What does it mean when the message "This provider information is no longer available on TER" appears when you go to check a review? Has the provider asked to remove her reviews? If so, should I think twice before attempting to see her? Thanks.

Either she requested it, or staff decided she broke a rule.

One approach is to call her up and ask her about it.

Another idea is to post the question on your regional board, and often someone (or staff) will respond with some information about her.


-- Modified on 8/27/2002 12:50:02 PM

the text provided by linkmeister would be very helpful to include in the "no longer listed" page, to reduce user bafflement.

i'd strongly recommend that the "delisted" page also replace the provider profile page (by provider id number), so that the search function can retrieve it as well. (and the same provider id can be revived if the provider later changes her mind.)

my annoyance with current practice arose from two situations where i wanted to find providers whose names and location i could remember, but came up with null results. like the poster, i had no idea what that meant -- software failure? database bug? law enforcement sting? viral menace?

an information service should design normal procedures to reduce confusion and anxiety, not increase them.

If he's not already, drollere should be made a paid consultant to TER.  Fabulous points.  I had had a favorite bookmarked, then she became "unavailable."  Including the notes I'd made!  Got to be a better way without having her just disappear.

Drollere, I completely understand your point of view.  Unfortunately, you need to understand ours.

In light of recent events, we have been seriously looking at every aspect of TER to make sure it is in compliance with the law (both civil and criminal).  Our first and foremost goal is to have a very effective tool for acquiring information.  If the site runs into legal problems and gets shut down, then it is not going to be an effective tool (hint).  This involves a bit of compromise.

Your example of "Provider delisted because of police sting," is a good example of interfering with a police investigation.(where have we heard that one recently?)  “Provider delisted because of posting self reviews” is an excellent opportunity for a provider to sue for liable.

It is our policy here at TER to remove non-rip-off providers upon request.  Under the first amendment, we have the right to report these stories on any public figure.  We are not concerned about winning.  We are concerned about the expense of a long legal battle to prove ourselves.  Imagine how many $20 memberships it takes to fight this kind of legal battle.  It is much easier to just drop the provider and move on.

FYI, here are the statistics:  Approximately 95 percent of the providers delisted are at their request.  Approximately 5 percent are due to violation of TER policy (writing there own reviews, etc.)    

I hope I have shed a little light on some of our concerns here at TER.

-- Staff

staff, "my point of view" is what i put in my posts, not what you believe are liability scenarios.

i'm a former business executive and i appreciate the liabilities of running an information service. but i think you can tell that already, from the focus of my discussion.

what i recommended? that linkmeister's "delisted" information become a page, replacing the provider's current profile page, which among other things would be retrieved by the search function if a user wanted to find it, and replace all reviews of that provider in the list of user reviews.

what was in linkmeister's "delisted" information? as i would word it, it might be something like:

"the profile page for the provider you requested is no longer available. this may be at the provider's request, because the provider did not observe ter policy, or because it duplicated an existing page."

the second sentence does not justify a plausible liability challenge, as far as i can tell ... it makes no assertion of fact other than the page is not available, and certainly makes no assertion of fact you know to be untrue.

specifically, the suggested page does not say "because of a police operation, etc." you are apparently riffing off a series of questions that i suggested would arise in the mind of a typical user who found a profile page missing, and wonders why. if you think those were my recommended info page statements, you are wrong.

by the way ... my other recommendation is still "WARNING: CONTESTED REVIEW."

Shouldn't *CONTESTED REVIEW* be enough? Why is it a warning? What if one of these escorts with a heart of gold contests that she's really more of an 8, not a 10? That wouldn't be something that we need to be WARNED about, is it? Dumb example, perhaps, but my point is, there is any number of reasons that a review could be contest that don't necessarily imply that we need to be warned about something or against something.