Cottonballs

Could you please stop apologizing for TER. Hoss its getting old. What you need another free month of VIP access.  Maybe the mod will come over and shave your scrotum so you can be smooth balls!

I noticed the new feature that gives you the ability to view the top reviewers in some but not all geographic areas. Selecting "Washington, DC", I was curious to see where my 61 reviews placed me in the rankings.  Much to my surprise I was not even listed, even though #100 had only 51 reviews. So an inquiry about this determined that your "out of town reviews do not count".  Say what?  In looking over my reviews, it would also seem that a visiting provider whose profile does not reflect "washington, DC" as her base also does not count.

Now I am not in this to keep score.  This is not an ego thing for me.  I am past my "glory wall" days and hardly ever wear my combat medals in public anymore.  It just seems to me that a review is a review and they should all count.

They do all count when you go to the top 100 overall.  On the old board that was the only top 100 list, at least now there is an attempt to have more top 100 lists, it is just that the criteria is for ladies that you see who are based in this area.

...that a review does not "count" if the reviewer saw someone outside his "usual" area or if the provider is based in another area. Like the OP said, a review is a review.

It is easier to determine if a lady is based in an area than that of a reviewer.  I think the criterion is kind of arbitrary anyway.

. . . how can they -- more like the software logic -- determine the location of the reviewer.

In the TER database, providers are assigned a location attribute, I doubt reviewers have one. All TER can do is determine the number of reviews a reviewer has for each provider location. If I am wrong, I'll be interested in knowing their criteria.

Nobody is saying the review does not count, of course it counts. It is just not added to the total of reviews he has for his reviews of ladies in the DC area.  He simply wants to make the list of top 100 reviewers of ladies in the DC area and thinks they should count his reviews of all ladies in the US, to satisfy his particular need. There is another Top 100 list for top reviewers for ladies all across the US.

That was not an apology. More like technology. Or perhaps logic, but unfortunately it does not rhyme with "apology".

Allow me to clarify. I do not believe TER has profiles of reviewers; I'm not sure reviewers want them in any case. So as far as I know there is no location information of reviewers. But TER does have profiles of providers with location information.

If the above assumption is correct, then there is no way TER can rank reviewers based on their location. TER can only rank reviewers based on their reviewed providers' location.

So, as a conclusion, it is an exercise in futility to complain that not all reviews, at various locations, are included in a reviewer ranking at a certain location.

Hair does grow out, so I hope the suggestion is still good.

Why even bother

Now what a minute sir. When you say "He simply wants to make the list of top 100 reviewers of ladies in the DC area and thinks they should count his reviews of all ladies in the US, to satisfy his particular need" you have totally misstated my intent.  I have no particular need, I only stated a point of view and took the liberty to point out in an open forum something I felt need to be shared.  I happen to disagree with the criteria. Candidly, I could give a damn as to whether I am #300 or #3 in the rankings.  I just think that from a data collection, and more importantly, from an information perspective the criteria make little sense to me.

It makes sense that out of town reviewers don't count otherwise someone with one review in each city but has a ton of reviews would be top whatever for every city he ever had a review in

it is weird that they don't don't count visiting though

It would seem that the intent of the new "Top 100 Reviewer" function is NOT to indicate the most prolific reviewers within a particular city as I had originally surmised.  If it were, the criteria certainly would be more inclusive with regard to what qualifies as an acceptable review.  No, what I now think this function is meant to demonstrate, but one would not know this, is to show those individuals who have reviewed the most providers whose profiles reflect the city in question selected as their primary city.  

This is fine.  I happen to disagree with the design concept for both a data collection and the end user perspective, but I don't make those decisions. It is a nice added feature and I applaud the TER staff for giving it to us.

-- Modified on 8/12/2010 1:18:33 PM