the session was so great that I "forgot it was a service" then that's what I put... that just happens to be a 9. If that descriptiin were a 7, I would still choose that one, because that's the description that was a fit for that session.
Its the same thing with the physical appearance...if I think she's really hot then I put that. It so happens to be a 7, but "really hot" is a great compliment. I don't know how it would work logistically, but I would be perfectly happy if they got rid of the numbers and just kept the descriptions.
I agree with you so much. I think that is why they added the other score categories to include attitude and location:ambience. I interpret that as the more into it and geneuinely present the lady is the more likely her attitude score is elevated. Attitude for me in- cludes all the Prep too...some of us (including me) really want you to have the experience you seek whether that is the casual Milf you have watched for the last year and finally got alone in the laundry room to a high end kittenesque sensual whisper (or roar) to the control by a confident woman in charge. Location too adds to the general experience. It does for me! I think the site is adding to your understanding of the general potential vibe with a particular woman prior to meeting. It goes beyond whatever the two or more people decide to do with the time and paints a picture of the overall.
Agree all the way that the written free style info is way more descriptive than the number/score system. Happy hunting, Gents- that is half the fun!
I agree, along with all of the points raised here, as a newer provider we have no possibility to be fairly compared to well established providers. Instead of quietly accepting this, I thought I'd get my vote in for a system that is more fair for all types of providers, regardless of what acts they will perform.
I'm not adding much to the conversation in terms of new information that wasn't already discussed. I just want to add my displeasure and disagreement with TER's new policy.
Right now for performance I average a 9.5. With the new policy I can get no higher than a 9 even though I am bi and offer everything else (CIM, rimming, FIA, photos and video). I can get a 10 with a duo session, but that won't reflect on my personal TER ratings. Duo sessions have their own TER #, so that session can get a ten, but I can't alone.
My last 2 reviewers said it literally WAS the best session they had ever had and were very dismayed that they could only give me a 9. They actually say this in their review, and both apologized to me in pm about having to give me a 9. Some guys take their reviews very personally and get a lot of joy in giving their ATF that little high-five. Until these recent reviews were posted, I hadn't gotten less than a 10 in over a year. I love what I do, and it shows in my ratings. A 9 doesn't cut it. My 10's come from gentlemen who have seen women the world over. One man from Barcelona (Seaman3965) has seen women from all over the world and has never given above a 9... until he saw me. I remain the only 10 he has ever given in over 60 reviews over the last 10 years. He has never even given a duo session a 10. Thank goodness his review came through before the new rating system.
Now I don't even want to get any more reviews. All future reviews will continue to lower my 9.5 average. I just saw a gentleman a few nights ago who wanted to review me as his new ATF. I asked him not to. It will lower my ratings. And all my past reviews give an excellent picture of the service I provide; more words won't do me any good. I'm incredibly consistent. No YMMV here. I have one 8 in over 40 reviews. And that hobbist re-reviewed me with a 10 months later.
I hope TER sees that this is going to diminish people's participation on their board. I know all the women out there are dealing with this new rating system too, so we're in it together. All my fellow non-anal friends are subject to the same ceiling. But still, why would I want my rating to go down? Reviews will only hurt me at this point.
And what if I'm willing to peg a guy either with a strap on or my fingers? What does that get me? Nada. Why?
Most of the gentlemen I see don't want anal. It's not on my menu, but that doesn't mean it's off the table. It's just not guaranteed. I would actually have to coerce them to get a 10. And that's going to ensure I don't get a 10. Who likes to be forced? Okay, some of ya do. 
TER should fix this quickly. Some ladies haven't been reviewed since the change, and I can imagine the emails to them are just going to continue. Oh, yes, I've made my disapproval known to them directly. If you haven't yet, make sure you do. Most people have very positive feelings about the quality and reliability of this board and a lady's reviews/ratings. They are losing both providers' and hobbyists' respect as this new system becomes known.
It is such a stress.
Great post. First let me say that ratings don't matter. Everyone on TER (including Top 100 fakes) know that and seasoned hobbyist don't even look at the ranking because they are bs. Don't get me wrong, there are some true 10s out there who provide the whole 9 (no pun), but mostly it's just a weak justification to charge sky-high rates. I love ladies like yourself who take pride in great service. Here's my theory, 9s are the new 10s. IMO they always have been since I got serious about researching. I have always found, after reading the reviews, that ladies who scored in the 8 to 9 range provided better service anyways. Although I love providers who offer all inclusive greek, I have given 10s to a couple who haven't because the session was THAT good. I know it may feel like a personal blow, but truthfully most TER vets don't put much stock into scores as much as they do the actual review anyway. As you know, we have manipulative providers and gullible reviewers (50/50) to blame for this change in scoring. Yes it should be re-calculated because it presents an uneven playing field, but no it wouldn't deter me from seeing you or make me think any less. I suggest the following:
1) Bring back the old scoring format/criteria but weigh Top 100 rankings on a formula consisting of # of reviews, services provided/conducted during the session. As it stands now, I think a provider needs 25 (correct me if I'm wrong) reviews to be ranked. IMO a lady with 25 reviews vs a lady with 40 to 100 + reviews is level. It just became a game of providers only seeing clients that would review them at 10/10s, and gullible idiotic reviewers screwing the system.
2) Disgard reviewers with only 1 review. Those reviews should not be weighed in the calculation at all. Clearly this is a gaming system in with some providers create fake profiles or have some crony write reviews to boost their score and climb the rankings. If a reviewer only has 1 review then suspend/flag or terminate the profile. Make the number whatever it may be from 3 to 5, but unless a reviewer has X number of reviews then their score shouldn't count. To combat more system rigging, if a provider coincidently has more than X number of 1 time reviewers then that in itself should raise some sort of red flag.
3) In lieu of should be equal 10 as well. Meaning, if a provider offers BBBJ she can be rate/scored above a 7 through 9. If she provides any of the following including CIM/COF/COM, rimming, Bi, MSOG, Squirting (which many clients prefer to Greek any ways) and it's in the review then she could possibly and should earn a 10.
Obviously nothing is client/provider proof, but overall I agree that the new score is heinous and should be reevaluated.