Afterglow is very real. A guy can say something fully meaning it 10 minutes after an orgasm; and two days later when the afterglow wears off will say "What the hell was I thinking?"
Basically, a guy's judgment immediately after sex can be about as good as if he were wearing beer goggles.
In general, most providers know this and take what guys say immediately after the event with about a tablespoon of salt. 
Much talk about how desperate hobbyists "inflate"
provider scores; but, how about when the converse occurs ? An example :
A provider with a history of sterling review scores, who also has a terrific personality & is very reliable, gives her all to a particular hobbyist who promises to give her a great review.
However, when review comes out, gives her far lower scores than she was promised . Why ? Causes for speculation :
A hobbyist gets pissed when a provider doesn't offer certain "menu items" ( I.E., the provider isn't bi & won't see the hobbyist's skanky SO/GF;
or, she won't do " Greek" ).
How common is this sort of "deflation" ? Are there other reasons for this sort of occurrence ?
Everyone feel free to chime in.
No two interactions between two people will be identical to interactions when one of the parties is changed.
There is a huge chemistry component here -- in both directions -- and there is also a matter of unconscious feedback that could be rightly or wrongly interpreted.
Human communication in such settings is monstrously complex. We don't just use words -- we use gobs of expressions and body language. Those expressions and body language will be interpreted to add or subtract import from words; and the interpretation can be seriously colored by someone's past experiences as well as things believed to be true based upon educational exposure.
In other words, I could walk into an appointment and because I was thinking about a nasty parking enforcement officer, the lady could interpret me as thinking she was uglier than sin because the expression on my face was substantively similar to that of another hobbyist who had thought she was ugly. Then she would react to me (in this case erroneously) as though I am someone hostile. But by acting that way, she can cause me to interpret her behaviors as being initiatory rather than reactive. And thus the downhill spiral starts.
This is a very long way of saying "shit happens whenever you put two random people alone in a room." Sometimes it will be amazing -- almost magical. Sometimes it will be barely acceptable.
There are a million other variables. The provider might just have had her best friend get hit by a bus, the hobbyist might just have learned he has pancreatic cancer. The provider might be thinking of a past encounter, the hobbyist might be thinking of an S.O. The hobbyist might be thinking about an election. The provider might have had a condom break yesterday and is worried.
My point here is that "performance" has a lot of factors that are completely separate from character defects on the part of either participant. Trying to attribute an anomalous bad review to a character defect on either party is pointless without far more specific knowledge than we know from your post.
In the absence of data that can attribute behaviors to malice; we must therefore seek more charitable explanations.
The best way of interpreting reviews, when there are many of them, is to throw out the best and worst review as unrepresentative and decide on the basis of those that remain.
The misinpretations that result from each person being influenced by their past experiences, rather than reacting realistically to the person in front of them, can cause all kinds of problems.
There is a huge chemistry component here -- in both directions -- and there is also a matter of unconscious feedback that could be rightly or wrongly interpreted.
Human communication in such settings is monstrously complex. We don't just use words -- we use gobs of expressions and body language. Those expressions and body language will be interpreted to add or subtract import from words; and the interpretation can be seriously colored by someone's past experiences as well as things believed to be true based upon educational exposure.
In other words, I could walk into an appointment and because I was thinking about a nasty parking enforcement officer, the lady could interpret me as thinking she was uglier than sin because the expression on my face was substantively similar to that of another hobbyist who had thought she was ugly. Then she would react to me (in this case erroneously) as though I am someone hostile. But by acting that way, she can cause me to interpret her behaviors as being initiatory rather than reactive. And thus the downhill spiral starts.
This is a very long way of saying "shit happens whenever you put two random people alone in a room." Sometimes it will be amazing -- almost magical. Sometimes it will be barely acceptable.
There are a million other variables. The provider might just have had her best friend get hit by a bus, the hobbyist might just have learned he has pancreatic cancer. The provider might be thinking of a past encounter, the hobbyist might be thinking of an S.O. The hobbyist might be thinking about an election. The provider might have had a condom break yesterday and is worried.
My point here is that "performance" has a lot of factors that are completely separate from character defects on the part of either participant. Trying to attribute an anomalous bad review to a character defect on either party is pointless without far more specific knowledge than we know from your post.
In the absence of data that can attribute behaviors to malice; we must therefore seek more charitable explanations.
The best way of interpreting reviews, when there are many of them, is to throw out the best and worst review as unrepresentative and decide on the basis of those that remain.
its now 4 pages down and at the time I was upset over it but not really shocked.
He was difficult pushy and obnoxious.
there was absolutely NO chemestry and he was far to much of an ass for me If he did his homework and read my many pages of reviews he would have known I am not his type. But he didn't, and I got over it. God knows I never want to see him again but whats done is done.
Ppl read the reviews for the most part as a collective this is why a page or so is helpful. we are going to meet ppl we don't click with, we can still usually have a good time and move on afterwards.
one off review isn't going to kill anyone.
One of the reasons experienced hobbyists learn to ignore a bad review or two when there are many outstanding reviews.
Since when do a hobbyists promise of a "great review" mean shit? Especially if given before the session. No hobbyist should promise a great review unless he just had a great session.
I would say that grade "inflation" is a much more common occurence than grade "deflation", and just how the fuck do you know that she "gave her all" to a particular hobbyist unless you were in the room?
I can't wait to hear what the manginas have to say on the subject.
"gives her all to a particular hobbyist who promises to give her a great review."
Do I have to spell everything out to you in black & white ?! Of COURSE, that means AFTER the session !
If you interpret everything you read on such a superficial level, then maybe a nightschool course in reading comprehension might help you.
"Pissed off Provider" lmao
and yes unless you were the provider in question, you do need to spell it out in black and white.
and just how do you know that she "gave her all", unless you are either the hobbyist in question,(highly doubtful) or the provider? or more likely, some white knight that believes every thing he hears, providing of course that it comes from a female source?
If you are in the habit of believing everything that women in general or providers in specific tell you about other men, then maybe a testosterone shot might just help you. rofl
granted, emotionally needy hobbyist slobs will give "inflated" provider scores. I'll even go further & say it will happen FAR more often than "deflated" scores. But, are you telling me
that hobbyists, on occasion, NEVER give unfair "deflated" scores to providers ?
Tell ya what, when you give me that testosterone shot, I'll e-mail you a 6 pack of Viagra.
Yes it happens, and probably for the reasons that you suggest, but that said, it is much easier to pick out the review of an unfair, pissed off hobbyist, than it is to wade through the pages and pages of reviews written by the legions of "emotionally needy" or standardless hobbyist slobs that seem to write such a high percentage of reviews.
The amount of grade "deflation" is so rare as to be easily identifiable, grade inflation OTOH is much harder to discern as there is so much of it.
I would give you the address on where to mail that six pack of Viagra, but we are both posting under aliases. rofl
FUCK------no WONDER I wasn't getting any PM's about this thread--------
IMO, when it comes to the review process, abuses from the Manginas AND The Dark Knights.
Btw, when I cited previous examples of "hobbyist reviewer abuse" those were hypotheticals; however, even if I heard about such abuses, in this biz, who knows if it's true or not ?
I will agree with you on this : emotionally needy hobbyists are becoming SO numerous, that the term has become a redundnacy. My previous OP on "when a provider takes too long to respond" is proof positive on that.
All of this makes the reviewing process an unreliable joke for "discerning hobbyists with standards"; they simply have to work a bit harder
to find out the truth about things.
Afterglow is very real. A guy can say something fully meaning it 10 minutes after an orgasm; and two days later when the afterglow wears off will say "What the hell was I thinking?"
Basically, a guy's judgment immediately after sex can be about as good as if he were wearing beer goggles.
In general, most providers know this and take what guys say immediately after the event with about a tablespoon of salt.
But some girls may not be Model Material but the service is by far above and beyond that of many other ladies that get 10/10's but because her looks are average her performance scores suffer. Guys will do anything for the visual stimulation no mater how mediocre the service is. They will get amazing service from the average girl but still hand her a lower score then the Model Thin type should I really say.
Not the lack of menu but the lack of Social Media Type appearance.
I have never had a guy promise a review I don't talk about the reviews with them, if they want to review me great if not great, doesn't bother me one way or the other. I go to every appointment with my best foot forward and if that isn't good enough I have no control over a gents expectations.
I will grant that your attitude is the correct one, no one is "owed" a great review. You seem to get more than your share of great ones, so I would be inclined to believe you "earn" them, despite not being model thin.
I still don't know why the OP seems to be so bent out of shape about something that he only has one side of the story about, and that quite frankly is none of his business to boot. Maybe he has a crush on the offended provider and thinks he can ride in on his white horse and save her from these evil, lying hobbyists? roflmfao
But that's just me.
and agree that it is none of his business but maybe just bringing up a subject since we have so many of these "Inflated" subjects pop up often.
His exact example is maybe one review on her profile and isn't much of an issue. But the subject as a hole is something interesting.
What are some reasons for the deflated scores if she was exceptional at what she provided?
I actually prefer to not get the 10's for I honestly believe it is setting me up for unrealistic expectations. Earning the 9's knowing I'm a 10 and walking away from men after blowing their minds is far more gratifying.
There is really only one fix to this kind of thing: get rid of the numbers.
There’s really no way to enforce what the difference is between a 5, a 7, and a 9 in looks. One guy likes brunet spinners with long wavy hair and shapely B to C cups. Some other guy lusts after a Rubenesque blondes with page boys and a minimum of DDDs. Never seeing a picture we’re likely to be several points off if we rated each others’ favorites. On top of that if a provider is very skilled and friendly her appearance score is likely to go up another tick or two. Just look at how many &/& and */* reviews there are compared to 4/8 and 8/4 reviews.
The performance scores are subjective as well but I’d guess not quite as much. Some give an extra point if she’s a loud screamer who could make a jailer blush. Others put a value on demure. Passive or aggressive. GF attitude or sex-starved nympho. Just because I like someone more or less that other guys do doesn’t make my evals wrong.
Then there’s the scaling question: What score is “average”? Bet it isn’t 5, but why not? The actual numbers given seem to be scaled more to “average” = 7 or so. But if one hard-line grader gives out 5/5 to mean the lady is a very acceptable “average” of all the providers he’s been with it looks like a deflated score.
Many fake reviewers (No! Tell me it isn’t so!)want to blend in. If a provider has a couple reviews and they’re both 8/8, the fraudulent review isn’t likely to call attention to themselves by giving her a 5/5, is he? Now she’s got three consistent 8/8s. New Guy sees her and thinks, “She’s nothing special, I want to give her a 6/5, but that’s not what everyone else thinks. I better bump up my scores as a New Guy so I don’t look foolish”. And so it grows that she can’t be anythink less than that or there’s something wrong with the reviewer.
The only numbers I “trust” are a string of consistent 1s and 2s that say she’s a rip off. Other than that I care about the words written much more than the numbers.
I generally read reviews before picking a provider, but not again before writing one, because I don't see how it serves the community to post bad info, and while it's bad enough to get a B&S through BP (or wherever) it would be pretty disappointing to make a choice based on false reviewing info - and I've always found the scores and descriptions pretty accurate.
That said, I would hope I'm also honest enough to recognize when a session has chemistry, and when it just doesn't click. There's also a big difference between a session where there just wasn't chemistry and a bad attitude in the provider. To me, no chemistry but the provider making an effort = YMMV, but a bad attitude (clock watching, abruptness, just lays there, no interest in direction) just means someone who is bad at their job, or who has no interest in doing it well. A bad experience is a bad grade, regardless of what was going through the providers mind from outside in the real world.
IMHO, looking through certain reviewers scores at random, I would say there is more grade inflation than deflation. Can people really have 10-15 straight experiences with nothing less than 9s and 10s? I think not. It's obviously not a representative sample, but I just don't see people with a succession of 6s and below.
According to the rules here, a ladies rating is limited to a maximum amount based on the fact that certain services are available.
There is one additional piece that I take into account: the "connection", if it is there my experience is better then if it is not irregardless of the services allowed and how well they were preformed.
First of all, for looks it should key off the girl's website. There should be a 1-5 scale, from "Far exceeded expectation" to "WARNING: way, way uglier than you would expect." That removes much of the subjectivity--we know what to expect based on the website, and a girl doesn't get unfairly penalized (or unreasonably inflated) for having physical characteristics I or other hobbyists don't care about. (For example, I don't care about big tits at all. I actually prefer perky Bs and a nice ass. But tons of girls with mediocre faces and chunky legs are getting 9s and 10s because they have enormous cans. All I want to know is whether the girl looks better or worse than the impression created by her website. Then I'll decide if I want to see her!)
For performance, the numbers should NOT tie out to services offered, because (again) that artificially inflates the value of things not everyone wants. For example, I am not into anal, but a girl needs to offer it to get a 10. That's crazy! Instead it should be another 1-5 scale, and instead of subjective words, like "hot time," it should equate to a recommendation: 1=strongly against; 2=against; 3=recommend; 4=highly recommend; 5=strongest recommendation. In effect, we have this scale already, using 5/6 to 10. We might as well make it official. Also, it allows for the situation--which is actually quite commomn--where we would "strongly recommend" someone even if her menu is a bit limited. My ATF years ago in NYC was a gorgeous girl who created an aura of incredible intimacy and delivered overpowering, amazing sex, all without DFK or BBBJ. I would "strongly recommend" her, but she would be capped at 7 or 8 under the current regime.
I like your idea on the performance reviews. The appearance idea has issues as some provider ads/websites don't have photos, or don't show much of the lady. But the rating system is broke as I gave one lady an 7 that was better than the ladies I gave 8's to because of services rendered didn't qualify her for higher.
I hope that you're willing to pitch in and re-grade the 680,000+ reviews that are out there with your outdated scores. Please explain to your families that you'll be away for the 3 years it will take to modify them one by one. Sorry, I'm just a cynical fucker these days.
But I can dream can't? TER is the best review sight for where I live, but there are some real issues with the currant rating system.
I have 5 pages of TER reviews that having scores varying from 10/10 - 5/7, etc. I never could quite figure out why. One of my reviews comments on my teeth, which are straight, clean, and well taken care of, and several more of my reviews say I'd be a 10 if only I were a C cup. I never quite understood that, since I advertise as a spinner and openly inform all clients via my site that I do not have large breasts.
Overall, I'd say I don't really put a lot of stock into what my ratings are. I know I enjoy my job, I have several clients that have continued to see me for the four and a half years I've been doing this, and I know that I always put a lot of effort into making sure that my appearance and my service is up to par with what I advertise.
IMHO, I don't think a client should assume he will have the same experience with a provider as every other reviewer has, because, while most of us try our best to make sure every client leaves happy, you're not going to always have chemistry or compatibility with everyone you see, so YMMV should always be the assumption.
I've been downgraded for something that I do but forgot to offer once.
If the gentleman had just asked or communicated or tried it on me, he would have then seen I was up for it.
I don't personally think it's fair to have numbers docked/downgraded for something your not aware of.
When I play I'm organic I don't have the TER checklist in my thoughts when I'm there with you.
You are my thoughts when I'm there with you.
Everyone is different.
The key is communication for both the ladies and gents.
If you don't ask sometimes or make an advance, then we don't know.
What if I tried something but went a little too far and it then offended someone?
If you want to dock our performance, then please do it for the things you express you desire,
that we have actually refused to do.
Thanks,
B*