I have been considering for a bit making two suggestions to the TER powers that be regarding separate issues, and I would like to get feedback from y'all before I decide whether they are worthwhile or not.  I encourage as many to respond as possible, whether on this post or
directly to me.

First, I have a problem with the "1-10" scores regarding provider appearance.  There have been many posts during the year I have been on TER regarding appearance scores, and I think part of the reason for this is that the scales are tipped in a negative direction.  Let me explain...

Considering the business of being a "provider", if a woman is physically "unattractive" to all, it is unlikely she could be in is business in the first place.  As such, four different degrees of "unattractive" (hey, "OK if you are drunk" is "unattractive" if you AREN'T drunk, and most guys aren't going to be drunk when they are shelling out $$$) would seem to be unnecessary.  I have never once seen someone graded as a "1" or a "2", and I can't remember ever seeing a "3" (although I am less sure about that).  The lowest score I can remember ever seeing is a "4", and I have seen a smattering of them.  

In addition, as "7" is graded as attractive, anything below that, by implication, is unattractive, and I have known some women who received sixes (and, IMO, did not deserve less than "attractive") and were quite upset with it.  I myself have struggled with this, and have graded lower than I would have liked at times only to be relevant to my other reviews.

I think that the grading system for appearance needs to be updated.  I think that we don't really need a 10 point scale at all.  My suggested scale is this:

1 - Unattractive
2 - Plain
3 - Attractive
4 - Hot
5 - Really Hot
6 - Model Material
7 - One in a Lifetime

With this scale, you accomplish several things.  First, there are no derrogatory titles like "OK if you are drunk".  I mean, really...is that necessary?  If a woman is "unattractive" to that particular reviewer, they can say that and move on, without conjuring up some negative image that is hurtful to a woman who has human feelings.  It also would make  "plain" have a less negative connotation, as it is on one step below "attractive".  The current "nice" is irrelevant.  Anything below "attractive" is either plain or unattractive to that reviewer.  Period.  Second, it would give leverege to the reviewer in the positive direction, which would make there be less nines and tens.  "One in a Lifetime" should really mean that, and "Model Material" should be in comparison to the rest of the world (you know, Cindy Crawford), and not to the rest of TER.  There would be fewer complaints of incorrect appearance scores.

Now...this is the hard part.  I am assuming that all the old scores would convert to the new scores, so that all existing sevens would become "One in a Lifetime".  Obviously, this won't work.  A new field would have to be created on the review form, so that new reviews show an "NS" next to the score that could be clicked on to go to create a window that showed the new scale.  Ideally, the software could be updated for the old reviews as well to have the old scores show an "OS" next to them for "original scale" with the same clickable window available, but that wouldn't be absolutely necessary.

Okay...that was a bit lengthy.  This one isn't quite as bad.

How many times have we heard hobbyists complain about "no shows".  Truly, there are few things worse than to be left waiting when you are expecting a woman to come rock your world.  Right now, unless a guy does a search on discussion boards for every provider he considers seeing, there is no way he can tell if she even MAY have a no show problem (it would only register if someone had complained recently on the DB).  

I propose that there be a provider review for "no shows" as well.  Required fields would be a provider name, number and website, date, and details of the arrangement and no show.  TER staff would review the no show data like any other review, and if it looked valid, post it.  The only thing that would go on the provider profile would be in a box for "No Shows", where it would have a running number dating back one year's time.  This would discourage a provider from the practice, as it would be monitored.  TER is here for the members, right?  If the no show report was bogus, the provider could just send an inquiry to TER staff and challenge it, like they can with a phony review, and staff could ban the reviewer if they decide it is bogus.

Okay...there they are.  Maybe both ideas are stupid.  However, before I lay them out to TER staff and have them decide if they are practical, I want to see if I am imagining it that these issues are things the membership feel need to be addressed.  Let me know, and thanks for your time.

-- Modified on 1/11/2004 9:25:31 PM

The review scale is simple and passes the KISS test
"keep it simple stupid"

I agree with some explanation of new vs old score and not trying to change all the old scores.

I have never had a no show but some way to record those would be nice.

Since you did so well with the appearance, what do you want to do about performance?

I definitly agree with adding a "No-show" category. With regard to the "Appearnace" I'm not so sure a change is necessary. I recently read a the reviews for someone I have seen several times and was amazed at the low appearance score as well as the overall low scores. I have always enjoyed my time with her and now I feel that I should see her again just to check my memory of her appearance with the scores. [I know I will enjoy the time]. What I am getting at is that peoples' opinions differ and as far as i can tell, there need to be a number of reviews [or a review from someone with whom you have generally agreed in the past] before one can rely too much on the reviews. So, I am not overly anxious to change -except for no-show. By the way, there recently was an interesting exchange on BostonTER regarding the components of the over-all score

I think you have far too much time on your hands (:

The rating system of 1-10 is good.  Try not to be so literal and anal about those descriptions next to the numbers.
It's just a scale of 1 to 10, ten being best. (:

I actually like your second idea, but I think it's a nightmare to manage.  Very difficult to verify and lots of opportunity for abuse.  I think it's been suggested and staff responded in that way.  But I do wish something could be done about the no-show problem.  Maybe we should do some brainstorming.

-- Modified on 1/11/2004 10:31:20 PM

I agree with your idea regarding No Shows. , even if there was just another field in the reviews for no shows and have it tallied each time someone doesn't show.  I could go fo r the previous 12 months.  That way, you would know that the provider had 6 no shows in the previous year (or less if she hadn't been reviewed that long).  That would also allow her to clean up her record by showing up on time.  
In fact a separate "On time" field could be created with a rating factor from 1 to 5 - 1 no show, 2 more than a hour late, 3 more that 30 minutes late, 2 - 15 minutes late, 1 on time or early.

As far as the Appearance rating goes, though, i have to disagree with you.  Although there are not many in our area (San Diego) i have seen several ratinga below four in the past.  In fact I believe there were even a couple of 1s...(for example, a Veronica around the middle of 2002, if I remember right).  Additionally, it would create a mess trying to consolidate the two rating systems (current and new).

Jusy my $.02 worth.

Don't know if he's changed his mind, but here's what he's said:

http://theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/ViewMsgBody.asp?BoardID=12&Messageid=28301

http://theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/ViewMsgBody.asp?BoardID=12&Messageid=32644

Rankings based on a scale of 1-10 is just so natural
that any thing else would just seem off.

fr

I tend to agree with your analysis of the appearance scores, although I think you could probably get away with just 4:

1 - Great Personality
2 - Average
3 - Above Average
4 - Yeeeah Baby!

But seriously, the 10 point scale probably is too subtle and, as we all know, so much of the appearance rating is in the eye of the beholder that you have to take them with a huge grain of salt to begin with.  Your observation about "1 - OK if you're drunk" is excellent.  No need to hurt feelings (although as you note, if 7 is average then most people would be hurt by anything less than a 7).  My only problem with your scale is that Bo Derek would only be a '7', and that just doesn't sound as good for a movie title, does it?

The no show idea sounds good but impractical for the reasons everyone has already noted.  Also, in fairness, where would the providers be able to post notices about "no show" hobbyists?

Gee guys, not to long ago you were wanting the ability to put in half point scores (ie 9.5)  Now you want less points.  

(crying down the hall)

a 10 point scale is pretty well accepted in the world.  "She was a 10"  sounds way better than "she was a 7"

I am actually working on something fair for no-shows.  Keep posted.

-- Staff

I know some things are subjective, but should a provider who doesnt perform all services get "once in a lifetime" ?

I have very specific tastes and I also see that there is a broad range of what moderators accept in posts.  Some have little info in them at all and get "10" ratings.  I think a rating of "She was everything to me" if a hobbyist liked the person should be added.  But a "10" or "9" be for specific things like greek, watersports,bbbj, etc.

Nice looking is insulting ? Not in my book. It means cute or above average. I've had women tell me I'm a nice or good looking guy and I consider it a compliment not an insult.

-- Modified on 1/12/2004 7:48:23 AM

I think the only problem with a no show is that, for example, a girl may be working regularly but may not have many reviews, yet receives a no show or two...if she has say, 6 reviews, and 2 no shows, you may get a slanted picture on how responsible she really is at maintaining appointments when perhaps, in reality, is in fact a volume provider.  Does this make sense?  Some girls get many reviews from willing reviewers, and some see guys who may not wish to broadcast their experience thus you may be wrongly comparing her to a provider with 10 pages who has the same amount of no shows.  I think in theory it is very beneficial, but in practice there will be kinks, and potential abuses as well.  

As for appearance ratings, well, the 1-10 rating seems to work fine and it usually averages out to a score that reflects the general consensus.  Besides, if a guy searches through a mall/listing and she is HIS idea of a 10, another guy's opinion will only be taken with a grain of salt unless it is found that the pics are inaccurate/old/or 20-50 lbs ago!  The 1-10 rating also helps girls who choose to blur their faces for security reasons, and that would help a guy figure out a bit more precisely the wager he is making on seeing her than just a "hot" vs. "really hot" rating would do.  
Just my humble opinion, HTH!

Hey, I am not ashamed to say, that I have a few 6's, and mostly 7's and 8's. I am not everyone's beauty queen, but then again, neither are some of the ladies that I seen, who get 10's are either lol I seen some of the ladies who do score that high, and I think that they were scored more by their body looks, than their faces. Infact, I would consider them just an average looking female that I would see on the street who just happens to have a great body. There is one lady, who people have made some comments about on my local board, who looks like tweety bird(highly notated by some of the posters), but she has an awesome body and gets rated high for overal appearance, which some laugh at. There are many providers who also fall into this scale. Yes they have fantastic bodies but their face is more a plain jane. Should all providers who fall into that slot be rated 9's/10's just because of their body and not the whole picture? How should they be rated? Maybe a rating should include: great body but had to bag the face category. Who knows..LOL


-- Modified on 1/12/2004 8:33:24 AM

"I am not ashamed to say, that I have a few 6's"

Not ashamed?!?!?  Just a month or two ago you were absolutely enraged about getting a 6:

"Now I am home very upset comtemplating in retiring. I don't know what to do. I turned down 3 guys tonight who wanted to meet, after I read review."

People change..AHHHHHHA! LOL (I bet you didn't know that human beings could..did ya)

and it's something that I have come to accept This post is now the real me, learning to accept my scores, and getting over the drama! I got alot of feed back from my posting before and everyone made sense. So I took the high road and just accept things for what they are. But it's good to see that you care so much about me to remind me of my humble beginnings and even going back 2 months (very resilient of you, too)LOL. Thanks! LOL But question why did you think that you were going to catch hell for this post? I hope that you have not become paranoid with age, my friend over there





-- Modified on 1/12/2004 9:38:11 AM

I'll first say that your ideas are not stupid, and thanks for taking the time to lay out a vision on our behalf.

Now, the 1-10 scale is sort of the universal bar for judging beauty, so I doubt that changing it will really matter. I do agree that derogatory labels need not accompany an insulting scale rating, but there is no soft way to tell a woman she's not a looker in a business where looks matter to most. We could do away with scaling if providers would just use a timely pic that clearly displays what they look like; that way we can judge and rate for ourselves. Since this doesn't always happen, cold subjective analysis, however cruel, is necessary.

Personally, I believe ugly begins when a woman opens her mouth...an average or not-so-hot woman with an awesome personality or sexy aura gets higher marks from me than the barbie doll who's a bitch.

As for your second suggestion, you are right on. There's nothing more disheartening than waiting on a provider who eventually doesn't show. If this category is added to the reviews, it will weigh heavily in my decision to use a provider.

I've seen ladies who were of average appearance but extraordinary in performance and I'd rate those ladies higher than someone who LOOKED good but was of average performance

When we review a lady we look back at how good a time we had with her and naturally enough if she rocked our world we're going to think she was better looking than someone who caught her on a bad day

Personally what I look for when looking at reviews is enthusiasm and responsiveness above all else...I wouldn't mind seeing that rated somewhere in the reviews

The system can always be improved. I especially like the addition of "no shows". With respect to appearance, are we trying to solve a problem, i.e., is a 10-point rating scale been ineffective in providing hobbyists with accurate information about a provider's apppearance?

having too much time on his hands but rather with the fact that in  the lower scores descriptions are mean. I think they are taken literally.

The reason I say this is because I got a score of a 4 in apprearance a couple of years ago. I was really hurt to think that I was " o.k. if you are drunk" Personally to me that means " brown paper bag ugly"  which indicates not being able to sit across a table because the person is soo ugly she makes you sick to your stomach. I am definately not a 10 or a 9 or a 8 for that matter. However I think most people can and do actually sit across from me at a dinner table and are able to eat their food in my presence. Without having to be drunk.

I realize I am being a little passionate about this and I certainly do not need anyone to tell me that I am beautiful to help my self esteem. I do not understand why the description has to be demeening and hurtful.

my 2 centavos,
mara of san diego

and I think we could add + a personality section in addition to the appearance + performance maybe this could equal the perfect woman:

personality + appearance + performance= the perfect 100% woman

kisses & licks.....
mara

...but the descriptive tag attached to some of the lower scores
for appearance that could be the problem.

The "OK if you are drunk" is one in particular that makes me cringe when I see it. I think this could somehow be revised in a way that could soften what comes across as truly hurtful and mean spirited.

I realize the client is paying for  a service and would like to be able to make some sort of informed choice based in part on what is presented in reviews. How many guys would like to have their appearance so bluntly described in the way these reviews
rate women on appearance? I know, I know, the guy is paying and to some guys appearance may be everything, or almost everything,
but to me personality and performance far outweigh appearance.
In fact I'm a firm believer that personality can actually enhance a woman's appearance beyond what her physical attributes
may present to the casual observer. That's perhaps a partial explanation as to why appearance scores can vary somewhat more widely than one would expect.

So in essence I would suggest that the 10 point scale should remain because logistically I think it would be just too difficult to revise it to a 6 or 7 point scale and adjust previous scores to conform to such a scale. Beyond that I would suggest that the descriptive tag for the lower scores could be softened in some way as to be not so demeaning.

I don't really have an opinion on the no show issue at this point beyond a concern that it would most certainly be abused by some who might have some personal agenda.



-- Modified on 1/12/2004 10:13:42 PM

I have for quite some time had similar concerns with the whole rating/scoring system. I especially notice this when I am the one writing the review. But conversely, I am not so sure I support a change because the ten point scale is so universally accepted and easily recognized.
 
The reason I cannot agree with a need for change at this time is that I do not in any way take the ten point ratings too literally when researching a particular lady. (although I agree some could use different language to be less offending) How many reviews have you read that were submitted immediately after the hobbyist gets home from the appointment and is still recovering from the experience and affected by high level of emotion when filling in the scorecard. Also, the negative side, upset that the time and money spent did not live up to anticipated expectations and sits down to write about it right then. Then there is the reviewer that is not and/or cannot be subjective because one of appearance or performance was greatly higher or lower than expected. Of course the rookie hobbyist that got his fantasy PSE will always submit his first ever review as a 10/10. These need to be disregarded or just properly interpreted by the reader. I more or less divide them into the three categories of good, bad, and indifferent. The exact numbers are not taken into consideration but still a helpful reference point of how the experience was to this person. Basically, all I want to know is that her ads are accurate and truthful, and she is not a ripoff. Beyond that it is mostly a matter of YMMV. That in mind, read all the reviews very carefully and consider the source when interpreting the ten point ratings whenever scored exceptionally high or low.

The numbered scores are a good quick reference, but one must read the text body of the review to understand why the ratings were given. And if we must change, I propose that we start utilizing the Dewey Decimal System instead; breaking down reviews into categories of fiction, nonfiction, autobiographies   ... but I digress.

IMO it wouldn't be a slanted opinion at all. If there is even 1 no show, with no viable excuse, that shows a lack of reliability.

Well, I can now sympathize with Coca Cola for when they tried to change the formula of Coke.  Funny, I liked that, too...

With the exception of a couple of people, most of y'all don't want change.  So be it.  Staff sure didn't help by posting on this thread that a 1-10 scale is universally recognized.  God has spoken.  Additionally, I didn't seem to stir up much interest in most of the old guard on here. Too bad.  If it ain't broken, don't fix it, huh?  If it breaks, honey, you might die in the ensuing accident.  

As for the no-shows, I can't see why my scenario would be any more subject to abuse than regular reviews.  A hobbyist takes the time to document it, moderator reviews it to make sure it looks okay, it is posted, a notice could be sent to the provider and she could contest it, and if it is bogus, the hobbyist is banned from TER, just like regular reviews.  How many people are going to risk banishment by making spite postings?  Anyway, I am among the many who eagerly await Staff's solution.

Thank you to all who responded in detail.