September Reviews, A statistical analysis

[Guest]

I know this is only my second post, but someone accused me of not doing my research

The Data

267 Reviews were submitted. This compares to 191 reviews submitted for August. 242 reviews were submitted in September of 2012. Reviews submitted in September have been steadily rising since 2007, when 68 were submitted.

182 different ladies were reviewed by 189 different reviewers. A nice statistically random mix.

2 (0.75%) of the reviews were for alternative services, 32 (12%) were for body rubs, 11 (4.1%) were for Multiple Escort, and the remaining 222 (83.1%) were for escort services.

6 reviews were rip-offs, 6 were terrible, 8 were not good, 12 were no-shows; for a total of 32 bad experiences, 12% of the total. 14 reviews (5.2%) were average, 42 (15.7%) were very good, and 179 (67%) were fantastic. Like the inhabitants of the mystical Midwest city of Lake Woebegone, Denver’s providers are beautiful and above average.

Length of sessions considered were the values given for the actual, not advertised, length. This was a bit difficult to calculate for multi-hour sessions. If the narrative did not explicitly explain otherwise, 120 minutes was assumed for a multi-hour session. Anything above that was assumed to be 180 minutes. There were no over-night sessions reviewed. The one listed as multi-day was actually two 1-hour sessions. Sessions which were rip-offs or no-shows, and therefore accrued no time, were ignored.

15 minute sessions: 7.6%

30 minute sessions: 27.7%

45 minute sessions: 5.2%

60 minute sessions: 46.6%

90 minute sessions: 7.6%

120 minute sessions: 4.4%

180 minute sessions: 0.8%

Definition of “escort-minute:” If you spend 30 minutes with 1 escort, you have enjoyed 30 “escort-minutes;” 30 minutes with 2 escorts, you have enjoyed 60 “escort-minutes.” This definition was necessary to properly define value when throwing in the variable of multiple escorts.

Best Values, Very Good or Fantastic rating:

Lowest cost per escort minute, Body Rub: $1.33 (<snip>)

Lowest cost per escort minute, Escort: $1.67 (<snip>)

Worst Values, average or worse rating:

Highest cost per escort minute, Body Rub: $6.67 (<snip>)

Highest cost per escort minute, Escort: $16.67 (<snip>)

The Guys

Most prolific reviewers: Nightmoves & Slim, each with 5 reviews.

Biggest Budget: Slim, spending a total of $1,950.

Most Hapless reviewer: A tie between:

TheReviewGuy: One Rip-off, one Terrible, One Average

Fork: Two No-shows, One Rip-off, One Fantastic

The Girls

It would be interesting to compare the number of reviews a lady receives with her client volume for the month, but that data is unavailable, and making assumptions is risky.

Most Reviewed: , each with 6 reviews.

Highest earning: From review totals, <snip>

Lowest price 30 minute Fantastic Bodyrub: $45 (<snip>)

Lowest price 60 minute Fantastic Bodyrub: $80 (<snip>)

Median price, 30 minute Fantastic Body rub: $50

Median price, 60 minute Fantastic Body rub: $145

Highest Price 30 minute Fantastic Bodyrub: $100 (<snip>)

Highest Price 60 minute Fantastic Bodyrub: $250 (<snip>)

Lowest price 30 minute Fantastic Escort: $80 (<snip>)

Lowest price 60 minute Fantastic Escort: $100 (<snip>)

Lowest price 90 minute Fantastic Escort: $150 (<snip>)

Lowest price 120 minute Fantastic Escort: $200 (<snip>)

Median price, 30 minute Fantastic Escort: $160

Median price, 60 minute Fantastic Escort: $250

Median price, 90 minute Fantastic Escort: $300

Median price, 120 minute Fantastic Escort: $390

Highest Price 30 minute Fantastic Escort: $250 (<snip>)

Highest Price 60 minute Fantastic Escort: $500 (<snip>)

Highest Price 90 minute Fantastic Escort: $450 (<snip>)

Highest Price 120 minute Fantastic Escort: $800 (<snip>)

Is there a relationship between price and review rating?

Correlation is a measure of the relation between two or more variables. Correlation coefficients can range from -1.00 to +1.00. The value of -1.00 represents a perfect negative correlation while a value of +1.00 represents a perfect positive correlation. A value of 0.00 represents a lack of correlation.

Using a numerical value 5 for a fantastic rating, 4 for very good, 3 for average, 2 for not good, and 1 for terrible, a comparison of the ratings score and cost per escort-minute was made. A slightly negative correlation coefficient of -0.265525 was obtained.

This could mean that there is a slight tendency for a higher cost-per-escort-minute to result in a LOWER review rating. Note, however, that the coefficient is much closer to zero than to negative one. I interpret this to mean that there probably is no relationship at all between cost and review rating.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Kaduk
names removed to protect the innocent...

[harpo]

Congratulations on receiving your PhD in statistics and I am not being sarcastic.

Wow you are great edition to our highly dysfunctional community .

Be careful when you employ Correlation in interpreting data , it can be immensely misleading.

Also fake/inflated reviews are pretty common.

[BigBaldBlk]

...Wow you are great edition to our highly dysfunctional community .

Agree. To the OP, the only thing you didn't add was the Broncos average margin of victory in September! Nicely done!

[fork]

+10

This is an awesome post, even if I'm now officially one of the most hapless reviewers.

[Kaduk]

Agree. To the OP, the only thing you didn't add was the Broncos average margin of victory in September! Nicely done!

Statistically speaking though; I still don't know which syrup to pour on my pancake & provider sandwich...

?

...

[harpo]

I know this is only my second post, but someone accused me of not doing my research

Is there a relationship between price and review rating?

.

A story told by the famous marketing professor Cialidini,that an employee was told to cut the price in half for a certain product because nobody is buying it.By mistake he doubled the price instead....guess what....it was sold in no time...

[booblover099]

OK - now that you've spent half a day building the spread sheet that calculated all of these stats, then composing your post, are you any closer to giving the hobby a try?

[lewd5050]

+10

This is an awesome post, even if I'm now officially one of the most hapless reviewers.

Only for September. Hopefully you'll have a better October.

[geecue2]

You need to go out call a lady or ladies and have a good time. Don't take everything so serious on this board.

[Guest]

Thanks for the comments, guys. No ladies posting, though. And judging from the PM I received from one ASP, and the modifications to my original post, there won't be.

Lots of unwritten rules that I don't know about, I guess, so I'll just go back to lurking. I thought I was being helpful.

Between being told in the other post that I had not done my research, and receiving PMs stating that ladies were angry at me and might not see me because of this post, it is obvious that I don't know what I'm doing.

[frankenthaler91]

Laplacde, get a new email and drop phone. Start a new life. Some of the girls do it all the time.

[inkspot]

Laplacde, get a new email and drop phone. Start a new life. Some of the girls do it all the time.

Absolutely! You can be a new person here in 5 minutes.

Heck, some of the people here are on their 3rd identity. It happens all the time.

To the OP, you may have riled a few providers but your second post was a hoot to read. Many of us enjoyed it.

[FirstTracks]

Thanks for the comments, guys. No ladies posting, though. And judging from the PM I received from one ASP, and the modifications to my original post, there won't be.

Lots of unwritten rules that I don't know about, I guess, so I'll just go back to lurking. I thought I was being helpful.

Between being told in the other post that I had not done my research, and receiving PMs stating that ladies were angry at me and might not see me because of this post, it is obvious that I don't know what I'm doing.

Meh. Don't sweat it too much. The only mistake you made IMHO (really IMO as there ain't no 'H' involved) is that you posted the results of a statistical analysis using far too small a sample size.

Based on the stated sample size, no accurate conclusions can be drawn from the data. Basically what you did was akin to someone concluding that both the Broncos and the Avs were the best teams in their respective leagues after each team's first game played based on their # of wins (or points) and point/goal differential.

Secondly even using data aggregated from the entire database would be flawed in its conclusions because those who write reviews are not consistent and cannot be connected to provider nor client populations, etc., etc., etc.

You could have just limited it to pure numbers and left out the names as well as any data aggregates that would point to any particular individuals.

Otherwise, good job of data collection.

Let me see if I can take some of that flak...

To the individuals that got their respective panties in a bunch:

C'mon, the guy was citing specific data and not his opinions. The numbers he cited (aside from the INCREDIBLY flawed correlation coefficient) were factual numbers. Just simple calculations. Granted he should have left some of them out because the margin of error makes them meaningless.

Lots of first-year kids make these kind of mistakes; cut the guy a break.

He meant well...

Anyone that I did not insult or compliment, please consider yourself insulted or complimented...

[MAG]

Jesus H Christ-on-a-stick. You need to get laid.

Put down the slide rule & call someone before your head explodes.

[SultryKitten]

I don't know about everyone else, but I found this insightful and um, kind of hot! Gotta love a guy that thinks "outside the box". ; p

Sultry Kitten

[urfan]

hey Lap, why in fuck sake do you give a shit about what d.b hobby horses post here? this is amusement for me - much like all the other good stuff. i think it's funny that the boys rant on so.

but you've taught me something. here i thought them boys was all about talkin shit without knowing a goddamn thing about it. guess that's another thing i was wrong about. and brother, if your OP isn't an excuse for at least somebody saying it, let me: T - L - D fucking - R

at least they're reading it

glad you decided to stick around. i always wanted a second-banana, so to speak.

<insoucience font off>

[urfan]

and another thing -

Laplace, you now hold the newbie hobby horse record (girl's trophy on the other side goes to SultryKitten) for shortest time from first post to having a 'veteran' dink take a shit on him. irony of all ironies, a dink and a d.b. look awful similar.

looks like you and Sultry are a star-crossed match made in heaven so book and review, will ya? it'll drive 'em bat shit and get them jealous pudknockers off yer case for havin 2 fully functioning heads

btw, fuck that cocksucker Archimedes too - i'll stick with Samuel Clemens (expecially the one about lies, damn lies and statistics)

[Guest slim]

The Guys

Most prolific reviewers: Nightmoves & Slim, each with 5 reviews.

Biggest Budget: Slim, spending a total of $1,950.

Most Hapless reviewer: A tie between:

TheReviewGuy: One Rip-off, one Terrible, One Average

Fork: Two No-shows, One Rip-off, One Fantastic

It's been a fun as fuck year, literally.

[Fritzie]

I, for one, appreciate the amount of time and effort you put into your study. Thanks.

[SultryKitten]

Urfan, I am not in "cahoots" with Laplace so please don't start putting me in a position that I don't belong in.

I only replied because I am in the middle of finishing my Masters in Business, and financially found it interesting. I never thought I would get slammed for it. Guess intelligence isn't respected or wanted here.

It took me two years to come on here and write as I have seen countless times how some of you flay people alive over them replying or making an opinion. I guess newbies really aren't welcome so I will not reply again, and just go back to my usual thing. : /

Sorry if I upset anyone, I wasn't meaning to do that.

Sultry Kitten

[urfan]

wow Sultry, you've misjudged me intent. i never implied any cahoots was going on.

if you're truly getting your m.b.a. better take the refresher course on reading and comprehension. you seem to have misinterpreted nearly everything i've written to or about you or maybe i just use too many obscure obtuse syllogisms.

also, in case you haven't read any of my 1,600+ posts here, i love intelligence and look for that as an attribute when selecting an asp (see sapiosexual) and i've done nothing but be supportive of newbies here, hell i go to bat for them regularly. i think Laplace will make a fine, upstanding hobbyist one day and is a welcome addition to the collective i.q. here.

so, if you're all butt-hurt, so be it. but don't pull the little sniffle and frown and take your bat and glove and go home routine. and why the fuck do you care if you've upset anyone here anyway? it's an escort blog for cryin out cats.

<dutch uncle font off>

[limey]

WOW. Part of me likes this post. If you look at it little you can find some info. But the more you look, I find it a little like a house of mirrors, The Department of redundancy Department

or when asked do you like Ford or Chevy someone says YES.

So yes I like the post. The last set of paragraphs makes me say either extract your interpolations or please kiss your sister.

[SimoneLove]

You need to go out call a lady or ladies and have a good time. Don't take everything so serious on this board.

Toshay Geecue!

[Phantom]

This was a great f-ing post. I hope it gets redone every month. I wish there was a way to see the unsnipped version.

[SultryKitten]

Well, since I hated English Lit. and did everything in my power to avoid essays, as well as , getting started on my dissertion...maybe you are correct. The way I see it is a perception thing. One moment your sarcastic, the next all serious. It is hard to know which [snip - Adv/marketing]

So, if this is my way of starting out on this board, well, then I am all for it. I am ready to BURN! : D

Sultry Kitten

[FirstTracks]

Toshay Geecue!

[dangle]

This was a great f-ing post. I hope it gets redone every month. I wish there was a way to see the unsnipped version.

Just get here early on lol

[Lovely_Leigh]

To begin with, I must say I am impressed with your statistical skills. I sincerely mean that but this, in my opinion, may be a case where street smarts and book smarts don't quite converge. No one will ever again accuse you of not doing your "numbers" research but it seems you may have missed a crucial element while researching: anonymity. I would like to remind you that what we allegedly do here is illegal. Making lists of who made what really spells it out for currently furloughed agencies. While it was a fun post, some aspects of this community are similar to "Fight Club"; there's a reason the first two rules are the same and stress anonymity. I do know that the data is out there but you did such a fine job of making it concise and highlighting providers that maybe some local LE is thanking you because you did their job.

I was impressed with the conciseness of your analytical abilities. You get an A+ for research and computation skills. As for "Not getting your ass kicked on the playground" skills, you fail. I really don't mean this to read bitchie. I think it may and that is my furthest intention so I'll put it this way: (Read with a friendly accent of your choosing) Please remember that we are a bunch of scofflaws 'round these parts and there may be some interlopers.

[FirstTracks]

Keep in mind that all he did was maybe 20 minutes worth of work. Any LE agency that had any interest in aggregating this data would be updating this on a daily basis AND they would have years worth rather than data from a single month.

And none of that information amounts to anything anyway. I cannot think of any way it could ever be used in any legal proceeding (which means it cannot be used even as a jumping off point).

Since his only real mistake was the horrible math, people should really stop giving him crap for doing what any 3rd grader could do on their own...

Oh... wait........

[meganrae28]

Nice scraper and use of excel.