jesus, he's found something else to complain about. why doesn't this guy get laid????

i've noticed in several profile pages that the specific items on service (especially, bbbj vs. cbj, and touch only vs. daty) don't correspond with the information in the reviews. same for the personal items (especially, implants, which i try to avoid).

my sense is that the profile page must get fleshed out from the first reviewer's information. the question is: what happens to subsequent information from additional reviewers?

ideally, all reviewer indications would be kept in database, and a background program would parse these each time a new review was submitted and (1) replace "don't know" with available specific information, and (2) switch on or off service items according to the preponderance of information (or, as with implants, the recency of information) on the provider.

however, it appears that the switching on or off is done by hand, probably only when the problem is reported. for example, the latest review of sweet tracy in fremont (san francisco) states that she has no implants, although the most recent review talks about her recent surgery (oh break my aching heart!). if he carried his observation into his profile info (and the rating cgi makes that mandatory before you can submit the form), then that item should have been switched.

the discrepancy seriously affects the search function. it also puts another specific reporting burden on the users, who may not infer that task from the ambiguous "report a problem" button. again, to my previous post, from a design point of view it would be very constructive to edit the profile template so that this button is pulled down into a separate line, and a text explanation inserted beside it to describe the "problems" users should flag -- bad phone, bad web site, phony reviews, incorrect information on the profile page, whatever.

yes, i will take that to the suggestion box.

-- Modified on 8/21/2002 10:27:37 AM

This has bugged me for a long time. The profiles should be updated along with every new review. Hell, they make us fill it out every time. Why not import that fresh information?

like TBD.  Now, I don't trust the reviews on TBD, but I do like the software (forms) they use.

-Hoot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a "Report a Problem" button on each provider profile screen.  I think it is used to report such a discrepancy.  I did use it once to correct a provider's web address, and they did correct it in a couple of days.  I would expect that they would do this with BBBJ vs. CBJ as well.  Interesting I was thinking the same today where a new Long Island provider with very high grades from her 2 reviewers showed CBJ, but both reviews clearly indicated BBBJ.  My suspicion is that the first reviewer clicked on the wrong service when he wrote the review, and there is no procedure to mesh the detail with the form data.  I also wonder who's responsibility it is to report this, the first reviewer, or the second, or some third interested party?

We are TER. Anyone can submit a problem report to correct any inaccurate information.

Who knows? The first reviewer may have actually chosen CBJ, believing that he was a YMMV because the girls ad indicated CBJ only. I think there may be lots of reasons for something in a profile to be different or somehow inaccurate. This business is so personal, it's always filled with shades of gray.

to alert us when a cbj vix becomes a bbjteoku vacurette.
I've noticed a dozen times that the profile said cbj when in fact the vix tried to change my oil and turn my ears inside out, with fries. Should have prophesied such from the wet full pouty lips. LOL

I noticed the same thing a while ago and sent a query off to TER and the response I got at the time was that: the initial post is the one who defines the profile.  

I think I'd like to see the VIP members at least get access to every profile posted with the review.  After all in order to submit a review you have to fill out the profile info anyway why dump it when it should contain the latest info.  And it shouldn't degrade the initial info since things change and if it's a YMMV situation, the variations in the reviews would make it clear.

the "first in" profile strategy is fine to start, but if the profile is retained across subsequent reviews and does not take into account the information in all the reviews, it degrades the effectiveness of the search function. (which, by the way, still won't retrieve the 8 or so reviews of teddi in sacramento.)

this really should be handled with a background program that summarizes all the profile inputs in a principled way. it isn't hard to do.

if they've thrown away all the subsequent profile ratings (like the contested reviews), then they're up a creek. a data purging creek.

either way, VIP members should blitz these guys with problem reports. any picky discrepancy you can find in the profile. make 'em clean up every consistency -- *especially* on the bbbj thing, gentlemen who care about that kind of thing. a week or two of doing it their way will convince somebody (maybe the same guy who's deleting contested reviews) that there must be an easier way ...

You would think that if a provider was around long enough to have more than one page of reviews (more than 10) over a period of more than 12 months, TER would want to keep current.  There are provider reviews on this board going back as far as 1999.  Lots can change, for better or worse, and who better that we, the current clients, have the ability to help maintain accurate data?

I totally agree, it must be the first reviewer who sets the tone.  For instance, I reviewed one provider who had the best, most suckable, most fantastic tits I had ever seen.  Yeah, she had implants but the doctor who did them should be given a medal.  However,  a previous reviewer had said that she had "rock hard" tits.  I don't know what he was smoking when he saw her, but he was dead wrong.  I tried to change this in my review but the original observation about rock-hard tits was still there when my review was published.  I guess this is just one of the things that needs to be fine-tuned about the review process on TER.  As always, take everything you read in a review with a large grain of salt.  Still, the personal characteristics of each provider should be averaged or somehow parsed in the database with each review.  After all, what we have here with TER as a review resource should be up to date and as accurate as possible given the differing opinions.  Maybe there should be a range on physical characteristics of the providers that is an average of each review submitted?