A provider with many reviews that go back several years can be evaluated just as you state by seeing if there is any progression or regression in the ratings.

Is there something I'm missing in your proposal?

I use the classic version, so the rating avgs are not a problem.  If you want a more current rating for a provider you want to see, just average her latest 10-20 reviews yourself.  I doubt very seriously if TER is going to change the rating formula, IMHO.

Lou

I recently sent a note to ter regarding rating averages.  They replied with "We will definitely consider it for the future as it makes sense!".   So, i thought i should post it on the GD board for discussion purposes.  

In summary I asked them to revise the rating system to reflect a more current snapshot of a providers performance.  TER rules state that new reviews be based on a recent visit ( within the past 3 months) in order to be timely.  The review policy states that "a lot can change with a provider - even in this relatively short amount of time".  

Using their logic, my thought is that a providers rating should be weighed more heavily on the past year or maybe two years than the entirety of her reviews.   If a provider has ratings going back six years and started out as a non-gfe but is now gfe her rating might dissuade a hobbyist from contacting her because it averages all of her reviews.  

The old saying "what have you done for me lately" comes to mind.   I would like the rating to be based on the most recent 20 (just throwing out a number) or the past year to have a better idea of what to expect.  

I'm sure it would be possible to maintain the current rating average for all of a providers reviews and to create a more relevant and up to date rating average that provides hobbyist with recent information that allows us to make a more informed decision.  

I know that I am a new member but have been lurking for a long time.  I really enjoy and appreciate TER.  

Curious as to everyone's thoughts?

Rating averages may catch my attention to take a look at a particular provider but reading the recent "General Details" and "Juicy Details" are what can make or break my decision in booking an appointment...

If anything... the review from a hobbyist with multiple reviews of quality providers has more impact with me then a providers rating average in my book. AKA the hobbyist that's seen a legend or two and scores an 8/8 means a lot more to me then the newbie scoring their first lay or two a 10/10...

When you see a high review.. check out the reviewer and who they have seen/reviewed in the past. It will tell you a lot more then a providers rating average.

When I come across a provider who has pages of reviews, I usually read back a page or two.  The last 20 reviews ( 2 pages) will give me a good idea of what her current skill levels are.  I really don't care  how she performed back in 2007 or 2008. And as far as the numbers are concerned, they're meaningless, the juicy details are what count.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

The top 100 is the only place I see that has the providers scores averaged. Your idea may be a good one for that. They have already set a minimum number of reviews (20) to qualify for the Top 100. Otherwise I don't see a need as I can average her last 10 or 20 or whatever myself. I do look at scores but like others have stated the details are what I really care about. I've never had a bad session because of the details in the reviews and some back channeling.

Early on in my career, I received a handful of lukewarm reviews.  I was still making my way in this business.  I didn't understand how to market myself towards the kind of fellow who could appreciate what I had to offer, I was a TOTAL tomboy who had no understanding of how to harness all the usual trappings of seductive femininity (like makeup, stockings & high heels) to my benefit, and also, I was just a very different person overall.  My reviews of the past 2 years have been damn near uniformly sparkling, but my average suffers due to the older reviews.

I can't complain too much, because I don't believe it has deterred anyone from seeing me.  My business remains consistently rewarding, financially and otherwise, and I have more fantastic experiences now than I ever have.  Still, it would be nice for my averages to more accurately reflect who I am NOW!

This will help give you  more accurate snapshot of a provider when you look at the reviews page that basically only gives a name and average rating.

Don't worry about people telling you it works fine like it is, or you should be reading every fucking review just to make sure you haven't missed a single grammaticakl error.That's how us old fucks are, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, blah, blah, blah...

What really is being said is 'I'm used to how this shit is now, and hope it never changes cuz then I'd have to change how I do things. Christ, if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you. Get off my lawn!' Remember, we are the ones that had to walk to school barefoot in the snow, in Phoenix with the sun beating down on us, uphill... both ways. You whippersnappers want everything handed to you on a silver platter!

Ok, I'm going back up on the porch to sit in my rockin chair now and listen to some Conway Twitty...

I'm retired from hobbying, but these are some things I considered a while back.

1. Throw out the highest and the lowest review for purposes of calculation -- neither is likely reflective of what someone else will experience. This is a standard in statistical methods.
2. KEEP THE 10s that hobbyists award -- those are legitimate. When TER admin makes a habit of knocking down 10's to 9's, it hurts the averages of women who have legitimately earned 10s.
3. Any rating based on fewer than 10 reviews should be provisional and asterisked. Certainly, nobody with 10 or fewer reviews should be showing up in a Top 100 list.
4. The more recent a review the more heavily it should be weighted. I agree with the O.P. (and Ms. Taggart) on this.

Although it might be controversial, I would also like to see a value coefficient that reflected averaged performance/appearance juxtaposed against price. If a provider's average performance is 9, her average appearance is 8 and she charges $200, she is likely a better value for the average 4-F hobbying style than a provider with the same scores who charges $1200. (Again, throwing out highest and lowest scores, keeping the 10s that weren't discarded, only providers with 10+ reviews get rated, weighting most recent reviews higher, etc.)

Obviously, such a value coefficient would not mean anything in absolute terms because the provider charging $1200 is clearly addressing a different market than the provider charging $200. Nevertheless, I consider it problematic that those providers are lumped together for rankings. Either they should be separated into rate classes based on minimum charge or a value coefficient should be applied.