Why, pray tell, is there not an area, or an option within Site Reviews to review Agencies by the accuracy of their offerings.  This has occurred to me before, but I never verbalized it.

If, in perusing a site, I am actually looking for, say, some action, it is of considerably more interest to me that the site have accurate photos than that it is creatively designed or easy to navigate.  I seem not to be able to access the consensus, anyway - which seems arcane.

F'rinstance:
Julies:  Accurate, if not particuarly flattering, images.
Belladona (love that name):  Images only bear any resemblance to the providers in that they are all technically quadrapeds (maybe.)

One occasionally, variety being the spice in our hobby, want to try someone new.  It would help to know not just that provider A's, B's, or C's (a Prisoner homage) images were accurate, but that the images in general for XXXstacy Escorts (please read I, Lucifer by Glen Duncan) are at least vaguely similar to the provider on offer.  And all too often, the image that makes the heart (or whatever) go Lubadub, Lubadub (Buy the VHS of Lord Love a Duck by George Axlerod) is one with no reviews. Should we shun her in the absence of (and I am being generous here since lots of reviews seem to focus on how much they made the provider cum - yeah right, THAT makes it plausible) data?  Or should we boldly go where no reviewer (but certainly plenty of other people) has gone before and Take One for the Team?

This would be a much less risky proposition if Agencies (which should also be considered sites) are tracked in addtion to tracking Malls, who shouldn't be held responsible unless they make a big deal such as "EROS VERIFIED YADDA YADDA"  in which case they should be brought to task with a boot on the backside if the verification turns out to be ephemeral.

One reason I didn't make an issue of this hitherto is that I sort of assumed that word would get around if a given agencies images were more random than randy.  It apparently hasn't, given the recent review of Belladona.  No one,(NO ONE) in our hobby should pay the slightest attention to anything on offer from Belladonna, it appears.  They might as well post Heidi Klum and claim that the provider who will appear using her name should be acceptable due to having the correct number of limbs andorifices.

Really Expensive Sites seem more reliable in this regard.  Exotica-2000 has proved its commitment in putting honesty over commerce in having the nerve to post relatively recent, albeit offputting, images of Samantha St. James.  De gustibus non disputandum est.

But Belledonna?  Luigi?  Is Luigi an agency?  A glorified Escort Mall?  His cited area codes would seem to include most of the Local Cluster of Galaxies so he is certainly not practical for finding providers in NJ.  Just WHAT is an agency and how do get reviews of agencies anent reviews of the specific suppliers providers.

Site reviews is a general, simple opinion of the site. A simple thumbs up or down with a small comment. On agencies, detailed reviews can be submitted on the girls that work for the agency.

-- Staff