Posted November 17, 2012 Just read a new review -- here's the problem that others have mentioned. The reviewer writes: "Fantastic does not do her justice. <provider> is much better than fantastic." I appreciate the writer's enthusiasm, however, if we are to normalize reviews in order to compare service levels between providers, we have to define an absolute scale. Since fantastic is the best rating, by definition there cannot be a rating "much better than fantastic." I am not criticizing this reviewer, but rather trying to point out the problem with normalizing review values. In fact, I tend to empathize with what this reviewer may be trying to express, because in today's rating system there are different levels of fantastic. If we are to somehow measure objectively, the difference between different provider's service levels, this simply cannot be. Perhaps this is too much to ask, as these services are subjective, and vary from client to client. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 Man, we hashed and rehashed this so many times. Everyone knows the review process is broken. And, like assholes, everyone has an opinion on how to fix it. Somebody make the bad man stop! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 Perhaps this is too much to ask, as these services are subjective, and vary from client to client. This is my opinion. ^^^ Everyone knows the review process is broken. I disagree completely. Reviews have been working great, for me, since 1997. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 This is my opinion. ^^^ I disagree completely. Reviews have been working great, for me, since 1997. I'm with pfunk. Just read the text of the reviews and decide if the lady seems like someone you would like to meet. The system is far from broken. For the most part i've had very good luck with the review board. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 For me the reviews are more to see what the potential rate is (for the ladies that don't list it), and what potential services are being offered. Of course there is always the YMMV in the equation. I know for the most part what I want at a minimum while with someone. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 ... Perhaps this is too much to ask, as these services are subjective, and vary from client to client. I've mostly given up on this; it really is fantastic when a 20-something bothers to pay attention to a crusty old fogey. I finally did get it through to my customers, though that a misspelled word on a report screen was not a Sev_1 defect and that they would have to wait for the next scheduled release before I would address the issue while I worried about the BSoD which occurred when their clerk entered a new transaction type. For me, I'll lump Average, Very Good, & Fantastic = OK(legitimate), and Not Good, Terrible, & Rip Off == AVIOD! NoShows are a maybe, depending on the rest of the data. So go ahead and rank all your sessions as FANTASTIC. If the supporting data doesn't support that, I'll just call it AVERAGE. Hey, if they all are FANTASTIC, that's your avarage, or is it mean? (pun intended) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 Just read a new review -- here's the problem that others have mentioned. The reviewer writes: "Fantastic does not do her justice. <provider> is much better than fantastic." I appreciate the writer's enthusiasm, however, if we are to normalize reviews in order to compare service levels between providers, we have to define an absolute scale. Since fantastic is the best rating, by definition there cannot be a rating "much better than fantastic." I am not criticizing this reviewer, but rather trying to point out the problem with normalizing review values. In fact, I tend to empathize with what this reviewer may be trying to express, because in today's rating system there are different levels of fantastic. If we are to somehow measure objectively, the difference between different provider's service levels, this simply cannot be. Perhaps this is too much to ask, as these services are subjective, and vary from client to client. If we had a review rating that said......................... #1 provider in the world, physically impossible for another woman to be better. 90% of the reviews would have it. there would also be guys with many reviews all with this same rating. in this venue a rating system is worthless. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 I've mostly given up on this; it really is fantastic when a 20-something bothers to pay attention to a crusty old fogey. I finally did get it through to my customers, though that a misspelled word on a report screen was not a Sev_1 defect and that they would have to wait for the next scheduled release before I would address the issue while I worried about the BSoD which occurred when their clerk entered a new transaction type. For me, I'll lump Average, Very Good, & Fantastic = OK(legitimate), and Not Good, Terrible, & Rip Off == AVIOD! NoShows are a maybe, depending on the rest of the data. So go ahead and rank all your sessions as FANTASTIC. If the supporting data doesn't support that, I'll just call it AVERAGE. Hey, if they all are FANTASTIC, that's your avarage, or is it mean? (pun intended) I do the same thing, I rate reviews as..................... Good. Not good. No show. Rip-off. these are the only ratings we need. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 I disagree completely. Reviews have been working great, for me, since 1997. I agree with pfunk here. It's been working fine for me the past few years. It's all subjective and no rating system is going to be perfect. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 i say fuck reviews and let's drop the whole topic. the very best experiences and providers i've ever had here have always come from the back channel in chat. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 17, 2012 Just read a new review -- here's the problem that others have mentioned. The reviewer writes: "Fantastic does not do her justice. <provider> is much better than fantastic." I appreciate the writer's enthusiasm, however, if we are to normalize reviews in order to compare service levels between providers, we have to define an absolute scale. Since fantastic is the best rating, by definition there cannot be a rating "much better than fantastic." I am not criticizing this reviewer, but rather trying to point out the problem with normalizing review values. In fact, I tend to empathize with what this reviewer may be trying to express, because in today's rating system there are different levels of fantastic. If we are to somehow measure objectively, the difference between different provider's service levels, this simply cannot be. Perhaps this is too much to ask, as these services are subjective, and vary from client to client. Ever hear of "This one goes to eleven"? Enthusiasm takes things to another level, IMO. Really great sex distorts the space-time continuum and standard rules may not apply. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 18, 2012 Bottom line on reviews is whether the provider delivers as advertised. The previously mentioned system of OK or not OK would be fine. Any extra info is a bonus. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 18, 2012 If we had a review rating that said......................... Quote: #1 provider in the world, physically impossible for another woman to be better. 90% of the reviews would have it. there would also be guys with many reviews all with this same rating. in this venue a rating system is worthless. .. and then there would be those that bitch and moan that there isn't a rating for "#1 the universe" 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
