I would like to argue that if there is only one number for performance it should reflect quality of service rather than level of service.  At present the number seems to me to be an uneasy mix of the two.There are a number of fields in the profile that allow me to determine level of service.  There are no fields other than the performance number in the profile that bear on quality of service.  I think quality of service is important and the performance number should reflect it regardless of level of service.  Let me expand on my thesis and illustrate why I advocate this.There used to be a massage provider who advertised on Cityvibe under the name of Georgia.  Perhaps some of you were lucky enough to see her.  For me at least, her massages were more erotic than many full-service escorts I have been with.  How good was she?  Well, I have retarded ejaculation due to nerve damage from a spinal injury.  A full orgasm with ejaculation does not happen easily with me.  Sometimes I even have difficulty getting myself off with my own hand.  Through some magic that I don't fully understand this lady could get me off just about whenever she chose.  For me that is a "one in a million" experience that rates a ten.Giving this lady a ten for performance does not mean the same thing as giving Luscious Laurel or Wow Nikki a ten for performance (which in my opinion they both very richly deserve) because the level of service is very different.  However, I think the quality of service is comparable.  I admit that it is possible to say in the review comments that the service was great, but I think there should be a numerical field to indicate quality and quality alone.  It is no more subjective than other things in the review.  I know when I have had an unforgetible experience (good or bad).Ideally, I think there should be two numbers for performance.  One for quality of service and one for level of service.  However, as long as there is only one number for performance I think it should reflect quality.  What I want to know is how good is she at what she does.  I can find out what she does from the other fields.While we are on the subject of performance numbers I got an e-mail from Christy saying that some of her reviewers told her that the numbers on their reviews had been changed before posting (a practice that Staff has admitted to if the numbers do not fit the current guidelines--I mean rules).  I read her reviews and I admit that I got a feeling of disconnect between some of the performance numbers and the written parts of the reviews.  From the written parts of the reviews I would have expected higher numbers for performance.Let me say that I have only seen Christy once myself and was not totally happy with the session.  She was late from the previous (outcall) session and said she had another guy waiting so my session ended on the hour even though it started late.  She did apologize for the confusion in scheduling.  However, even in the abbreviated time I was with her it was obvious that the lady is hotter than the hinges of hell.  Had the session been full length I think it would have been pushing a ten.  I say this in spite of the fact that Christy is not a GFE, which I usually prefer.  For the guys who say they don't want intimacy and just want hot physical sex, I think Christy approaches the ideal.  Even for someone like me who does like intimacy, I think Christy might be a very nice experience now and again.My point in all of this about Christy is that as far as I know she offers few of the extras required to get her performance rating above a seven (maybe an eight) by the current rules.  I think that almost anybody who has seen her will tell you that this is ridiculous.  Christy is an unforgettible experience extras or no extras.  Currently you have to read the reviews to discover this.  The numbers should be more help in pointing you to the reviews you want to read.One number can not serve two masters.  The performance number should stand for quality of service or level of service.  Given a choice I would vote for quality of service.