Reviews

[Mouthy-Meg]

Am I the only one that thinks being able to write reviews about people that dont have profiles here kinda violates the whole aspect of consent? 90% of the ladies never claim the profile....  why? Is it because they dont know the review exists....? Is it because they didn't want the review written about them in the first place...?  TOB removed the requirement of asking for a reference before being able to write a review also. Now anybody can review anybody they want in any fashion....if you have issues with the review you have to prove yourself like we in court. Innocent until proven guilty.... yeah but you have to goto jail(have a review posted about you first) for an undetermined amount of time and wait for the Judge (tob mods to get to your case.... could be hours could be days) 

With all the new changes.... this should be handled differently.  I know reviews help site traffic.  But when they're complete bullshit they're ONLY helping web traffic.  And hurting the people who pay to be here.  

[CallieVane]

Hear, hear! I completely agree. I do not think it is fair that to be on tob as a provider you have to be vouched for and pay but clientele does not have to do either. It opens the door so that anyone can critique the provider, regardless of if they’ve actually seen them or not. There’s definitely a few reviewers here who I just roll my eyes at when I see their reviews and take them worth a grain of salt.

It also makes it so men who don’t even have an account here can threaten a bad review if you don’t do what they demand, because they know they can quickly create one while remaining anonymous and damaging someone else. I’ve been threatened with this when I won’t lower my boundaries. 
 

I think it should be equal on both sides. Both people should have to be vouched for and pay. For the providers, pay to post and to be verified. For the clients, pay to be able to be verified and to be able to review. 
 

 

[tide32]

Totally agree. This is one of the reasons I don't trust most reviews. Especially from certain members. It shouldn't be posted, if it hasn't been claimed.  

Edited December 21, 2025 by tide32
fixed it

[Developer]

21 hours ago, Mouthy-Meg said:

Am I the only one that thinks being able to write reviews about people that dont have profiles here kinda violates the whole aspect of consent? 90% of the ladies never claim the profile....  why? Is it because they dont know the review exists....? Is it because they didn't want the review written about them in the first place...?  TOB removed the requirement of asking for a reference before being able to write a review also. Now anybody can review anybody they want in any fashion....if you have issues with the review you have to prove yourself like we in court. Innocent until proven guilty.... yeah but you have to goto jail(have a review posted about you first) for an undetermined amount of time and wait for the Judge (tob mods to get to your case.... could be hours could be days) 

With all the new changes.... this should be handled differently.  I know reviews help site traffic.  But when they're complete bullshit they're ONLY helping web traffic.  And hurting the people who pay to be here.  

We’re actively discussing this, and you’re right: compared to when this was implemented years ago, the number of claims has declined. Providers still claim reviews and create profiles — just not at the same volume we were seeing 2–3 years ago.

One direction we’re exploring is treating TOB more like a “network.” In that model, in-network reviews would be tied to providers with active TOB profiles, while out-of-network reviews would be associated with unclaimed listings. Out-of-network reviews could be hidden from the main review feed by default (via a setting/automatic rule) or made optional through a filter. We’re also considering clear visual indicators (e.g., “Out-of-network review — provider does not have an active TOB profile; submitted externally”) so clients can immediately understand the context and weigh credibility appropriately.

We do want to preserve the SEO and traffic benefits this provides, especially as TOB expands beyond Colorado. We have a meaningful amount of reviews submitted outside Colorado, though it’s still a minority today — and yes, we agree it needs to be handled ethically and in a way that respects the frustrations you’re pointing out.

Small correction on references: we still require references for new providers and new clients, but we no longer require a direct reference between the client and provider on every single review. If a provider already has strong history and references, that’s a meaningful trust signal and we don’t force the reviewer to go chase additional verification — same on the reviewer side. That change was driven by repeated feedback: the old requirement deterred legitimate reviews and often left submissions stuck in limbo until someone gave up.

At the moment, the reference system is intentionally simple and objective:

• Does the provider meet the reference threshold?

• Does the reviewer meet the reference threshold?
  If yes, the review can be accepted. If not, it’s automatically denied and we send the reason.

In TOB 2.0, this evolves into broader “Trust Signals” — activity, vouches, and other indicators contributing to whether an account appears legitimate. We’re also planning a lightweight thumbs-up mechanism so community validation becomes an additional signal for both the provider and the reviewer.

On moderation, we’ve already implemented several improvements: hiding specific reviews, reporting workflows, and stronger admin tools. And importantly, if someone contributes value in some areas but we identify clear abuse (spam or fake reviews), we can restrict their ability to post reviews without needing to remove them entirely.

Hope this helps clarify where we’re headed.

[Mouthy-Meg]

1 hour ago, Developer said:

We’re actively discussing this, and you’re right: compared to when this was implemented years ago, the number of claims has declined. Providers still claim reviews and create profiles — just not at the same volume we were seeing 2–3 years ago.

One direction we’re exploring is treating TOB more like a “network.” In that model, in-network reviews would be tied to providers with active TOB profiles, while out-of-network reviews would be associated with unclaimed listings. Out-of-network reviews could be hidden from the main review feed by default (via a setting/automatic rule) or made optional through a filter. We’re also considering clear visual indicators (e.g., “Out-of-network review — provider does not have an active TOB profile; submitted externally”) so clients can immediately understand the context and weigh credibility appropriately.

We do want to preserve the SEO and traffic benefits this provides, especially as TOB expands beyond Colorado. We have a meaningful amount of reviews submitted outside Colorado, though it’s still a minority today — and yes, we agree it needs to be handled ethically and in a way that respects the frustrations you’re pointing out.

Small correction on references: we still require references for new providers and new clients, but we no longer require a direct reference between the client and provider on every single review. If a provider already has strong history and references, that’s a meaningful trust signal and we don’t force the reviewer to go chase additional verification — same on the reviewer side. That change was driven by repeated feedback: the old requirement deterred legitimate reviews and often left submissions stuck in limbo until someone gave up.

At the moment, the reference system is intentionally simple and objective:

• Does the provider meet the reference threshold?

• Does the reviewer meet the reference threshold?
  If yes, the review can be accepted. If not, it’s automatically denied and we send the reason.

In TOB 2.0, this evolves into broader “Trust Signals” — activity, vouches, and other indicators contributing to whether an account appears legitimate. We’re also planning a lightweight thumbs-up mechanism so community validation becomes an additional signal for both the provider and the reviewer.

On moderation, we’ve already implemented several improvements: hiding specific reviews, reporting workflows, and stronger admin tools. And importantly, if someone contributes value in some areas but we identify clear abuse (spam or fake reviews), we can restrict their ability to post reviews without needing to remove them entirely.

Hope this helps clarify where we’re headed.

I think you should clarify why clients are required 0 verification. And why in this industry the only ones paying to be here are the ladies. Which is ass fucking backward. Why the ladies have to have a bad review posted about them before something can be done about it.  And why it seems like clients are prioritized in every situation. You also didn't touch on the main point of consent.  You allowing clients to write reviews without consent goes against everything providers stand for in this business. 

"We don't force the reviewer to go chasing extra verification." YEAH YOU DON'T ASK THE REVIEWERS FOR ANY VERIFICATION AT ALL.  Which is absolute bullshit. Asking the reviewers to take 1 step to get a reference for a new review is too much work for clients.... continues to back up my point of tob being client leaning. EVEN THOUGH providers are the only ones financially supporting tob. 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2025 by Mouthy-Meg

[Caressa Duval]

23 hours ago, Mouthy-Meg said:

Am I the only one that thinks being able to write reviews about people that dont have profiles here kinda violates the whole aspect of consent? 90% of the ladies never claim the profile....  why? Is it because they dont know the review exists....? Is it because they didn't want the review written about them in the first place...?  TOB removed the requirement of asking for a reference before being able to write a review also. Now anybody can review anybody they want in any fashion....if you have issues with the review you have to prove yourself like we in court. Innocent until proven guilty.... yeah but you have to goto jail(have a review posted about you first) for an undetermined amount of time and wait for the Judge (tob mods to get to your case.... could be hours could be days) 

With all the new changes.... this should be handled differently.  I know reviews help site traffic.  But when they're complete bullshit they're ONLY helping web traffic.  And hurting the people who pay to be here.  

@Mouthy-Meg I can't agree more!

 

1 hour ago, Developer said:

We’re actively discussing this, and you’re right: compared to when this was implemented years ago, the number of claims has declined. Providers still claim reviews and create profiles — just not at the same volume we were seeing 2–3 years ago.

One direction we’re exploring is treating TOB more like a “network.” In that model, in-network reviews would be tied to providers with active TOB profiles, while out-of-network reviews would be associated with unclaimed listings. Out-of-network reviews could be hidden from the main review feed by default (via a setting/automatic rule) or made optional through a filter. We’re also considering clear visual indicators (e.g., “Out-of-network review — provider does not have an active TOB profile; submitted externally”) so clients can immediately understand the context and weigh credibility appropriately.

We do want to preserve the SEO and traffic benefits this provides, especially as TOB expands beyond Colorado. We have a meaningful amount of reviews submitted outside Colorado, though it’s still a minority today — and yes, we agree it needs to be handled ethically and in a way that respects the frustrations you’re pointing out.

Small correction on references: we still require references for new providers and new clients, but we no longer require a direct reference between the client and provider on every single review. If a provider already has strong history and references, that’s a meaningful trust signal and we don’t force the reviewer to go chase additional verification — same on the reviewer side. That change was driven by repeated feedback: the old requirement deterred legitimate reviews and often left submissions stuck in limbo until someone gave up.

At the moment, the reference system is intentionally simple and objective:

• Does the provider meet the reference threshold?

• Does the reviewer meet the reference threshold?
  If yes, the review can be accepted. If not, it’s automatically denied and we send the reason.

In TOB 2.0, this evolves into broader “Trust Signals” — activity, vouches, and other indicators contributing to whether an account appears legitimate. We’re also planning a lightweight thumbs-up mechanism so community validation becomes an additional signal for both the provider and the reviewer.

On moderation, we’ve already implemented several improvements: hiding specific reviews, reporting workflows, and stronger admin tools. And importantly, if someone contributes value in some areas but we identify clear abuse (spam or fake reviews), we can restrict their ability to post reviews without needing to remove them entirely.

Hope this helps clarify where we’re headed.

None of this ^^^ addresses the 486 pound elephant in the room. Men that abuse the review system to write flat out fake reviews hundreds of times, from other scrape escorts site that we all know have fake provider ads on them. The only things guys like this are trying to do is boost their own ego. Like at least if a guy posts a review on TOB on a new woman "with out a profile here" look to see the link they are providing is from a reputable website. How do we even know the guy themselves are not creating these females profiles on these other substandard websites for the sole purpose to write another review just to flatter themselves.

It is ridiculous! If a guy needs to write a legitimate review for a provider from another website, at least see if that woman is actually a real provider from another legitimate website. The reason a guy would keep creating these provider profiles on TOB, and writing reviews on them is because, the guy knows very well these women will not come to claim their profile and dispute ever meeting him. Seriously.

[Mouthy-Meg]

2 minutes ago, Caressa Duval said:

@Mouthy-Meg I can't agree more!

 

None of this ^^^ addresses the 486 pound elephant in the room. Men that abuse the review system to write flat out fake reviews hundreds of times, from other scrape escorts site that we all know have fake provider ads on them. The only things guys like this are trying to do is boost their own ego. Like at least if a guy posts a review on TOB on a new woman "with out a profile here" look to see the link they are providing is from a reputable website. How do we even know the guy themselves are not creating these females profiles on these other substandard websites for the sole purpose to write another review just to flatter themselves.

It is ridiculous! If a guy needs to write a legitimate review for a provider from another website, at least see if that woman is actually a real provider from another legitimate website. The reason a guy would keep creating these provider profiles on TOB, and writing reviews on them is because, the guy knows very well these women will not come to claim their profile and dispute ever meeting him. Seriously.

I mean they've made it very clear that that traffic his 486 reviews bring is more important... than the fact that 94%+ of those reviews are fake.  The reviews he writes elsewhere make it clear he's never seen the ladies he reviews. And his reviews here clearly show providers that his reviews are fake.... some people turn a blind eye... for "web traffic" purposes. But i think the mods are forgetting that when the ladies decide to band together.... tobs existence is in our hands.  

[Caressa Duval]

19 minutes ago, Mouthy-Meg said:

I mean they've made it very clear that that traffic his 486 reviews bring is more important... than the fact that 94%+ of those reviews are fake.  The reviews he writes elsewhere make it clear he's never seen the ladies he reviews. And his reviews here clearly show providers that his reviews are fake.... some people turn a blind eye... for "web traffic" purposes. But i think the mods are forgetting that when the ladies decide to band together.... tobs existence is in our hands.  

100% We pay the bills!

[Developer]

2 hours ago, Caressa Duval said:

@Mouthy-Meg I can't agree more!

 

None of this ^^^ addresses the 486 pound elephant in the room. Men that abuse the review system to write flat out fake reviews hundreds of times, from other scrape escorts site that we all know have fake provider ads on them. The only things guys like this are trying to do is boost their own ego. Like at least if a guy posts a review on TOB on a new woman "with out a profile here" look to see the link they are providing is from a reputable website. How do we even know the guy themselves are not creating these females profiles on these other substandard websites for the sole purpose to write another review just to flatter themselves.

It is ridiculous! If a guy needs to write a legitimate review for a provider from another website, at least see if that woman is actually a real provider from another legitimate website. The reason a guy would keep creating these provider profiles on TOB, and writing reviews on them is because, the guy knows very well these women will not come to claim their profile and dispute ever meeting him. Seriously.

Did you read my post?  Do you feel this does not address the 486 pound elephant in the room?

On moderation, we’ve already implemented several improvements: hiding specific reviews, reporting workflows, and stronger admin tools. And importantly, if someone contributes value in some areas but we identify clear abuse (spam or fake reviews), we can restrict their ability to post reviews without needing to remove them entirely.


 

2 hours ago, Mouthy-Meg said:

I think you should clarify why clients are required 0 verification. And why in this industry the only ones paying to be here are the ladies. Which is ass fucking backward. Why the ladies have to have a bad review posted about them before something can be done about it.  And why it seems like clients are prioritized in every situation. You also didn't touch on the main point of consent.  You allowing clients to write reviews without consent goes against everything providers stand for in this business. 

"We don't force the reviewer to go chasing extra verification." YEAH YOU DON'T ASK THE REVIEWERS FOR ANY VERIFICATION AT ALL.  Which is absolute bullshit. Asking the reviewers to take 1 step to get a reference for a new review is too much work for clients.... continues to back up my point of tob being client leaning. EVEN THOUGH providers are the only ones financially supporting tob. 

 

 

You’re bundling a few real issues together with a couple claims that just aren’t true, so let’s separate them.

First, “they have to have a bad review posted before something can be done.” That’s how every review system works. There isn’t anything to moderate until something is posted. What you’re actually saying (and that part is fair) is that a disputed review shouldn’t sit live forever while it gets looked at. That’s a product/moderation workflow problem, not proof the site is “client leaning.” We have changed this, so that if a provider disputes a review that is posted, it is hidden from the review system until investigated. Currently, it stays live until the rebuttal process finishes.

Second, the consent point. If by “consent” you mean the provider has to approve a review before it can exist, then that’s not consent.... that’s veto power. And a veto-power system isn’t reviews, it’s marketing. It guarantees you only ever see positive posts, because anything negative gets blocked by default. That destroys the credibility of reviews for everyone, including providers. Imagine only ever seeing positive reviews of every marketplace. You can't trust anything you're willing to throw some money at.

Where you do have a legitimate consent argument is unclaimed listings. If someone doesn’t participate here and never claims a profile, that context should matter. That’s why we’re discussing in-network vs out-of-network handling, clearer labeling, and different visibility rules so unclaimed listings aren’t treated the same as opted-in providers. Whether you like it or not, yes, the reviews promote traffic to TOB, a lot of it is outside where TOB operates. We may get 40 Providers login a day, but over 4000+ visitors a day, and looking at the metrics, more than half is spent in the reviews.

Third, “you don’t ask reviewers for any verification at all.” That’s simply false. We still require baseline trust/references. What we removed was forcing reviewers to chase a provider-specific reference for every single review. That rule didn’t stop determined abuse; it mostly stopped legitimate reviews and left submissions stuck until people gave up. Providers pushed on this change, not just clients. And calling that “one extra step” is dishonest anyway, because it’s really a backdoor attempt to make providers control which reviews get posted. If I had a bad experience with you and I wanted to post a review because you stood me up, I wouldn't be able to submit it because you'd never allow it.

You asked me to clarify it so:  Client verification sounds “fair” on paper, but in this industry it breaks the marketplace: demand is extremely privacy-sensitive and friction-sensitive, so if you require men to verify the way providers do (IDs, approvals, heavy checks), most will simply leave, and when demand drops the platform becomes less valuable for the people actually paying for exposure; that’s exactly why the majority of escort directories and boards keep client onboarding light and instead gate real influence (like posting reviews) behind earned trust signals such as account history, references, behavior patterns, and anti-abuse controls because supply can justify the cost/steps for ROI, while demand won’t tolerate it at scale.

Last, the business reality. Providers fund TOB a large portion, but not all. That doesn’t mean providers get to control what gets said. It means we have a responsibility to protect providers from abuse, weaponized posts, spam, and bad-faith reviewers. The right solution isn’t “provider approval required,” because that kills credibility. The right solution is earned review privileges, stronger trust signals, tighter rules for out-of-network/unclaimed listings, and faster dispute handling so providers aren’t stuck waiting while sketchy content sits live.

If you want a site with only positive reviews, just say that. But don’t frame it like that’s “fair” or “ethical.” It’s not.

 

 

[Kali Sensual Reiki]

Just face facts ladies when you pay for your advertisement on TOB you are also giving this website the rights to belittle and be abusive with you while the moderators look the other way. To me this  is not connecting. There is no justification for abuse and not listening to the people who pay you- the ladies. Meanwhile  you the moderator can continue to  look the other way.
Ladies you  get what you pay for and it will always be the 1950 ’s on TOB. And there has and never will be anything about what is fair or ethical behavior!  Because you ladies are disposable like paper plates. Your website your rules we get you!

[Kali Sensual Reiki]

1 hour ago, Kali Sensual Reiki said:

Just face facts ladies when you pay for your advertisement on TOB you are also giving this website the rights to belittle and be abusive with you while the moderators look the other way. To me this  is not connecting. There is no justification for abuse and not listening to the people who pay you- the ladies. Meanwhile  you the moderator can continue to  look the other way.
Ladies you  get what you pay for and it will always be the 1950 ’s on TOB. And there has and never will be anything about what is fair or ethical behavior!  Because you ladies are disposable like paper plates. Your website your rules we get you!

Nothing ethical or fair- your words, am I wrong? That is what TOB is about? I am not only speaking about only reviews? What about those who have multiple profiles and They goout of their way to antagonize the ladies? I guess that’s not your department right?

[Mr. Lovah-Banned]

With few exceptions, think P411 and less than a handful of hobby-related others, there isn't a platform where looking isn't "free", think Facebook (Marketplace), X, Instagram, Amazon, eBay, Craigslist... get the picture? Conversely, there isn't a merchant (provider) on any of these that don't. Followed by service (attitude, engagement), on the hand it's called advertising, the art of attracting customers in which, the better you are at it, well, the better you are at it. Conversely, the more difficult it is for customers to find (and return to) you, the less likely that is to happen. This is all so basic I'm amazed, but not surprised with the who "pays to be here" mantra/disconnect. And not just that but, on the other hand, that each and every one of us is the product wherever we are should not be underestimated when, I promise you, the hobby (product) costs the consumer MUCH more than it costs the provider. Again, it's basic. 

The problem in this particular industry is this. On the one hand, the product embodies the provider's very humanity. And on the other, the carnality that drives it MUST transcend that humanity into the business realm, which is why so many TOB clients try so hard to give the world's oldest profession a dating game makeover with a twist that includes the most ballyhooed TOB topic of all - reviews. More specifically, the fake ones that the hobbyist anyone with a TOB forum presence knows you and others continue to rant about, even with the powers that be making what the 480 lb gorilla is clear - just business.

Expand the Girls Offices discussion into STG, Tryst, The Erotic Review, etc. and the truth remains simple, basic. Hobbying happens, with or without reviews! Trust, for every one, or two, or five of you with thongs in a twist about it, there are hundreds, if not thousands of ladies out here who are either laughing their asses off at or oblivious to what each and every one of you keep howling at, the gorilla that feeds.

Here's an idea. More false barrier than actual requirement, stop and watch what happens with fake reviews.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Mister Lovah

[boink36]

On 12/21/2025 at 6:41 AM, Caressa Duval said:

100% We pay the bills!

I took a minute to run this post through the hobby forum post translator. Here is what I got back.....................................

"If you people don't start doing what I want Right Now! I'm going to lay down to scream and kick, then I'm going to hold my breath!"

[The Divorce Coach ~]

On 12/21/2025 at 7:49 AM, Developer said:

On moderation, we’ve already implemented several improvements: 

does the 'improvements' include CREDITS?  who will be accountable for issuing credits to providers w/paid advertisements during all periods of downtime on this board?

[Developer]

1 hour ago, The Divorce Coach ~ said:

does the 'improvements' include CREDITS?  who will be accountable for issuing credits to providers w/paid advertisements during all periods of downtime on this board?

This is something we already do. I actually already credited all impacted accounts from today's downtime.

To answer your question, we do have a CREDITS feature in the roadmap, it may not be out on intial release as it's being discussed. By all means, if you have ideas, I'm always open to hear about how to earn credits outside of just being compensated for technical issues that are sometimes outside of our control.




 

[The Divorce Coach ~]

2 hours ago, Developer said:

This is something we already do. I actually already credited all impacted accounts from today's downtime.

To answer your question, we do have a CREDITS feature in the roadmap, it may not be out on intial release as it's being discussed. By all means, if you have ideas, I'm always open to hear about how to earn credits outside of just being compensated for technical issues that are sometimes outside of our control.




 

i know the ladies appreciate. thank you for responding