I expect this idea will be controversial, but please hear me out before rejecting it.
Today, a provider's profile is created by her first reviewer. While there's some advantages to that approach, I think there's also some big disadvantages: * Creating a profile in TER exposes the provider to anyone who accesses the TER website. With VIP, which is available to anyone, the entire profile and all review info is available. Providers have no say as to whether they are exposed to the public in this way. In many cases, they don't know a profile has been created with review(s) attached to it. They may be at greater risk and not know it. * (Related to first point) Profiles, and reviews, contain information that could be of great help to persons interested in tracking down people who may be in violation of certain laws. A glaring example is that some reviews include a link to a web site for a normal business establishment, eg a spa, with details such as address and identities (photos and real names) of the therapist(s). And the review(s) give the details on how those therapists might be violating specific laws. Those therapists may have no idea that profile and the review(s) exist. * If profiles were created by providers, not only would they be affirming that they WANT reviews, but I believe the profiles would be more accurate and complete. Today, the first reviewer fills in the profile. In many cases, that results in "don't know"s because the reviewer wasn't able to confirm those items with the provider. Also, the reviewer may have to guess at info such as chest/cup size, weight, height, smoker, and ethnicity. Profiles created by a provider could still be updated/corrected by problem reports from the provider and reviewers. For example, if there's evidence that the provider's age is inaccurate, that can be reported to correct it. If this change were made, we might need a way for serious rip-off situations to be reported when the provider doesn't yet have a profile. By serious I mean cases like theft or assault, or threat of assault. Perhaps a "short form" profile and review with enough info to allow hobbyists to avoid her. I welcome discussion and your thoughts on this idea, as to whether it would be a good change and if so, what would be the best way to do it. And if you don't think it's a good idea, why not?-- Modified on 10/20/2016 5:49:55 PM
...since I (used to) rely on a providers profile here referencing her client preferences. So much info has proven to be incorrect that it is virtually worthless for many categories. That's not to say that a provider won't lie about things on her profile as well, but at least it stands a much better chance of being accurate than one submitted by a reviewer that is probably guessing at many categories.
Many newbie Providers come to the newbie board and would probably love to create their own Profile (with no reviews) to help to get their message and correct appearance and service details out there.
But there are also many Providers who have never even heard of TER until they get a phone call from out of the blue mentioning their reviews or Profile.
There are agencies with new employees that would want to create several new Profiles using a single (agency) handle.
Currently, any Provider who joins TER and links to her Profile can correct any mistakes or outdated info. (Assuming the private email linked to her TER account matches her Profile email and website email proves that she is the person in the Profile. If not, other proof will be needed.)
I do not see any major problems with Providers creating their own Profiles de novo. The only problem I see is technical on the TER end of things: how to do it? Allow a new Provider (no Profile; no reviews) to "Submit a Review", fill in her info and write a review that says: "General: This is a Provider created Profile." "Juicy: [blank]"
Today, a provider's profile is created by her first reviewer. While there's some advantages to that approach, I think there's also some big disadvantages:
* Creating a profile in TER exposes the provider to anyone who accesses the TER website. With VIP, which is available to anyone, the entire profile and all review info is available. Providers have no say as to whether they are exposed to the public in this way. In many cases, they don't know a profile has been created with review(s) attached to it. They may be at greater risk and not know it.
* (Related to first point) Profiles, and reviews, contain information that could be of great help to persons interested in tracking down people who may be in violation of certain laws. A glaring example is that some reviews include a link to a web site for a normal business establishment, eg a spa, with details such as address and identities (photos and real names) of the therapist(s). And the review(s) give the details on how those therapists might be violating specific laws. Those therapists may have no idea that profile and the review(s) exist.
* If profiles were created by providers, not only would they be affirming that they WANT reviews, but I believe the profiles would be more accurate and complete. Today, the first reviewer fills in the profile. In many cases, that results in "don't know"s because the reviewer wasn't able to confirm those items with the provider. Also, the reviewer may have to guess at info such as chest/cup size, weight, height, smoker, and ethnicity.
Profiles created by a provider could still be updated/corrected by problem reports from the provider and reviewers. For example, if there's evidence that the provider's age is inaccurate, that can be reported to correct it.
If this change were made, we might need a way for serious rip-off situations to be reported when the provider doesn't yet have a profile. By serious I mean cases like theft or assault, or threat of assault. Perhaps a "short form" profile and review with enough info to allow hobbyists to avoid her.
I welcome discussion and your thoughts on this idea, as to whether it would be a good change and if so, what would be the best way to do it. And if you don't think it's a good idea, why not?
-- Modified on 10/20/2016 5:49:55 PM
But there would need to be a profile form that omits the review info, such that the profile can be created by a provider vs. through the first review. From what I know about application design and programming, that shouldn't be difficult since the database can accommodate profiles with no reviews.
I don't see a problem using the existing Review Submission Form as long as a NEW POLICY allows the TER reviewers to post a new Profile with a "blank" review that says, "This is a Provider created Profile."
I JUST THOUGHT OF A PROBLEM!! NEXT POST!
Right now, there is a two step barrier that I will call a form of weak LE protection.
CURRENTLY:
A fake Provider (LE Bait) cannot create a Profile on her (or his 
) own.
A fake client (LE) can SUBMIT a fake first review / Profile for a new (fake) Provider.
However, the review / Profile doesn't post until there is some additional authentication from a more experienced reviewer.
Etc.. You know the drill. Not foolproof, but a partial deterrent to LE baiting us.
WITH A CHANGE IN POLICY: Many fake Providers (LE Bait) can create Profiles that could provide a sense of security to potential clients. There has to be a warning.
My suggestion to include a first review (her own, autoProvidergraphical review) that says, "This is a Provider created Profile." should provide a degree of warning that it is not a real review and that she has yet to be authenticated by an experienced (trustworthy) reviewer.
Maybe it should say, "This is a Provider created Profile. Not yet authenticated. Proceed with caution."
Just sayin' ...
The part about a new profile doesn't post until there is some additional authentication from a more experienced reviewer isn't true, because I've seen many cases of the first review for a provider coming from a reviewer for which it's his first review, and it's the only review for that provider.
How do we get around that problem today? With the excellent advice for newbies to see only providers with several reviews from established reviewers. I don't know about you, but I always treat providers with a small number of reviews with caution, especially if her reviewer(s) have little or no track record.
But another way to deal with it once profiles are created by providers would be to stipulate that the first reviewer for any provider must have a minimum number of reviews. That would actually be an improvement over status quo. It would also help providers I think by ensuring their first reviews are from hobbyists with a track record, and thus give other hobbyists more assurance that the providers are legit.
CURRENTLY:
A fake Provider (LE Bait) cannot create a Profile on her (or his
) own. A fake client (LE) can SUBMIT a fake first review / Profile for a new (fake) Provider.
However, the review / Profile doesn't post until there is some additional authentication from a more experienced reviewer.
Etc.. You know the drill. Not foolproof, but a partial deterrent to LE baiting us.
WITH A CHANGE IN POLICY: Many fake Providers (LE Bait) can create Profiles that could provide a sense of security to potential clients. There has to be a warning.
My suggestion to include a first review (her own, autoProvidergraphical review) that says, "This is a Provider created Profile." should provide a degree of warning that it is not a real review and that she has yet to be authenticated by an experienced (trustworthy) reviewer.
Maybe it should say, "This is a Provider created Profile. Not yet authenticated. Proceed with caution."
Just sayin' ...
My suggestion is that whenever you stumble across one of these reviews that have "slipped through the cracks" is to file a problem report to get it put back in queue until an established reviewer has reviewed her as well. Besides helping the community, you will get two free VIP days for your trouble.
As for your suggestion, I personally think it is a horrible idea and further corrupts what integrity is still left in the review system here. It's bad enough guys are giving out 10 for appearance to pudgy, rather plain, middle aged women, but can you imagine how many Orcas would show up as "average" in body type, or how many women over fifty would land in that coveted 36-40 category the old broads seem to stay in for decades?
Thus I don't understand how my suggestion would "further corrupt what integrity is still left in the review system".
Yes, it's possible for a profile to be inaccurate, either accidentally or intentionally. That's true today. That's what problem reports are for. As you noted, if a problem is found it can be reported with a reward of VIP days if the report is accepted.
As for reporting cases where the first review for a provider is from a newbie reviewer, what rule would I cite to back my report? There is no rule that states a newbie can't be the first reviewer for a provider.
There's also the info contained in reviews to counter inaccuracies in profiles. That's true today, and any monger who has any clue about mongering will read the provider's reviews in addition to looking at her profile.
As for your suggestion, I personally think it is a horrible idea and further corrupts what integrity is still left in the review system here. It's bad enough guys are giving out 10 for appearance to pudgy, rather plain, middle aged women, but can you imagine how many Orcas would show up as "average" in body type, or how many women over fifty would land in that coveted 36-40 category the old broads seem to stay in for decades?
I think Provider-created Profiles is OK as long as there is some kind of disclaimer or warning. I think that the current 'Submit a Review" system could actually work with little or no modification.
The MAJOR change is that it would require good oversight by the TER Review Reviewers. Every NEWLY submitted Profile would have to be checked:
1. Who submitted: (a) Provider (b) experienced, established reviewer (c) new reviewer with no track record
2. If (a) Provider, first review is actually a boilerplate disclaimer: "This is a Provider created Profile. Not yet authenticated. Proceed with caution." (or similar)
If (b) experienced reviewer, proceed normally
If (c) newbie reviewer, proceed normally (delay posting until corroborated)
Note: The standard protocol with (c) newbie reviewer is to DELAY, not "post with a disclaimer" and that policy should remain. The disclaimer suggestion is only for (a) Provider-created Profiles.
Yes, it's possible for a profile to be inaccurate, either accidentally or intentionally. That's true today. That's what problem reports are for. As you noted, if a problem is found it can be reported with a reward of VIP days if the report is accepted.
As for reporting cases where the first review for a provider is from a newbie reviewer, what rule would I cite to back my report? There is no rule that states a newbie can't be the first reviewer for a provider.
There's also the info contained in reviews to counter inaccuracies in profiles. That's true today, and any monger who has any clue about mongering will read the provider's reviews in addition to looking at her profile.
As for your suggestion, I personally think it is a horrible idea and further corrupts what integrity is still left in the review system here. It's bad enough guys are giving out 10 for appearance to pudgy, rather plain, middle aged women, but can you imagine how many Orcas would show up as "average" in body type, or how many women over fifty would land in that coveted 36-40 category the old broads seem to stay in for decades?
I trust a monger who has seen the lady more than the hooker herself to be honest. There is no shortage of ads, websites etc that the ladies have put old or someone else pictures along with misleading descriptions of themselves.
For every lady who knows about this site there are hundreds, if not thousands that don't. This would cause a great reduction in the number of reviews that are published. Info on new providers would slow to a trickle. Reviews are what makes the site valuable and a decline in the number of them would drive down traffic and interest in the site
Someone else most likely would pick up the ball and create a new site with the way things are currently done here. The non existent problem that you have would follow.
Reviews are the coin of the realm here. They won't do anything to reduce the volume of them.
Not every reviewer takes the time to check their guesses against a website ("bio" or "about me" page) or even asking the Provider.
Reviews are the coin of the realm here. They won't do anything to reduce the volume of them.
I still think that the current Review Submission Form can be used by an as yet non-Reviewed TER member Provider to submit her own Profile info and a Reviewer DISCLAIMER that says: "Provider created Profile. Not yet authenticated. Proceed with caution." in the General Info. (Juicy Details left blank.) No other ad copy: "I provide sexy massages with ..." not allowed in the autoProvidergraphical review
We call them ADS.
You aren't talking about creating a "profile" for the benefit of the guys, you are talking about a thinly veiled ad made by the woman herself. BAD BAD BAD idea, one of the worst ideas here on record.
Ads have free text. Profiles don't.
Ads are not updatable by anyone other than who posted it (and maybe in rare cases by Admin). Profiles can be updated by the provider but also by hobbyists via problem reports.
Ads can have only positive replies. Profiles are augmented by input from reviews, by discussions on the Reviewers board etc., and through back channels such as PMs.
Conclusion: profiles, no matter who creates them, aren't the same as Ads.
1. NoYellow makes several excellent points.
2. Why does TER exist in the first place? Hopefully, to provide ACCURATE information for hobbyists.
3. In some ways, it would improve accuracy if providers could post their own profiles--as long as there was a way to keep them honest.
4. Here's one idea about how to do that: If a provider wants to post her own profile, she should be required to link to a VERIFIED photo of herself on another website (say, eros.com).
5. However, bad info will always exist in profiles, regardless of who writes them. Guys have a VERY wide range of tastes, likes, and dislikes. Something that one hobbyist doesn't even notice could easily be a deal-breaker to another hobbyist.
6. The single biggest problem with TER is that it's almost impossible to change information on the original profile, no matter how inaccurate it is. I've known providers who have had their breasts enhanced from a B-cup to a DDD, and 3 years later, the profile still says "B." I've known providers who had tight, athletic bodies, then put on 40 pounds of fat--and still appear as "athletic" on their profile.
7. I've been using TER since it began. It's great in many ways. But its biggest failing is that it's too hard for the community to update and correct bad info. If a user has a really crucial correction to make to a provider profile (for example: started smoking, put on weight, changed hair color, got a really big, ugly tattoo), too bad--all he can do is write about it in the review, where other users might find it, or they might not.
8. It's time for TER to be more like Wikipedia. Let any VIP member edit a provider's profile. There should be an audit trail, and a chat area, so if anyone puts in false information, others can easily tag it and correct it. VIP members who abuse their edit privileges can be locked out. But the downside of a [partially] open system is much less than the upside.