I was just a subject of this new "beta testing" of the Performance Scoring methodology.  So I am now only able to receive a 9 as the highest Performance score UNLESS I have actually performed one of the four qualifying activities for a 10, AND the reviewer is responsible for including that in the review.  
Beyond the fact that this is complete NONSENSE and will only serve to elevate girls who offer AND perform services that are not necessarily what the majority of clients are looking for thereby skewing the overall escort population in one direction (picture only providers who provide Greek in EVERY session in the Top 100--how is THAT an accurate picture of the escort community?), its not even consistently notated where clients go when attempting to navigate the review writing process on TER.  Namely, here:  

https://www.theeroticreview.com/info_policies/reviewFAQ.asp#B

If a provider's score suddenly goes down to getting 9's instead of 10's due to this rule change, TER should make their members aware of the change in policy in a very big way.  Otherwise it appears like providers are just suddenly receiving lower performance scores, bolstering the perception that they may be declining in their service level, as it will in my case which I am upset about...
There should be a front page announcement in reference to this huge change in policy...
At the very least update the website everywhere the scoring system is explained...

So 9 is the new 10... Yawn...

Reputable customers take a peek at #s (if the visuals are appealing) and then actually read the "prose" of the reviews.  

You won't believe how many 10/10 reviews left me completely cold...

Well that makes me happy  I find most of my clients are pretty green to TER, and most can't figure out how to get the review finally posted, with repeated rejections and hassles.  I'm awae of the simplicity of finding the instructions on the site and just reading them, but these guys don't really want to post a review in the first place for either security "reasons" or they're just busy.  Adding another layer of complexity is mind boggling at this point.  

Keep making it up as you go TER!

Ugh~

I agree it's nonsense that an exceptional provider who chooses to not make THAT orafice available to clients can never get a 10 in a MF session.  However, 9 is an excellent score and will be even more so with the new rules. And as was said, people need to read reviews and not just look at numbers.  

9s were not as frequent and rarely a 10 was given.   Then the top 100 was established. Most veteran reviewers are more interested in reading the review than looking at the numbers. After all one reviewers 9 is another's 6.

-- Modified on 1/20/2017 11:21:05 PM

END OF MESSAGE

I agree with BodhisattvaGirl on both this comment and on her original post that started this thread. The new rating system is a step backwards. I hope TER pays attention to feedback from providers and users both. The new system creates confusion and weakens TERs value.

Right on! During calendar year 2016 I had 53 provider sessions. Every single one of them was outstanding. One in particular was so "off the charts" it took me a week to come down out of the clouds. Her performance was a 10+ even though no Greek was involved. I wrote a very detailed description and rated her performance a 10. TER Support wanted me to reduce her score to a 9 per the new rating system. I think that is unfair to her and other providers at large who provide exceptional service.

To continue: I saw the provider again where Greek was included. I resubmitted a modified updated review (including the new date) and TER Support still rejected the 10 rating even after all requirements were met for a 10. TER has taken a hard line and in my experience didn't follow their own guidelines. I was pretty disappointed with TER Support. I'm still holding out for the 10 and will repost her review after see her again in February.

The new system has made TER's rating system far less valuable to me.

... was that you ran into an unwritten rule that a reviewer needs to wait at least 90 days to submit an update to a review.  That was the case with the old rules anyway, and I don't see any mention of it in the new rules so perhaps it's no longer in effect.  

If the 90 day rule is no longer in effect, or if it is and you wait at least 90 days after you submitted your first review to submit the update, and the update is significantly different and mentions in some form kissing with tongue, BBBJ, and Greek, then you should be able to give her a 10.  But keep in mind under the new rules, your new review won't replace the old review--the old one will remain.

I already posted above on what I think about Greek being required for a 10 in a MF session, so I won't repeat myself here.  

That were posted that received 10s for performance but they didn't mention any of the activities that would get them that 10th point.  These were all posted after the January 4 date.  I'm just kind of curious to the explanation for this.  The only thing I could possibly think of is if the date took place before January 4 then maybe the old rules apply.  

I understand things evolve and change, and new rules will arise within a system in order to avoid becoming static and ossified...but this change is not that.  This change merely complicates things, and somehow manages to take away from both the end user and the provider as noted above in the comments.  

When you have a rating system that has been operating by a set of guidelines that govern a score which is based on the sum of number ratings, then reducing the overall numbers that can be included in that sum by way of criterion that was previously earned in a different way skews the entire system and negates its previous overall value significantly, if not completely.  I am not sure why TER does not care about the integrity of their scoring system as a whole?  To just evoke a change of this magnitude without, at the very least, making some sort of enormous announcement renders the whole system obtuse and frankly, a joke. Even an announcement wouldn't even the score, so to speak, in this particular case.  And the fact that this type of change has occurred before in the past as one comment suggested makes the whole thing even more devalued.  

I know that it has been said here (by obvious long-time users) that the change is 2nd nature and insignificant to them due to their familiarity with the site.  Let me tell you, my experience is that you are NOT the majority.  The majority of men that peruse this site have been exposed to TER for a limited time and are deducing a great bit of information based on the rise and fall of the obscure-to-them numbers found on a provider's profile.  They haven't ever written a review but rather use TER to verify a provider's legitimacy by way of consistency across different, prominent sites (and maybe to glean a little bit from their reviews while they are at it).  The majority have never attempted to write a review, and if they have it probably got rejected on account of violation of one of the countless submission rules, ending with them just giving up.

Bottom line, I have never seen a website having authority within an industry while being so fluid in their policies that it renders them incredible.  There may not be a better mouse trap now, but if this kind of shortsightedness (or indifference) keeps up you can trust there will be in the future.

END OF MESSAGE

The new review rules went into effect for reviews SUBMITTED after January 4.  As it can take awhile for reviews to get through the system, that could explain what you saw.

Also, even with the old rules there were mistakes made sometimes, one way or the other, on review scores allowed.  There will be some mistakes with the new rules too.

Cool, thanks for the reply.  I figured it might be something like the reviews taking a while to get submitted.  Completely agree that there will probably be a bit of time for all the bugs to get worked out.

-- Modified on 1/26/2017 7:03:38 PM

Well, everyone has their take and view on what they want from the site. That said as long as the performance rating is defined to be based on services then it SHOULD be based on services performed and not on the offering. That's where a lot of the abuse (along with the whole Top X providers) derived from and made some many of the users that rely on reviews for make any decision on who to see upset.

As a provider I can understand you might not like it but as a customers both of providers and TER's Reviews it's an improvement that is long past due.

All of that is said in the context of how TER has historically linked performance rating to services. Personally I think that's a mistake but it is what it is: TER's best solution to providing something that could be called an objective rather than purely subjective metric.  

I think we all chalk this up under the same heading we clients due with providers terms and condition: if one doesn't like the defined rules (and changes to those rules) it's okay to ask a question but then move on.

As for the guys who are so stupid or lazy (or cheap) to base any decision on the two numbers, well they are the problem for the rest of us and they make this site less useful for everyone. Even if they are in the majority I really don't see any reason to cater to them as most will also be non-paying members so....

-- Modified on 1/28/2017 8:56:07 AM

-- Modified on 1/28/2017 8:57:04 AM

YES YES YES! Once again right on target. As a client I fit exactly as described above. In the past I have relied heavily on TER rating numbers but no longer. Too bad for TER, providers and clients alike. Very disappointing for all, this change is a lose for everyone. I agree with BodhisattvaGirl that TER just opened the door wide open for a competing mouse trap so to speak. It seems TER has no clue as to the ultimate effect of this seemingly arbitrary change. Way to go TER -- major screw up. When invoking change it should be aimed at improvement, not the other way around.