Honestly, I have found myself homing in the lowest rated review of provider to get an accurate idea. To me at least, many of 10/10 (or high) review have a lot of feel good fluff which gives me too high of an impression of a provider. The low rating set the exception on a more realistic level.

At the Olympics, they drop the highest score and the lowest score and average the others together.

As for me I go in wanting and expecting the best!

Some of us actively avoid tough reviewers or resort to other ways to manipulate reviews, some of us don't.  Some reviewers have a bone to pick and some reviewers are just being honest.  It's just best to ignore the numbers and look at what's being said in the majority of reviews.

her first reviews if she has longevity.   Those tend to have occurred before grade inflation.   Average ladies receive 9s now.  Also,  look at the raters distribution to see where she stands relative to other ladies.  

...it's that I get balance.  

I've read several low score reviews only to find the review itself is complimentary compared to the score -- aka 5's and 6's.   These guys just have a different idea of the scale.   It looks like most people score a 7 as a decent score.  No shame in a 7.  But a 5 or 6 seems to mean something was a bit off and they will usually mention what it was in the text.  So guys who give good text but 5's and 6's are just using a different scale.

I prefer to read the reviews. I've seen a lot of performance scores of 6 and 7 and when I read the juicy details, the reviewer says he had a great time and she was fantastic.  
Go figure.

Scores mean very little.  The narrative tells you what kind of session you're going to have.  Many times the scores seem to be at odds with the narrative, so if you just look at scores, you don't get the whole picture.  How many times have you read a review where the reviewer says what a great time he had and would repeat only to score it a 7/7?  Other times, a reviewer will say the session was just so-so and he would not repeat, but scores it an 8/8.  Unless you personally know the reviewers frame of reference in giving scores, the numbers can be misleading.  Some reviewers use a tougher scoring system than others.  

the vast majority of reviewer's will be more accurate in verbiage than with numbers.  

Reviews certainly are complicated as individuals.

As far as the OP's question, I definitely give the worst scores a hard look, but balance those with the monger's review history.

So you would be OK to pay to fuck a homely girl?  

when I'm reviewing reviews, I look for a performance number that is higher than the looks number. My thought is that if I'm attracted enough by her looks to be checking out her performance, and her performance rating is higher than her looks, then it bears more investigation .Then I read through the reviews and look for some pattern of whether she offers the basics of what I'm looking for, a true GFE experience.

In China I always check if the reviewer has ever posted a review outside if China.. If not in all likelyhoos its apimp
Most recently btw, one of my regulars got an offer from a guy to write reviews for her for 100$ or so.. wow!!
I forwarded to admin.. if they can do something, who knows..
My reviews tend to be positive, real negative experiences I never had but a 5/5 or so ..
I always read in the states  several reviews - if available - and then the text in the ad itself.
If the reviews are really exceptional usually the girl is more expensive = that kind of is proof of quality, especially if many
reviews are posted
Last but not least chemistry is most important for me as well..
Seneca

I've never turned around and fled the scene due to major facial disappointment, but those few times when a 2-bagger opened the door, I shy away from kissing, encourage a quick BBBJCIM and then feign some reason I've got to run early.  Certainly wouldn't go back for more.

But it is his money.

How is looking at a girls worst scores "pessimistic?" When you shop online for a hotel or restaurant, or whatever, don't you look at the negative things and/or the more critical scores/comments as well?  

If you take her comments in context with the OP that she is replying to, it makes a LOT of sense.

You want to differentiate between "looking at" and "focus on" which is right out of Jakes playbook, be my guest.  

Value.   A great BBBJ at half the price = repeat.

I tend not to go into a session with any real expectations -- other than a girl that looks mostly like the pics and will make some level of effort to make the session fun for both of us.

Even a fifth grader knows the difference between "look at" an "focus on" There is a VERY definable difference and even you know it, but It would pain you to much to acknowledge it.

You both feel the need to "out JFSF" each other at the same moment in time? Gambler, you are being overtly fastidious in parsing Jack's language all of a sudden and Jack, you are being a bit over the top and too defensive in your tone with Gambler.  
This couldn't be from an issue that has emanated from another board that has spilled onto this one now, could it? You both are acting like children, so why not cease and desist or act like men and handle your matters privately?

but he clearly was calling out Court for something she never said or meant.  He did pull a classic JFSF and started my misquoting her and then correcting her for something she never said. That is clearly right out of the JFSF playbook, wouldn't you agree?

Here is how I do it.

He asked a number of questions but ultimately seemed unsure of what Courtney was specifically stating so he inquired that she specify in greater detail. I didn't, and still don't, see any harm in that. It struck me as a benign and innocuous post, one in which you would ignore 900 times out of 901, under different circumstances, but I wont continue to argue with you about something so inconsequential.
To be frank, Gambler, I had basically the same reaction as did JD to Courtney's response. Thank you for the reply. Good day.

and laughing at hooker bashing and miserable experiences so I always read the low scores first. Oddly enough, many times the low score review is not bad.

My approach is very similar, except that I am also alert to any references to flaky behavior. If I see any comments about NCNS or more than a few references to unusual lateness, I lose interest.

The lowest score will be the most accurate.

And now they need to cite me while shitting on each other.  It's very flattering.  And, at the same time, stupid.  It's like the blind leading the blind.  Jack can't write and GaGa can't read.  A formula for lethal stupidity. ROFL.

Huh.  I always thought that GaGa always had it in his playbook to intentionally misquote to see if he could start a mob mentality and get a thread going.  No?

train wrecks and intentional train wrecks.  I have been guilty of both, but some guys are specialists in one or the other, depending on their intelligence.  And then, of course, there are the masters here who can make an intentional train wreck LOOK like an accident, and get away with it.  You just have to get some popcorn, sit back and watch it unfold.  Somewhere along the line, somebody will tip their hand, and then you know.  

That reminds me of  the saying, "I won't pay to fuck someone that I wouldn't fuck for free" or something like that.

The op sounds "the glass is half empty"

so it's OK.  The problem is, Jack and GaGa ARE vaginas.

Girls now that I wouldn't have fucked for free as a young good-lucking bachelor.  As I get older my definition of who I find attractive has expanded.  Looks are not as important as service as long as her height measurement is about 2.5 times her waist circumference, give or take an inch or two.

Emeritis of sever TER boards. They have the creds to dual one another. Remember, this is the big boy board where the gloves have come off.

+/- intention = fucky/no fucky for me.

They may be cunts but they are definitely not vaginas.