How about a simplified mechanism for clients to request white list references from providers and a simple mechanism for providers to reply?  There are other references sites out there that make use of automated features for provider-provided references for clients.  Generally, the client goes to the provider's page/site/profile on the service site, clicks a button for e.g., request provider reference (a white list request in our case), and a dialog comes up that ultimately produces a PM from the service site to the provider's email of record or PM.  That PM will have buttons or hyperlinks that either approve or decline the client's request, optimally with automated feedback to the client.  Very simple from the user perspective.  As it is, the provider who wants to white list a client has to go through a number of not-so-intuitive steps to put up the white list.  

I believe, from my own personal experience, that this circumstance is one of the reasons why reference counts for clients on TER are lower than reference for those same clients on other reference sites; it's just easier for the providers on those other sites.  Since it is important to providers to be able to background check prospective clients, and since TER is considered a reputable referral agent, it would benefit both the providers and the clients to have a simple to use interface to enable hassle-free client white list references.

Right now, it's up to the provider to take the initiative, and I think that's a good thing.

...this mechanism is very successful on some other sites; it's working quite well.  In my experience I have never encountered negative feedback on these other sites for a reference request.  As far as initiative, I guess that's part of my point, if it's going to take initiative on the part of the provider then that's going to reduce the chance that it will get done, thus reducing the likelihood that providers will provide clients the very references they seek in those clients.

As a simple means of accommodating the preferences of those providers who do not want to receive such requests, a provider TER account preference for "Do not forward client white list requests" could either gray out or eliminate the feature/button/link on the provider's profile page, or simply PM the requesting client with the notice that the provider is not accepting white list requests.  Pretty much win-win.

Perhaps it is under utilized due to the girls having to take the initiative but there is less pressure to whitelist someone the current way in my opinion, thus keeping the system more honest.

I have seen a lot of stuff happen when a girl doesn't whitelist a guy she said she would or when she removes him and doesn't tell him.

~Admin

...we just don't agree.  Which is OK.  And as I mentioned in my last post, a simple provider preferences mechanism to allow providers to decline or preclude white list requests would eliminate the issue altogether for ladies that do not want to receive white list requests, which means no pressure whatever.

And as for the whack jobs, I don't know how much effect this would really have on them.  If they're crazy enough, they'll get crazy about anything, although admittedly, this would be one more thing...

I just think its remarkable that a system (the BIG system) that really requires the ladies to be diligent in researching references on the guys isn't made easier for the ladies to emplace those very references.  But that's just me...

Grateful for your feedback and perspective.

I think the difference is that the other sites exist primarily for the purpose of verification. By registering, providers knowingly opt in to receiving requests to be verified from clients. TER serves a much broader purpose. Most if not all providers are listed without their own initiative, so any unsolicited request could come off like spam. Slippery's idea would need to be completely on an opt-in basis for providers, which I wouldn't expect many to sign up for in on this site.

These other sites do exist primarily for verification, no argument.  That is certainly one of their functions, but clearly another principal function is so that the ladies can promote themselves through advertisement, as they also do on TER. TER and these other sites share these three things in common: provider advertisements, client reference establishment by providers, and client verification through those references for providers.  TER takes things a substantial step farther, of course, with its reviews and discussion forums.  TER simply falls short, in my opinion, when it comes to enabling those provider references for clients.

The opt-in basis you mention would be fully accommodated by my suggestion earlier for provider preferences for white list requests, so that's kind of a moot point.  No spam.  No unsolicited requests.

In the way of yet another site recommendation (jacking my own thread here), wouldn't it be great if there were a TER user poll feature that solicited feedback from TER users so that this type of speculation could be resolved in part by some degree of solicited feedback?  That would be a nice feature.  As it is, we are all at liberty to pontificate on perceived probabilities with no substantiation whatever, for example, by speculating that most providers on TER would decline a more automated white list feature.

Though we're at odds on this topic, I'm still very grateful for your feedback.  IMHO, discussions like there are what makes this such an awesome site.  Best regards.

Slippery, your suggestion was to add a "Do not forward white list requests" option so that providers could *decline* receiving them automatically. Changing that to a "Forward all requests" option that they would have to find and choose would make all the difference. I bet so few providers would take that step that it would scarcely have an effect on the deficiency you're trying to address. That's because of the nature of TER, not any out-of-step technology.

...and to diminish the big difference you cite, I would be just as content with a default provider preference that declines notifications and an opt-in capability that enables such notifications; seems like a negligible point to me.  Again you are speculating on what providers would or would not do; you are not a provider, as far as I know.  Neither of us know for sure what provider preferences might be (without that groovy polling feature I suggested).  I'm not speculating on their behalf, just offering up a suggestion for consideration.  I don't feel a need to continue to defend my suggestion beyond what I've said so far so I'm out of the thread.  I feel that the suggestion has merit.  You certainly don't have to.  Best to all.

If it requires the provider to opt in, I agree that it couldn't do any harm. I just question whether it would engender enough participation to warrant TER making the change. You're right that I'm only speculating, the same as anyone else who gives you feedback is speculating. It's kind of necessary when considering an interface change.

TER is available to ALL too see.  Anyone and everyone who wants to view TER, can do so.  If a lady ever gets in trouble.  ie: LE  (We all hope not, but shit happens.)  The ladies reviews can be argued away as being fantasy.  If a lady whitelists a client, she is affirming said review.  She pretty much sunk her own ship by confirming the fact that she actually met the guy.  Since anyone can access TER reviews and white lists, I think it is dangerous for a lady to whitelist a client.

So I agree with mrfisher.  It would NOT put the ladies on the spot.  Some ladies don't whitelist at all for different reasons.  This just happens to be the reason I don't do it.

White listing is NOT going to affirm anything. I spoke to an attorney about that very subject and was told that reviews can't be proven without physical evidence, and that it would take speculation(which is not allowed in court) to conclude that white listing confirmed or affirmed  any particular action, as they are non-specific. That is bolstered by the fact that there are situations when a provider has white listed a client who never even reviewed her. My attorney is certain on this issue, and not just guessing.