To anyone who has studied the various escort discussion and review boards it is apparent that historically there must have been a great deal of controversy around some of the earlier practices of the boards, TER included.  It seems that there may have been some serious ethical lapses by most, if not all of the boards at one time or another, particularly in the earlier days.  As a result of this history there seem to be very entrenched camps around some of the boards.  My own observation is that most of the boards are maturing and becoming better because of continuing scrutiny by the members and outsiders alike.  None of the boards can make a go of it without continuing to encourage active participation and making continuing improvements.

I am not aware of exactly how all the other review boards work but the format of provider profiles here on TER strikes me as very efficient and extremely useful but unfortunately is only as good as its last update.  Members can do more to keep profiles current by actively reporting bad websites and new links to ads, personal websites, and duplicate profiles, etc.  A lot of this is reported in the forums but needs to also be ‘officially’ report to TER so that changes can be made to the profiles.  When you see an error or an update or change to existing information in the profiles please report it.  The worst TER can say is no to your proposal.  Back up your reports with links and other references and it has been my experience that as often as not TER will make the right changes.

If TER was more open as a resource to all sources of information it would become even more useful.  Additional discretion is allowed in the forums which means a lot of good information can be found there but it is more difficult to search out.  I am not proposing that TER become an erotic search engine but maybe more of a wiki.  TER’s introduction was once very innovative, maybe TER is due for an overhaul and could set new standards by adopting some of the methodologies learned from the wiki’s out there in a revision of the way its information is reported, updated and maintained.

This is one of TSAE’s and my pet peeves.  I am going to hypothesize that many of us come from the GG side over to TS.  IMHO the differences in how these two ‘hobbies’ operate are mostly unfavorable to TS.  There are way too many rip-offs in TS and they are harder to identify.  Hobbyists far too often stand up TS providers without warning or explanation and no consequences to their hobbying reputation, but woe to the TS provider who does not maintain a high degree of punctuality and reliability in the face of this phenomenon on the hobbyist side of TS.  

TS rates seem to be higher – more similar to the ‘GFE/Companion’ type rates seen on the GG side where a provider would be expected to devote more time in preparation for each session, to tailor a session to each clients interests and personality and perhaps limiting the number of clients they see in any given day to give the very best experience possible to each session.  Unfortunately even at the higher TS rates these mostly seem to involve the “wham bam thank you ma’am” type of experience and a higher daily volume of clients – something that would normally result in lower rates for GG’s (true porn stars excepted of course).  There are very good reasons that TS rates should be higher – supply and demand for one, additional costs for TS such as more expensive medical interventions to make them more feminine, more difficulty for TS operating in ‘normal’ society from employment to finding places to live, etc., but one of them should NOT be a higher proportion of no shows – we are just hurting ourselves with this behavior.

This is a two way street – hobbyists and providers must both agree on actions that will improve conditions for everyone in the hobby.  We have the ‘Whitelist’ feature available on TER – maybe we could use that to instigate more of a reference type system in the TS hobby?  This would help us identify ‘reputable’ providers, those willing to provide such references, as well as weed out the ‘Trannychasers’ to make the provider side of this job more efficient and safer (here I am using the ‘Trannychaser’ term in the pejorative way as has been discussed several times in the TS forum).

I realize that TS, at less than 4% of total profiles, is not terribly important overall to TER, but my guess is that interest in TS is growing much more rapidly than on the GG side – just haven’t figured out how to prove it with the search tools available to members.  I do think it would be very useful for TER to make some changes in the review form to accommodate better information for TS hobbyists, e.g.:

Size – l x g (length by girth)
Cut/uncut
Versatility - bottom/top
Functionality
Ability to search for most reviewed, most reviews
Separate list for top TS reviewers

Perhaps TER should lighten up on the requirement for answers to all the alphabet soup of ‘services’ – TS, like BDSM, is a ‘specialty’ and not all are interested in or even offer the full menu.  See the discussions by wantats and dtbctrek in the following links:

Posted by dtbctrek 1/6/2007
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=21374&boardID=19&page=2
Posted by wantats 1/6/2007
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=21399&boardID=19&page=2

Description and menus – these get stale and/or promulgate errors.  Not all reviewers are as good at judging height, cup size, etc., weight, hair color and ‘enhancements’ to things like cup size change over time as well.  Phone#’s, email and even ‘stage names’ change often too.  Does the review form make enough allowance for updates and/or corrections to this information?  Is TER doing enough to encourage current reviewers, past reviewers and other participants to report these discrepancies and keep the profiles current?  In particular it would seem that past reviewers are discouraged from posting new reviews on previously reviewed providers but aren’t they the best ones to encourage to provide credible updates to this information?

Perhaps there should be a ‘probational’ review category to correct deficiencies rather than just rejecting a review outright, e.g. allowing the provider time to get a TER link on her ad or website, or a reviewer to provide missing, incomplete or updates to contradictory information, with notices to reviewer and reviewed as appropriate?

-- Modified on 1/11/2007 9:32:38 AM

Did anyone ever tell you

you think too much?  (LOL)

With admiration, TSAE