For quite some time I wanted to crunch the numbers and find out if providers' rates are reflected in their scores for looks and performance. I finally did it.

I pulled from the TER database every review that providers, listed under Chicago, received for May, June and July 2010 as of 07/25/10. Then, I looked only at the reviews of providers that in the Cost of Service section of their TER profile offered a 60 minutes Escort service of any type and at any Rate.

There were 957 reviews submitted by 627 reviewers for 347 providers. A decent sample size.

Then, I grouped providers in 8 different Rate categories. For each group I counted the number of providers and the number of reviews they received. Also, for each group I calculated the average Appearance and Performance score and the average number of reviews providers received.

I hope that both reviewers and providers will find the analysis informative. I let you draw your own conclusions. I was quite surprised by some of the results.

Thanks djtb, it is kind of interesting, if perhaps a tad predictable.

Do you think by chance that hobbyers inflate the appearance and performance to justify the amount they paid?

It would be interesting to see how other cities would compare with the same price points.
How about NY and LA?

While neither the appearance score average nor the performance score average showed a 100% correlation trend with increasing price, the appearance scores correlated more closely.

But if you average the appearance and performance scores the correlation trend is much closer (with the exception being only the lowest cost range):

7.165 Lowest cost
6.940
7.590
8.050
8.290
8.305
8.460
9.330 Highest cost


-- Modified on 7/27/2010 6:36:54 PM

a number of possible explanations:
1. the obvious, more expensive is better
2. people willing to pay more are generous and more likely to give higher ratings
3. people who have paid more are more likely to want to have been pleased by their larger expenditure and so rate
4. people who pay more and review do so because they are pleased where as those who pay less are more likely to review if they are not pleased
5. even random numbers can fall in a pattern occasionally

(Mr. F: I have some extra time on my hands tonite only.)

some other possibilities:

1. guys are more satisfied by providers that they find more attractive
2.  ladies who are perceived as more attractive can (and do) charge higher rates either because they can or to cut down on demand

heinous

This is not meant as poking a stick at the OP, but the numbers have limited utility iIMO.

It is well known that from studies, that people believe that the more something costs, the better it must be. Give someone Boone's Farm at $1,000 a glass and they'll think it's a 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild.

Obviously, there is some truth to the "you-get-what-you-pay-for" concept, but IMO any added value tends to begin tapering off at the $300 mark and loses all incremental utility at $400. Under $250 is a crap shoot.

Also, these numbers are averages only. The human condition cannot be described or conveyed by the use of averages. At a minimum, you would need to show max/min, average, median, mode and standard deviation. It would also be good to show each of these compared on a unit cost basis.

If done properly you should should see a bit if a "bell curve" where increasing costs yields increasing ratings, and the ratings drop (or do not increase) above and below the point where ratings cease to increase with price.


Finally, you can't eliminate certain factors. The same people aren't rating across all the price points, or the perceived value which is linked to absolute cost.

My bias in the collective data is that personally, I have little faith that those who pay for exclusivity have the ability or sense to know what is actually a good value.

Please take notice of this study:
http://hoboken411.com/archives/10165

In essence, people often will rate an experience better just on the basis of the price being higher; when -- objectively -- it is no better than what one would get at a lower price.

This effect doesn't just apply to wine.

Also, in noticing the extremely scanty reviews at the higher ranges -- 1.3 per provider -- that is not enough to get a good valid sample. That number is pretty low across the board; and I'd suggest excluding providers with one or fewer reviews from the samples.

Continue on -- a great effort!

1) i would not be fooled by Boone's farm. i have a good track record of IDing wine blind and predicting price.

so the degree to which the reviewers are "expert" is a factor. perhaps the number of reviews of a reviewer could be analyzed as well.

2) an analysis of variance or multivariate regression approach would handy in sorting out related cofactors and isolating the dominant driving variables. of course this does not speak to causation only to the relative significance of trends.

cheers...

and because each did not review all of the ladies, one cannot extrapolate probability densities of satisfaction relative to donation level with any certainty.

However I will say that I have aways found the most "bang for my buck" in the 300-350/hr range.

However, a great attempt in trying to find some answers.

was restricted to wine. However, if it's sushi and sashimi that's being judge, I doubt I could be fooled

a lovely place facing the Sea of Japan which i understand is called the Sea of Korea on the other side

but my second favorite place is in the US...

would either turn out like trying to herd cats or prove all too easy depending on whether one was controlling for connoisseurship or desperation, for instance.

as a perrenial outlier, i volunteer to not volunteer.

Providers always suspected "there is no good looking, but bad performance provider -- men just go for the good looks, and their performance will be automatically good."  Look at your numbers: appearance and performance are highly correlated -- they are basically the same thing that explains rate differences.

IMHOP, rates don't tell the whole story.  Some charge lower rates to get more volumes; while others charge higher rates but don't get too many customers.

Do guys really do this??
Are they really worried what some online person thinks?
Interesting...

You are the package!

He hasn't been updating them lately, but he came to some interesting conclusions about review scores.

One thing he's noted is that TER performance scores are, quite frankly, bullshit. Because of the way they are scored (where additional services provided add points to the score, and there are certain maximums that cannot be exceeded unless additional services are provided), they can't truly reflect actual skill in providing WHAT is provided.

His work's pretty statistically rigorous (though out of date at this point).

People can take stats and invent reason.. Theories abound.  I'm not sure of truth in numbers especially since there are also factors in why ladies charge what they do.

I haven't had to look at stats to think about this correlation tho..

Other things to consider:
Men who are paying higher prices are often wealthier.  The ideas of value and cost are potentially quite different for men seeking lower priced services. The less money a person makes.. the more they might expect from those hard earned dollars.

The mind set of 'buying' a more expensive item might predispose the buyer to seeing more value in their purchase.  The act of purchasing might be a large part of the value and enjoyment not the actual date or lady involved. By default the lady gets credit.  

Statistically, it only says there is no appreciable difference among provider at the high and low end of the pay scale. That people want to generate lies and half-truths to put salve on their own wounds and why is another matter. Know this, in Fuck Club, anything goes. Like the world at large, most everything goes.

I am highly *self* controlled but am not interested in conforming to the strictures of others.  We have "outlier" in common '

(and I paraphrase.)

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Having had a few higher end dates, not high end, just higher, I'd say that the expensive ones are not so much better to justify the cost. Sure, we all appreciate a great body, and a lovely face, but once the clothes come off, it is performance that wins out in the end, imo.

The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli  (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Englishman Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843–1911).

that all reviewers rate based on the same, or the TER suggested criteria. A lady doe not automatically get an extra point for allowing greek, for example. These things do limit her maximum number. The issue is not the high numbers but the lack of low numbers.

The review numbers are artificially compressed in the range they encompass. Partly due to weeding out of lessor providers, but also due to the subjective nature of rating sexual performance.

I try not to let it influence me too much, but a classic example was a recent review with a VERY young lady with the most incredible labia I have seen in a while. This enhances my overall experience, but not her performance. The two are separate but inextricably linked. This makes the performance ratings a guide at best.

The descriptions are also misleading and can skew someones choice of rating.

What would happen if, for example, I rated ladies based on my collective experiences. Then most ladies would be average, as they should be. What a Charlie-Foxtrot THAT would be.

the fact that I couldn't give a lady a 10 in performance (I do not review any more, there is a post somewhere on here explaining why)unless she performed certain acts. For example, I saw a fabulous lady a few years ago, best time I ever had, I gave her a 10 in performance. That score was lowered to a 9 because we did not do anal. That was MY choice, I am not into anal.

But her performance was teriffic, best ever. But I had my 10 for her lowered. That is just  WRONG!