well i like the fact that the ladies know how to please their men.. but then i started to think and put some numbers behind it..

lets assume that for each 1 person who posts a review .. there are probably 5 to 6 guys who meet these ladies who do not post.. (I heard some places that the number is as high as 10 to 15).. but lets go with a 5 ..

so in the case of Lila we are looking at
595 published reviews, which means 2975 unpublished encounters (If you use the 5 multiplier) ..... now lets say that those "encounters" were for the past 3 years.. that means approx 1000 encounters per year....which means for 365 days a year, she has had 2.7 encounters per day!.. (lets say 3)

now after all of this math.. my question is .. how tight is that ..... maybe a way to look at these reviews is to go and see the ladies who have less reviews..?

now have in mind that with a 10 multiplier, you will be looking at approx 6 encounters per day "every day" of year.. i can see it now on top of her incall

"now serving ......" digital sign.

again no disrespect to the ladies with tons of reviews.. but a different look at the numbers..

now i kind of know why JeopCon1 goes for the new ladies in town..... i need to adjust my strategy a bit..

-- Modified on 4/13/2007 4:20:51 AM

-- Modified on 4/13/2007 4:22:08 AM

-- Modified on 4/13/2007 4:27:06 AM

Absolutely brilliant stuff...

One question, do you have a job?  This stuff has to take a bunch of time...  

please keep doing this, it is really cool... BTW, I hate math!

I get no information from these numbers other than how long a lady has been reviewed on TER and how many reviews there are.  Averages mean nothing.  What about someone who progressed at their craft from a 7 in the way past to a 9 today?  If you must have numbers then I would prefer to see medians, not averages (means), by year or by quarter of a year. (A graph would be much better).
Also it is important to remember that TER is not the only place where one may find reviews.  And, there are many wonderful providers who either have no reviews on TER (perhaps elsewhere) or discourage reviews for privacy sake (which I respect and hope you do too).

Finally, Few reviewers actually use the 1-10 scale according to the published definitions.  Instead, the numbers are a subjective mark of enthusiasm of the reviewer.  That's fine - I like to see lots of enthusiastic reviews - but as always, YMMV.

To simplify things, I suggest computing only median scores for the past 3 months.  That would be the most informative.

I think he should do a Rate-A-John on Jeopcon!  That would be amusing!

OK!
I'm a surgeon, not a statistician, but one of the reasons (in my opinion) as to why Robin is 'so reviewed' is because of the waiting line to see her.  The first time one see her(did some of us, including me, wait for a couple of years?), and she truly lives up to her 'highest looks and performance' scores...most of us feel it is almost 'obligatory' to review her.  I would speculate that IF you get to see Robin, you will review her.
Simple.
It would be impossible to validate that, as no one knows the numerator, and only Robin know the denominator, but...
She is every thing the rate-a-date stats indicate.