Question for the guys who do reviews!?!

[Syrina]

Okay so I've been around the business for a few years and just recently decided I would be moving here . So that's why you may have seen me around this board for a couple months...lol. I am still getting a feel for the board and have a few questions. The last 2 times I visited I had guys telling me that they have wrote reviews before but didn't need to make an account to post reviews. The boards that I have been using in other areas are review boards as well, but in order to write a review you need to have a board handle/user name. So my main question at this point would be if they needed an account to post a review? The guys that I spoke to in my previous visits had no idea how to log in or anything about needed a handle/user name, but they stated they had reviews. They said that all they needed was their email address, but I don't get how they didn't need an account to do a review.. So anyone who can help me, I would really appriciate it

XoXo Syrina

[geecue2]

Some reviewers have different handles for the board and review handle.

[Syrina]

Some reviewers have different handles for the board and review handle.

So anyone who writes a review still needs to log in to right the review?

[Lucien]

Yes, they do.

[nairobi09]

+1

Yep. The login for the review process is not the same login as for writing this, for example.

[Bigguy]

Actually on this board it is a separate login to write a review. I guess that would make it easier to have separate handles for posting and reviewing although I don't really see why you would do that.

[Guest century2ride]

You can go to reviews and click on 'Post" - it will tell you what is required. Guys can log into reviews with their email - but not necessarily log into TOB - but in any case - they have to have a review handle (which is linked to the email). Most guys review handle is same as TOB handle - but it appears it might not be in all cases! Hope this helps!

[Bit Banger]

Actually on this board it is a separate login to write a review. I guess that would make it easier to have separate handles for posting and reviewing although I don't really see why you would do that.

(?) Because they don't have the BBs to take the heat when they write a bad review

(?) Because they write so many bad reviews the gals won't see them if they told them their review handle

(?) Because their reviews are one-off shills

Just a few reasons to consider.

[MAG]

(?) Because they don't have the BBs to take the heat when they write a bad review

What "heat" would a guy take for a bad review?

He might get black-balled from the recipient of the bad review, but he wouldn't give a shit if she was a poor provider.

Other johns wouldn't give him heat, would they? After all, I've heard some guys says that we don't have enough honest reviews.

So, the only remaining concern I can think of is getting black-balled by other providers. If the guy has a reasonable mix of good & bad reviews, I don't see that being a problem.

Personally, I like it that there is a separate login for the review board. Otherwise, you'd just see a bunch of "Fantastic" reviews from twerps trying to ingratiate themselves.

[Guest hgritstoo]

What "heat" would a guy take for a bad review?

He might get black-balled from the recipient of the bad review, but he wouldn't give a shit if she was a poor provider.

Other johns wouldn't give him heat, would they? After all, I've heard some guys says that we don't have enough honest reviews.

So, the only remaining concern I can think of is getting black-balled by other providers. If the guy has a reasonable mix of good & bad reviews, I don't see that being a problem.

Personally, I like it that there is a separate login for the review board. Otherwise, you'd just see a bunch of "Fantastic" reviews from twerps trying to ingratiate themselves.

Back when I was a newb, I had an old timer advise me to use a name on the review boards that was not identifiable with my usual hobby name.

His reason was exactly what you stated above.......blacklisting by the providers. Somewhat innocent and wide-eyed....I followed his advice. By the time I figured out he was full of it, I had several reviews built up under the "pen name." So, when I review here I do so under that old name.

Turned out he was wrong about lots of stuff. Wish I could take it back.

[Syrina]

Thank you to everyone who took time to write on here! I really appriciate it, they were all helpful. With all these comments about the different handles and boards. I.e some may review under a different name/email addy then their actual sign in name, how do we know if the gent who is writing the review isn't just someone just making up fake reviews in order to see girls?? I love being able to get reviewed because it offers us girls an easier way to verify a gent and makes us feel a little safer, but its different on this board then the one I use in the PNW..on the board over there the girls are able to respond to the review so you can know forsure that the reviewer is an actual person. Here no one can leave a comment to let the people know that the appointment was real and not just made up... Does that make sense?? Lol

[BigBaldBlk]

What "heat" would a guy take for a bad review?

He might get black-balled from the recipient of the bad review, but he wouldn't give a shit if she was a poor provider. That would be considered 'heat'

Other johns wouldn't give him heat, would they? After all, I've heard some guys says that we don't have enough honest reviews. Yes, the guys who would White Knight for the provider would definitely give the guy heat for a poor review of a lady. Hear it all the time that so-and-so posted a bad review because they didn't get out of the session what they wanted!

So, the only remaining concern I can think of is getting black-balled by other providers. If the guy has a reasonable mix of good & bad reviews, I don't see that being a problem. These two are mutually exclusive of each other. If the lady provides great service and exceeds expectations, she should get a FANTASTIC rating. If she's far less expectations, she should warrant a POOR rating. This isn't a bell curve system, it's what YOUR experience is with the lady.

Personally, I like it that there is a separate login for the review board. Otherwise, you'd just see a bunch of "Fantastic" reviews from twerps trying to ingratiate themselves. I disagree, the gents with the most reviews have several FANTASTIC ratings (imo) because they did their homework and were compatible with the provider. I'm with Bit Banger and I think it's chickensh!t to have two handles, but to each their own.

[MAG]

"I disagree, the gents with the most reviews have several FANTASTIC ratings (imo) because they did their homework and were compatible with the provider. I'm with Bit Banger and I think it's chickensh!t to have two handles, but to each their own."

Chickenshit, huh? Aren't we all "chickenshit" already, seeing as how we don't use our real names for either board?

If it could somehow be enforced that guys use the same handle, I believe we'd end up with a mostly useless review board. There would be more "fantastic" reviews, and less "poor" reviews, because of the ingratiating and white-knighting that would inevitably happen. A less-informative review system would make it harder for these "gents" to do their homework, yes?

I think it's very strange to criticize guys' desire for anonymity, on a board where anonymity is king.

[MAG]

.....Does that make sense?? Lol

Actually, yes ---- everything you wrote makes perfect sense. It's refreshing.

I think providers SHOULD be able to respond to reviews. Those responses would tell us a lot about you.

The way it is now seems to work, though. In the rare case when a false review has popped up, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's bullshit. Good providers have consistently good reviews ("very good" or "fantastic"), and flaky providers eventually accumulate a number of NCNS or "not good" reviews. One poor review amongst many good reviews will not hurt the provider's business.

Similarly, tons of "Fantastic" reviews become meaningless when they're influenced by the threat of black-balling or "taking heat from white knights".

[Guest]

Chickenshit, huh? Aren't we all "chickenshit" already, seeing as how we don't use our real names for either board?

Uh, no. ' you really believe that or was it rhetorical?

If it could somehow be enforced that guys use the same handle, I believe we'd end up with a mostly useless review board. There would be more "fantastic" reviews, and less "poor" reviews, because of the ingratiating and white-knighting that would inevitably happen. A less-informative review system would make it harder for these "gents" to do their homework, yes?

No, again. Your logic presupposes that many reviewers use a different handle. If you have evidence to support that, please provide it.

My guess is that most of the more seasoned review readers likely take into consideration the source of the review, white-knight proclivities especially.

I think it's very strange to criticize guys' desire for anonymity, on a board where anonymity is king.

I don't agree it's anonymity that's being criticized; rather, it's dissociation from one's handle. Two very different issues.

[Jez UaBriain]

I agree with using one name. We all use reviews to research. I use them to get a feel for what a guy is wanting out of a session. And as for guys being afraid of being harassed by "white knights" , or being accused of being one, - sense when where you supposed to be afraid of your peer hobbyists? Put those big boy pants on, grow those balls again and be true to yourself. Actions speaqk louder then words, and if you are a stand up kind of guy- we can read through the lines.

I am Jez, and I like the name. Its the only one you will see me use.

[Bit Banger]

... the girls are able to respond to the review so you can know forsure that the reviewer is an actual person. ...

On the TOB review board gals are able to respond - but only once to avoid a back & forth he said/she said discussion. Few have taken the opportunity.

[MAG]

Uh, no. ' you really believe that or was it rhetorical?

Rhetorical.

No, again. Your logic presupposes that many reviewers use a different handle. If you have evidence to support that, please provide it.

That's very easy for you to say, since you know there is no way to gather that evidence.

My guess is that most of the more seasoned review readers likely take into consideration the source of the review, white-knight proclivities especially.

This I agree with.

I don't agree it's anonymity that's being criticized; rather, it's dissociation from one's handle. Two very different issues.

Perhaps. In practice, is there really a difference? Guys who use a different review handle want anonymity within an anonymous context. So what? It's still being criticized, and that criticism is hypocritical.

[MrReindeer-9515]

What "heat" would a guy take for a bad review?

He might get black-balled from the recipient of the bad review, but he wouldn't give a shit if she was a poor provider.

Other johns wouldn't give him heat, would they? After all, I've heard some guys says that we don't have enough honest reviews.

So, the only remaining concern I can think of is getting black-balled by other providers. If the guy has a reasonable mix of good & bad reviews, I don't see that being a problem.

Personally, I like it that there is a separate login for the review board. Otherwise, you'd just see a bunch of "Fantastic" reviews from twerps trying to ingratiate themselves.

"I disagree, the gents with the most reviews have several FANTASTIC ratings (imo) because they did their homework and were compatible with the provider. I'm with Bit Banger and I think it's chickensh!t to have two handles, but to each their own."

Chickenshit, huh? Aren't we all "chickenshit" already, seeing as how we don't use our real names for either board?

If it could somehow be enforced that guys use the same handle, I believe we'd end up with a mostly useless review board. There would be more "fantastic" reviews, and less "poor" reviews, because of the ingratiating and white-knighting that would inevitably happen. A less-informative review system would make it harder for these "gents" to do their homework, yes?

I think it's very strange to criticize guys' desire for anonymity, on a board where anonymity is king.

Actually, yes ---- everything you wrote makes perfect sense. It's refreshing.

I think providers SHOULD be able to respond to reviews. Those responses would tell us a lot about you.

The way it is now seems to work, though. In the rare case when a false review has popped up, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's bullshit. Good providers have consistently good reviews ("very good" or "fantastic"), and flaky providers eventually accumulate a number of NCNS or "not good" reviews. One poor review amongst many good reviews will not hurt the provider's business.

Similarly, tons of "Fantastic" reviews become meaningless when they're influenced by the threat of black-balling or "taking heat from white knights".

You have some interesting opinions for a dude(?) w/ 1 review that is over 4 years old, and is incidentally "Fantastic"(and assuming you are the one who actually wrote it).

As Bit pointed out: they can offer a rebuttal.

In conclusion: IMO, it wouldn't make a whit of difference if there were a mandate that discussion handles and review handles were the same. There are plenty of dudes that seem to forget: the reviews are by and for clients. If a dude is predisposed to write a "fan letter", he's going to do it, regardless.

[MAG]

You have some interesting opinions for a dude(?) w/ 1 review that is over 4 years old, and is incidentally "Fantastic"(and assuming you are the one who actually wrote it).

As Bit pointed out: they can offer a rebuttal.

In conclusion: IMO, it wouldn't make a whit of difference if there were a mandate that discussion handles and review handles were the same. There are plenty of dudes that seem to forget: the reviews are by and for clients. If a dude is predisposed to write a "fan letter", he's going to do it, regardless.

LOL, that's hilarious. Funny that you should assume that my review handle is the same as my board-handle, on a site where they're not required to be the same. Please tell me you're not that stupid. I review under a different handle. Why? In my case, it was because "av8r" was already taken on the review board when I created my account, which of course I didn't realize when I created my board account.

Interestingly, I've never been asked by a provider for either board-handle, even though some providers have said on this thread that they like to have that information to help verify the client. Some providers don't screen beyond an unblocked number, and the others want much more information than a simple board-handle for screening. And THAT is a topic for a different thread.

The point is, even though I would have used the same handle for both boards, I don't think it should be required. Because of the consequences to validity, because I see nothing to be gained by it, and because of pedantic assholes who try to use someone's reviews against them in a hypothetical discussion.

[MrReindeer-9515]

LOL, that's hilarious. Funny that you should assume that my review handle is the same as my board-handle, on a site where they're not required to be the same. Please tell me you're not that stupid. I review under a different handle. Why? In my case, it was because "av8r" was already taken on the review board when I created my account, which of course I didn't realize when I created my board account.

Interestingly, I've never been asked by a provider for either board-handle, even though some providers have said on this thread that they like to have that information to help verify the client. Some providers don't screen beyond an unblocked number, and the others want much more information than a simple board-handle for screening. And THAT is a topic for a different thread.

The point is, even though I would have used the same handle for both boards, I don't think it should be required. Because of the consequences to validity, because I see nothing to be gained by it, and because of pedantic assholes who try to use someone's reviews against them in a hypothetical discussion.

Your point is taken, if not convenient.

However, while I see no consequences to validity, it would have the upside of reducing trolls that post occasionally obnoxious shit under one handle and review under another. (I was thinking of DemureMorman, since we're gettin all hypothetical. )

[boink36]

I get Suspicious when a provider starts asking how to post a review.