or is there a prescribed amount or time period used for each computation?
IE:Most recent 25 reviews.
OR
Only the scores for the last 6 to 12 month period. If ALL the scores in a provider’s review history are used; the gals who have only been at it for a year or have a total of "25" reviews have a HUGE scoring advantage over a perennial that has a history dating back several years and possibly hundreds of reviews. Any answers out there, or did I raise further numerical/actuarial questions
Honestly, I sometimes can't believe just how stupid some men are. 10's have been given out so freely over the last few years as to become completely meaningless to all but the stupidest of mongers.
is a couple of “friends” to get her off to a good start, then have her “friends” as well as any sycophantic “new” friends carefully cherry pick and petition for removal of anything less than a 10 -10.
The above formula could have a quick and quantifiable effect on pricing.
You mean like when some posters makes a comment that a gal isn't that hot....and then all of a sudden half a dozen 10/10's follow within the week?
Egads....it's a travesty LO
May be we should consult a lady that always reminds us about her 9/10 reviews. May she share her wisdom )))
My universal translator is in the shop for repairs after last weeks workout.
Maybe she'll have some johns visit her so she'll stay away for a bit?
That's how we should settle this. There seems to only be enough room for one Russian hooker on this board, especially since one of them uses up more bandwidth than all of Moscow just running faux ads.
My suggestion is a duel between the two, Choice of weapons is "vodka at dawn" may the last one standing be the only one to remain on TER,
Don't worry LIna, if I have to, I'll swap out her vodka with tequila, and she won't last but maybe a dozen shots. rofl
I am a Gambler by trade, did you expect a fair contest? silly rooskie. lol
Being stupid broke ex hooker with terrible reviews i need all the help I can get.
Oh well anything for a good cause.
I've been on here too long. I know exactly who you're talking about. She seems like a nice enough a woman but Wow, she is hard to follow.
9”s and 10’s is 5 or 6.
This crap started happening when mongers started giving out their handles for screening, white knights and mangina’s.
Sometimes, 9 and for looks for Aldo Antonio and his photo shopping expertise. He definitely got good thing going!
-- Modified on 11/18/2013 10:59:02 AM
The 1 to 10 scores caused contention a week after TER went on-line. But for the most part it was bruised egos and wounded vanity, and of course the WhiteKnights aka Manginas.
These 'aggregates' are causing a defacto inflated pricing structure where an otherwise sub-standard provider can politic herself into 500/h to 1K/h. And once in that aggregate/price initiate a closely monitored ‘review moratorium’
A similar LA based actuarial by an LA hobbyist succeeded in creating a veritable Whore-war in the mid 2000's with his annually published "Report". It also made this Hobbyist VERY VERY popular with the #1-2 and 3 ranked providers.
I can't figure out why TER even considered this idea's return and subsequent expansion.
This crap started happening when mongers started giving out their handles for screening, white knights and mangina’s.
Sometimes, 9 and for looks for Aldo Antonio and his photo shopping expertise. He definitely got good thing going!
-- Modified on 11/18/2013 10:59:02 AM
it was only like 2 or 3 reviews later than mine. But oh well, she was really, really good so I guess I don't mind. I wondered though, was it her agency trying to get more reviews on her page or a hobbyist looking for the 2nd review of the month or what ever it is that get's you a free month. If it was her agency, then good as she deserves it, if it was a hobbyist I guess if he needed the $25 savings and I feel bad for him.
If you have less reviews then a negative review affects you more than if you had hundreds of reviews.
ex:
Sally has 25 reviews. 24 of them are 10/10 and 1 of them is a 6/6. Her average is a 9.84
Betty has 125 reviews. 124 of them are 10/10 and 1 of them is a 6/6. Her average is a 9.968
It might not seem like a big difference, but if you check the top 100 the ladies on the list have a difference of .01 sometimes.
Did you ever drive a car that computes your fuel mileage 'average' while you drive?
If you live 5 miles and 8 traffic lights away from the Freeway your fuel mileage will be abysmal when you enter the on-ramp to the freeway. It will then require 40 or more miles of optimum “cruising speed” driving to get to the EPA’s Highway mileage estimate for your car.
If you “reset” your car’s aggregate mileage computer upon your entering the on-ramp too the freeway you’ll probably achieve the EPA”s Highway estimate for your car in little more than 5 miles of Highway driving.
The perennial providers with pages of previous reviews need a page or more of consecutive 10/10’s to get their 8.7 up to a 9.0 whereas a neophyte provider with “friends” is already up to a “cruising speed” aggregate when the computer is “set”.
ex:
Sally has 25 reviews. 24 of them are 10/10 and 1 of them is a 6/6. Her average is a 9.84
Betty has 125 reviews. 124 of them are 10/10 and 1 of them is a 6/6. Her average is a 9.968
It might not seem like a big difference, but if you check the top 100 the ladies on the list have a difference of .01 sometimes.
But what of the 'provider' with 100+ reviews, an 8.8 aggregate, and she is trying to up her game and get into the 9.0 or above aggregate?
Take a look at the LA “TOP 10”.
#9 has a 4 year history, 74 reviews, and a 9.58 aggregate.
#1 has a 1 year history, 25 reviews, and a “perfect” 10 aggregate (and she is officially on hiatus per her web-page).
Providers will tell you that a 9.0 and above will justify 500/hour without question; a 9.6 and above and the pricing goes stratospheric.
The moral of the story is get the minimum amount of reviews needed to be eligible, and then go on an extended vacation!
I now wonder what the "minimum eligibility" is
My OP was based on an innate and serendipitous unfairness with the published aggregate scores and how they’re compiled.
The fact that regularly published aggregate scores also create a pricing structure dynamic that has ‘historically’ proven ripe for venal and disruptive manipulations born from innocently wounded human vanity to cold hard cash was never mentioned in said OP.
How many times have we seen an OP on score inflation?
How many times have we seen an OP about coerced reviews?
There was a great OP recently. I believe ironically penned by a provider about the dramatic rise in the ‘median’ donation observed in the last year or so despite a historic National Recession. But strangely/unfortunately this very lively thread disappeared somewhere between my computer sessions.
Thanks to how these aggregates are compiled any provider who had reviews prior to the addition of the published aggregates and the ensuing ‘Ten-Ten-O-Mania’ is simply out of the game if they wish too up-it. And GONE is any impetus to acquire more than 25 reviews if the provider has had a great initial feedback from the community of hobbyists.
The LA Region actuarial that was privately compiled/computed and published annually on TER between 2003 – 2005 caused more dissention and problems than it was ever worth. All I’m saying is perhaps we should look around at what is historically and currently problematic and seek ways too ameliorate it rather than feed it.
Please explain your thought processes that bring you to such an erroneous accusation.
First you subtly seek too impugn. Then you allude that you are in possession of information that YOU think I or my"escort friends" would be covetous of.
Ok; I’ll bite.
What do YOU ‘skarphedin’ know of other prejudices and practices stemming from the aggregates that would be better off purged than continued?
IMO this would seem the proper thread to publically expose such knowledge in hopes of their purging!