it seems to me that the answers from "staff" miss the point.
we're not talking about a case where the minx simply didn't show up. in this case the no shows came *after* the first meeting. so why not let the reviewer file a follow up review, or amend the existing review to say, "tried twice to meet with her again, but she stood me up both times." or whatever facts may be.
there can't be a principle against that, because no shows or scheduling problems are mentioned in reviews already -- if no shows or late shows occurred *before* the first meeting. (see for example a couple of reviews for ginger frisky in san francisco.)
so ter accepts no show info in the review if it happened *before* the meeting, but not *after*? please explain that.
staff declines the request by appealing to a general principle about no shows where a meeting *never* occurs. that general principle is acceptable. it just doesn't apply in this case ... because a meeting *did* occur.
using an irrelevant principle to decline a legitimate request is yet another example of "ad hoc" database massaging ...
There's a provider who gave me a terrific session two weeks ago. I wrote her a deserved, glowing review based on my opinion. That hasn't changed, but she's 'dropped the ball (singular)' twice on me. Once saying she was ill, the second time 'family stuff'.
Messages were posted on another board about her being AWOL; I don't need such aggravation. Nor do I want to flame her and find out later on about something horrible that may have happened in her personal situation that she placed in a higher priority than this endeavor.
On choice I have is to have the review expunged, as if it never happened. I'll remember, which truly is all I care about at this point. Of course, I've found 'greener pastures' so it's no big deal for me. Why should I remain a cheerleader for she who will neither answer my messages, nor give me the time of day. Heck, could I even get excited if she said "meet me whenever"? Negatory !
'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Third time ... simply will not happen.
This is an alias, the reason for using it is that I want anonymity.
-- Modified on 8/25/2002 11:03:13 AM
First, I should think that if you had a good time with her, she likely had a good time with you. Something serious must have happened in her personal life for her to avoid seeing you a second time.
It's your right to have your own review removed, of course, but I don't think you should do it out of petty spite. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt that she has good reason for not contacting you.
this whole culture of "correcting history" at ter strikes me as a bad hangover dream suffered by a provincial soviet functionary. "no, comrade escort teddi no longer exists, never existed, was never a member of the glorious party."
that would be teddi of sacramento (http://www.charmingcompanion.com/), who as late as a week ago was alive and well on ter with a profile page and at least 10 very glowing (appearance = 8, performance = 9) reviews ... and now she's gone, just vanished, vaporized, nullified, negated.
why? "if a profile disappears it may be because she was delisted," wrote the helpful ter tech support person. well, yes. so why was she "delisted"? uh, no comment on that. see, you haven't really made someone disappear if you have to explain their disappearance.
the "correcting history" culture even infects some ter subscribers (more of them providers than clients), as in the case of "darnconfused," a pseudonym that is meant to show that this quandry, if heretical, is not badly motivated ... it's just, well, confused.
the right course is simply to file an "updated review" to the original review, and let the original review stand. DO NOT DELETE THE ORIGINAL REVIEW. it represents information about the provider. but don't let the review stand -- it is also *incomplete* information about the provider.
there are several very highly reviewed providers with erratic service delivery -- for example, gingerfrisky or nikko in the san francisco area. they are just a "type" of provider. in darnconfused case, the provider may be erratic, or she may be declining to see a client that she, well, declines to see again. either way, it's useful information about the provider and about the reviewer.
the only reason for darnconfused to expunge the review is to assert revenge or salve his ego. either way, ter users are the losers -- and stalin's shadow grows longer.
I agree completely. Revisionism seems to be the prevailing mindset both here on TER and on most other review sites. While I don't really see anything wrong with removing reviews of a lady that has left the business, as long as they are restored if she returns; I see a real problem with simply removing reviews because someone makes an arbitrary decision that it is a "fake". In such a case, why not just add an editorial note stating why the staff thinks the review is false. You could even highlight such reviews on the main page and/or keep them out of the calculated averages. This way each individual can make an informed decision based on his own criteria, or just choose to rely on TER's judgment.
As far as removing reviews because you later had a different sort of experience with a provider, that's ridiculous. File a new review that reflects the current state of affairs. If she earned the old review, she ought to be able to keep it. It also allows other customers to make a decision based on all the information instead of a lack of information.
Falcon
Though I don't feel the review should be removed, because that information doesn't have anything to do with how the lady may have treated him subsequent to their meeting, he does have the freedom to ask for it to be removed.
Any lady has the freedom to have her profile removed, if it is her choice to keep a low profile, or quit the business. TER would have a certain legal exposure if they were to ignore a gals request to have her reviews removed from the database. This is a fact, not because we live in some communistic régime, but because we live in a society that values personal rights and freedoms.
yes, a reviewer may have the freedom to *ask* that a review be removed, but the terms of service say that the review becomes the sole property of ter. so whether it is removed is actually a signal of ter policy, and nothing more.
i have pretty convincing evidence that the lady in question is not about to retire. but even if she requested the removal of her ter profile for other reasons, "vanishing" the profile without a trace and without any explanation is from the user perspective a pretty weird procedure.
an explanation should be given by ter for the missing profile, because it would so to speak close the book rather than burn it. i don't think book burning counts as a personal freedom -- do you?
Your review showed that she could be wonderful if a hobbyist managed to see her. If she has become erratic and has lots no show, others will post reviews reflecting that.
This happened to a popular lady Alexis in LA. She had glowing reviews earlier this year. Lots of people wanted to meet her, including me. In mid-March and April, she went through a bunch of personal problems. Several reviews about her no-show had been posted. She had actually done that to me 3 times and I had left messages in her voice mail asking her the reasons. Starting in May, good reviews from reliable reviewers started to show up again. She has apparently changed her living arrangement and modified her services. I had since moved on. May be in time, I will try her again.
There are lots of things that could happen in a lady in this business. As long as there are no outright rip-off behaviors, I think we should just leave things as they are and let her sort things out.
-- Modified on 8/25/2002 1:11:44 PM
I think the review should stay--the review at the time was correct wasn't it. If after the appt you can't connect why would you think flaming her here would be proper protocol because she hasn't got back to you. I'm with Riker something happened.
Let me give you some possible scenarios why people drop off the face the earth for a moment.
1) LE
2) family crisis
3) jealous SO who now believes the only way to get you to not be a provider is to open doors while appts occur and walks in--decides to print your address book up and threatens or carries out calls to your clients and tells them he's LE or your riddled with an incurable disease.
4) current place or environment appts have been happening at is no longer safe for you or your clients (roommate or landlord issues) .
5) she could of decided to retire and nothing says any of needs to give a farewell speech although it would be a nice courtesy
The list could go on and I'm hoping I created the thought to come out of the box and realise excellent providers don't just vanish without good cause. Seriously you probably don't want to know what happened because you'd probably be concerned if the problem had really been resolved. Unfortunately, down side of this business is we form attachments as hobbyist and providers to the people we meet while traveling along, but if something bad happens especially to our wonderful gents nobody is going to pick up the phone and let us know what happened. Aspect I find least desirable of this otherwise wonderful journey.
Terse contact was made today with Miss X. She was on IM, but not on-line but idle; like kissing your sister. I am beginning to think it was family problems ... but I can never tell? If she's being untruthful, it will not be the first escort for this buckeroo - well 'so called escort' the other one was. That's why I don't want to post anything negative, on top of my review.
TER said they don't post reviews for no-shows; although I recall a few. And that would be even more vidictive than deleting the review.
Like Douglas MacArthur said, I'd just like to be 'an old hobbyist', and say 'old hobbyists just fade away' without a trace. Only a few souls might notice the absence of my review. Oh sure, there's some spite. In light of another girl, who is as phoney as her boob job, who couldn't stand to hear that she wasn't the prettiest girl on earth - I let her review stand. So maybe I do the same here. And just be a 'nice guy' or should I say 'take one for the team'
-- Modified on 8/25/2002 3:14:47 PM
The most enjoyable part of TER has become the discussion board to me. I would hope that you don't fade away and darnconfused will come and post another day. So the rest of us can continue to have our thinking advanced or digressed by virtue of you being here with us. Hugs, Cheridan
After I chat with Ms X (today ?), I hope to have a better handle on the situation.
the handle you need on the situation is inside your head, not on the minx or her telephone.
she's a person. she can choose to see whomever she wants, and she doesn't have to give you or anyone else a detailed explanation. you have your life, she has hers. "no answer" just means, "have a nice day."
this isn't taunting, just i've-been-there advice: the more you poke it, the worse you'll feel.
Let me get this straight. You saw a girl, wrote a, in your own words, "desearved review." Now you want to "take is back" becuase she won't see you again?
Sounds a bit petty IMHO.
As far as provider being delisted. If a provider ask not be listed here, we do not. (unless of course she is a rip-off) It is important for you to understand TER has to limit its legal exposure. It takes a lot of $20 memberships to fight a lawsuit.
-- Staff
will you be sued if you "delist" a profile by replacing it with a page that simply says the profile has been removed at the provider's request (or redirects to a page listing delisted profiles)? so that there isn't just a big, black hole -- and we users know she isn't law enforcement, or a rip off?
if ter assumes full ownership of the reviews after they are submitted (see terms of service), then isn't it always ter's unilateral decision to post the review, remove it, change it, or make christmas cards out of it?
"unless of course she is a rip off" ... well, as with claudia in san francisco, don't you also have the policy of removing the rip off designation if the provider requests it ... or insists with counsel and threatened lawsuit?
unless ter *practices* (not just policy) are explicit, publicly stated, and consistent, we ter subscribers are at a disadvantage. we don't know why profiles disappear, or reviews disappear or get changed, or rip off designations get applied or removed. which makes it that much harder to interpret the information we *can* see.
as far as i can tell, "policy" is a come as you are, ad hoc thing at ter. it's the *practices*, the specific steps, the specific link between internal discussions and database commands, the specific individuals who decide this or that about the database will change today, that i want to surface.
I got a message from TER that 'don't post no-show reviews'. That leaves with do not tell others this dame is flaky or flame her on a message board. Would you want to be the second fellow waiting with an empty hotel room for this hottie to cancel or simply say nothing ? (that fellow did post a message on another board)
If I flame her and she ultimately explains the situation, I am a jerk and she is harmed.
If I do nothing, whatever is bothering her, may surprise other members?
If I were to be 'petty' and remove the review, there would be no trace and no skin off my nose. It's then up to her to resurrect her ratings ..... but without my help.
I feel compelled to take some action for the benefit of TER members. All courses, as I see it are petty.
There are two problems with accepting no-show reviews.
1. Because most of the time, they do not know what she looks like in person (seeing she did not show up) and they are pissed we get a 1/1 review. Someone who is new now has a lower ranking than a rip-off. Someone who has a great average now just lost it. That is not fair.
2. TER works on a set of checks and balances. Both providers and members have a chance to contest reviews. The goal is, with enough input, we can have a very accurate database. A no show review leaves very little in the way of contestability. Many times we see reviews posted just to hurt a provider (written by pissed off guys or other providers!) After emailing everyone involved, talking to them, we try to find out what happened.
In a no show, there is very little we can do. Example, if a guy sees a girl, he would know where she was, what she looked like, what color were her carpets, etc. In a no show, we have very little to work from. It becomes nothing more than he said/she said.
These decisions were not made "ad hoc.” We have over 70,000 approved reviews and countless unapproved ones. It just seemed fair.
I would be open to hear suggestions on a fair, contestable way to record no-shows.
-- Staff
1) Flame her - bad news for her now, me later if she explains herself
2)Do nothing - unfair to other TER members who may buy empty hotel rooms - fine for me on the board but not my integrity and intellectual honesty
3)Remove the review and move on - only a few to be the wiser? Including the lady who's been notified.
It wasn't me who added the no-show idea to the thread, having previously been alerted by a private message from the Staff.
staff somehow believes that if the color of the carpeting is on record, it's no longer a he said/she said situation. wait .. wouldn't staff *hisself* have to see the carpet in order for it not to be a he said/she said kinda thing? guess people lie about no shows, but not about carpets!
"ad hoc" simply means you do one thing when a lawsuit is threatened, and another thing when it's not. rob claudia of sf was the example that opened my eyes. the ter users have no information to help them know what went on when data are changed.
"staff," this is not a competitor probe for proprietary database processes, or some kind of ruse to get you to commit to something in public you will regret. it's a user request to be informed when information is changed or deleted, and why; nothing more. there is to my knowledge absolutely no legal or competitive downside to granting that request.
I like the idea of a "no-show" list, but as staff points out, that's hard to verify - that would have to result in an instant removal if requested. However, a preponderance of no-shows would be important information. Of course, that would result in those ladies who are vigilant to contest the no-show list having a clean record.
I like the idea of posting a CONTESTED REVIEW tag when a review is contested, rather than removing it. But it would be unwieldy to post any more explanation than the simple tag. Once you let the *minx* express the reason for her contention, is it then fair to let her have the last word, without a rebuttal from the reviewer? And then who get's the last word?
What I particularly appreciate, is how the membership doesn't let Staff get away with anything. Afterall, there are always at least two other people who know what Staff is doing with their reviews. And those people have the freedom to tell everyone else about it.
I don’t see anything ad hoc about a policy of removing a persons profile at their request for legal reasons. Also, I regret the Claudia example, because it was nothing more than pure speculation on my part, that she took some action to remove herself from the Rip-Off list.
Perhaps Staff can answer that one for me – does a providers profile go off the Red Letter Rip-Off list after a certain number of months, or a certain number of reviews that are not listed as a Rip-Off?
I looked at Claudia's reviews. Some the guys got really lousy service, some were rips. We don't really have a catogory for this. I would probably leave the rip-off tag on as a warning to others.
Generally rip-offs stay rip-offs. I guess we have to look at them on an individual basis.
-- Staff
it seems to me that the answers from "staff" miss the point.
we're not talking about a case where the minx simply didn't show up. in this case the no shows came *after* the first meeting. so why not let the reviewer file a follow up review, or amend the existing review to say, "tried twice to meet with her again, but she stood me up both times." or whatever facts may be.
there can't be a principle against that, because no shows or scheduling problems are mentioned in reviews already -- if no shows or late shows occurred *before* the first meeting. (see for example a couple of reviews for ginger frisky in san francisco.)
so ter accepts no show info in the review if it happened *before* the meeting, but not *after*? please explain that.
staff declines the request by appealing to a general principle about no shows where a meeting *never* occurs. that general principle is acceptable. it just doesn't apply in this case ... because a meeting *did* occur.
using an irrelevant principle to decline a legitimate request is yet another example of "ad hoc" database massaging ...
the carpet is dusty rose and the window shades, chair and love seat are blue; I know quite well because it's in MY house in a historic district here in a Chicago suburb. I have photos as further evidence of her being here.
She saw my first review so she ain't got wiggle room on that score.
As I recall, so there's no reason a review shouldn't be able to add that extra information.
So you think I should modify the review to indicate the no shows?
Chime in anyone, please.
riker, i guess you withhold the key information just so the discussion will grow like topsy. 
unless staff is preventing darnedupset from emending the review, he should just do that if he wants. if he's waited longer than 15 days, then he's ruled out by policy and that's his tough luck, in my view.
the broader issue for me is not what ter does, but what subscribers know about what ter does -- because subscribers interpret the reviews, try to sniff out bogus reviews, etc., based on what they know. this is the real problem when practice and policy are joined in an ad hoc way.
i don't think the claudia example is regrettable at all -- it was glaringly obvious she was a rob. that in itself is evidence that the ter review and profile amendment process, whatever it is, is not consistent; whether a lawsuit was involved is irrelevant. if the process is not consistent, then ter users can't know what the amendment process is, so they don't know what a review is really worth.
He said he wanted to expunge it. Yeah sure, go ahead and submit an update with the new information.
-- Modified on 8/26/2002 10:03:00 PM
You may also submit an update on a provider that you have already reviewed. We will replace your old review, but you won’t be credited for an additional 15 days. Your new review must be a complete rewrite that adds something new to the experience in order for it to replace the old one.
I will contect TER directly and deal with this as I feel I must for the lady's sake and for my psyche
I pulled the review, rather than amend. Although I feel badly, I I am the kind of sentimentalist who would feel bad no matter what I had done.
So only she and her followers 'preaching to the paying congregation' now know the particulars.