Taking a Poll: Updating New Reviews

[Guest ManzBody]

At Hooboy's suggestion:

Once an escort has reached ten (10) reviews, any new reviews have a 30 day waiting period before posting. What do you guys think about dropping "old" reviews in favor of adding the new ones? I'm looking for imput from escorts as well as clients. Hooboy said he'll take your responses into account when considering his posting of new reviews.

On a personal note, I've got great "new" reviews that are building up a back log while my eleven (11) "old" reviews, while very positive, just sit there.

Thanks for taking the time to read & respond.

BIG JIM aka ManzBody@aol.com

[Paul Revere]

Hmmm. I'm not sure.

 

I think that time should be the deciding factor, rather than total number of reviews. I think that old reviews should age off, or go to archives or something. But what is the correct time period? Anything over a year isn't very valuable any more, but is six months too short to move something off?

 

I'm also interested in other opinions.

[NY Observer]

Tough call, I think Hooboy is probably the best one to decide how much work is involved in keeping or deleting reviews. I think that there shouldn't be two reviews from the same person among the multiple reviews, but that is really hard to keep track of (and I'm sure even harder to administer). I agree with Paul that those over a year old start to lose some of their relevance. I definitely want to see the new reviews of hot guys like Jim, he's definitely on my list of tourist attractions

[+ bigjoey]

keep the old reviews. if you "age" them and rotate off the old ones, and escort with a bad review could send in enough great ones to get rid of the bad one. keeping all the reviews makes it harder to manipulate the information.

[Guest torjon]

My vote would be for keeping the old reviews as long as it's feasible, probably a year, using the formula HooBoy suggested...after 10 reviews, 30 days kicks in before another can be posted. These reviews are invaluable to "new boys on the block" and it's great to find a pattern of consistency in an escort. What I would have given to have had something like this 9 months ago when I decided to play with the boys. I had absolutely no idea what to expect, and would have settled for whatever was tossed my way, thinking that was "all there was".(I happened to pick a great guy but that was the pure luck of the draw!)I've learned a lot in this site, notably from reviews, and am having a lot more fun because of it. With this site, one quickly gets to know the kind of escort that will fill ones' needs, not to mention what a client has a right to expect. The reviews are not only invaluable, they're an education. Keep 'em. The great ones deserve the accolades, anyway.After a year, drop the oldest half, be it one, two, 6 or 12. This seems the fair way to me.

[Guest red]

I strongly believe that all reviews should be kept for at least a year then, if possible, moved into some sort of archive. Some of the older reviews are the most detailed/informative---with the newer ones referring back to the older ones. Each review presents another bit of information that helps me choose the right man. Thus far, I have had no bad experiences with guys reviewed on this board. I, for one, would greatly dislike having a big chunk of this board's "institutional memory" tossed out.

[Guest Skeptic]

Interesting & all-important issue, given that the raison d'etre of the whole site is to review escorts--an objective sometimes forgotten here.

 

All of the points raised in the posts above are good ones, helping to weigh one factor against the other. However, full disclosure plus archival supplement seems to me the way to go; and if it's a problem of space, I'd rather see some other features of the site dropped (I'm not citing any, but you can fill in the blanks yourselves) than have a reduction of legitimate reviewing.

 

The reviews themselves could probably be streamlined, too.

 

For one thing, I'm not so sure the 'structured' lead-in of formulaic questions really serves its intended purpose. (MB's recent review of Ray showed how following it scrupulously can lead to an unintentionally misleading--or confusing--result.) I know it's meant to keep the playing field level, while holding the reviewer to some sort of objectivity. But perhaps all-out-free-form subjectivity might be better, leaving it to be the reader to discern thr gold amid the dross. In this regard, I note that the unstructured 'reviews' at MSS are just as informative (and probably more reliable & realistic) than the 'composed' prose-poems we often have to wade through over here.

 

Another idea: why not do away with formal reviews altogether? The remarks made in the forums, especially the detailed narrative ones posted in response to a query about a given escort, tell me a lot more than the press-release type write-ups in 'New Reviews'. Tagging & indexing these posts (even invisibly) for later retrieval, coupled with a really good search engine, might give a potential client a much clearer picture of the object of his interest.

[Guest DickHo]

Everything else being equal (Hooboy has enough time and unlimited disk space can be afforded), I vote to keep all reviews forever and to post them as soon as they are received. I don't think the waiting period does anything. One exception would be not to post two or more reviews for the same escort in any one day.

[Guest Ken]

Skeptic makes good points and I agree with the first 2 paragraphs of his posting. However, I disagree with him about the "lead in questions" in the reviews. At least they address what the potential clients want to know about an escort. The narratives that follow the questions SHOULD be insightful BUT UNFORTUNATELY, many times, they say absolutely nothing. An example of this is in a review posted yesterday. Here is what someone wrote in his review: "Describe the experience:

 

Well we had scheduled the appointment through a

chat room on aol he was very eager to please which

made me nervous at first. He came to the hotel

properly dressed and we started with a massage.

needless to continue it was a vary fun exp."

 

IMHO, that review is utterly useless. Other than to say that "it was a vary fun exp.", it says nothing. Many reviews of that type are regularly put up. If we are to believe that there are numerous reviews WAITING TO BE POSTED, it seems to me that useless reviews like the above shouldn't take up valuable time and space. I know that some individuals feel shy about going into details and I respect that but, isn't what these reviews are all about....what an escort does and does not do and how well he does it? If you don't want to go into details they why post a review? Ratings of Outstanding, very good, fair or complete waste are only as good as the reasons why the reviewer feels that way about the escort.

I agree that the main purpose of this site is the REVIEWS and, if necessary, other posts should be sacraficed if needed. Reviews should remain.However, perhaps, after 6 months or one year, they can be archived but easy to get to. I also feel that 25 positive reviews of an escort (many of which I suspect are NOT writtten by actual clients) are only self-serving. Perhaps some of these reviews which appear to be merely duplicates, could be deleted (or, archived somewhere) and more "balanced" reviews posted. I have no idea how many reviews are sent each day and what how long it takes for a review to be posted but if somehow, these reviews could be screened for content and duplications, perhaps a more informative site would result. I don't mean to downplay escorts who continually get positive reviews because I know that it helps them get clients, but there could be very informative reviews that just don't get posted because "someone" keeps getting rave reviews every 10th day.

The above are just my thoughts but whatever Hooboy decides, these reviews have proven invaluable in making an informed decision about hireing escorts. However we should not stop trying to improve the process.

[Guest Merlin]

The most recent are the most relevant, since obviously they will more closely represent the present condition. If the escort has grown a beard, or shaved, or cut his hair, or grown fat etc, I would like to know.

[Traveller]

I say trash the reviews after a year. For what it's worth, I also try and give a brief synopsis on the message board if someone was particularly good or misrepresented themselves because of the length of time reviews take to get posted. Finally, after 10 positive reviews I would suggest to not post any more unless it's a negative review.

[Guest OuterSider]

I think after 10 reviews once a month is good for a complete review, but here is a suggestion for hooboy if possible. Add a Thumbs Up/Down counter for those that hit the 10 benchmark.

 

If thats not possible if an escort has recieved more than 1 favorable or unfavorable review in the review that he posts he could add an addendum saying that there were X more favorable and X unfavorable reviews submitted for that escort for the month.

[Guest DickHo]

Similar to the cnet.com product reviews...

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Since I rely almost exclusively on these reviews, I’m concerned about a few of the proposals put forth in this thread. It is my view that some of these would cripple the usefulness of this site or more significantly raise questions of credibility of the site. Specifically,

 

DELETE REVIEWS AFTER ONE YEAR. -- Dated information is not in and of itself erroneous or misleading and may be the only available information (or possibly 50 % of it) on an escort. To delete seems rather short sighted and rather like shooting ourselves in the foot. Also, to delete only aged positive reviews would skew the data sample. In addition, some of the reviews contain useful information while others are information free. Do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Who will spend the time to select the best reviews to be retained. What criteria will be used. This is a headache no one wants or has the time for. The solution is clear, at least to me, at least for now -- archive the reviews. Let the interested individuals search the active reviews and make the decision as to what is relevant for them.

 

DON’T ADD REVIEWS AFTER AN ESCORT HAS REACHED 10 IN NUMBER, UNLESS IT IS NEGATIVE. -- Well this certainly will skew the results wont it. Does this mean one negative for each 10 positive ones or will the negatives be allowed to overtake the positive ones. Also, who will decide how negative must a review be to qualify as negative . What about mixed reviews. Again this a bag of worms. It seems to me that this is not an overriding problem anyway!! Very few escorts have anywhere near 10 reviews. My perception of the problem is that HooBoy is nearly overwhelmed with processing reviews daily and chooses to delay posting those with 10 or more reviews so that he can attend to the work load and get more visibility for the lesser known escorts. So dumping those with 10 or more is not a real solution to the real problem.

 

DON’T INCLUDE REVIEWS IF THEY ARE JUST MORE OF THE SAME. -- Although well meaning, this is, in my view, the worst of all ideas presented because it has the potential to UNDERMINE THE CONFIDENCE IN THE CREDIBILITY of the this site. Beyond the obvious questions of what constitutes more of the same (information content, tone of the review, both) who will decide. Does MORE OF THE SAME apply only to positive reviews or also negative and mixed reviews, whatever the latter is. I fear it will probably apply more to the positives. Again, who will decide how many positives will need to counterbalance one negative, not to mention mixed reviews. Now for the CREDIBILITY ISSUE -- the fact that we as clients can send in a review and see it posted gives real credibility to this site. We know that people like us also send in and are posted. If this site evolves to a point where only selected reviews get posted, it immediately raises issues of why one person is posted and not another. What is the real selection criteria and is it being applied consistently. Also, after a few submittals which are rejected, who will be motivated to continue to contribute reviews -- the lifeblood of this cite. Not to mention that this plays into the hands of the unscrupulous escorts (e.g. HooBoy’s recent favorite email partner from CA) who try to paint this cite as biased even rigged All in all, this is a terrible idea that strikes at the core of this cite -- my view anyway.

 

REGARDING THE LEAD-IN QUESTIONS ... These are, in many instances, the only real information content in a review, too bad when this happens. Also, sometimes there is insufficient attention paid to completing these questions -- again too bad. Nevertheless, some of these questions if answered give a quick snapshot of the escort which allows me to determine if I want to read on further -- personal stats, credibility and perceived performance of the escort, and range of services, all critical to my interests. KEEP THE LEAD-IN QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

 

 

It seems to me that HooBoy is facing some potentially serious growing pains, which while painful is also very good. It means that this cite is vibrant and serves a real purpose to an interested community. The solution is not to constrain the cite to retard growth in interest and participation but to find ways to accommodate and manage growth (all without killing HooBoy.) For now, on the limited question of aging reviews, the solution to me seems to be an archive. The alternatives are all too unwieldy or have unfortunate consequences. The real solution lies in applying technology to this problem that would support automated posting of reviews and with some overcite provided to flag suspicious reviews.

 

I could go on... but I feel I’ve had my 15 minutes here.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Since I rely almost exclusively on these reviews, I’m concerned about a few of the proposals put forth in this thread. It is my view that some of these would cripple the usefulness of this site or more significantly raise questions of credibility of the site. Specifically,

 

DELETE REVIEWS AFTER ONE YEAR. -- Dated information is not in and of itself erroneous or misleading and may be the only available information (or possibly 50 % of it) on an escort. To delete seems rather short sighted and rather like shooting ourselves in the foot. Also, to delete only aged positive reviews would skew the data sample. In addition, some of the reviews contain useful information while others are information free. Do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Who will spend the time to select the best reviews to be retained. What criteria will be used. This is a headache no one wants or has the time for. The solution is clear, at least to me, at least for now -- archive the reviews. Let the interested individuals search the active reviews and make the decision as to what is relevant for them.

 

DON’T ADD REVIEWS AFTER AN ESCORT HAS REACHED 10 IN NUMBER, UNLESS IT IS NEGATIVE. -- Well this certainly will skew the results wont it. Does this mean one negative for each 10 positive ones or will the negatives be allowed to overtake the positive ones. Also, who will decide how negative must a review be to qualify as negative . What about mixed reviews. Again this a bag of worms. It seems to me that this is not an overriding problem anyway!! Very few escorts have anywhere near 10 reviews. My perception of the problem is that HooBoy is nearly overwhelmed with processing reviews daily and chooses to delay posting those with 10 or more reviews so that he can attend to the work load and get more visibility for the lesser known escorts. So dumping those with 10 or more is not a real solution to the real problem.

 

DON’T INCLUDE REVIEWS IF THEY ARE JUST MORE OF THE SAME. -- Although well meaning, this is, in my view, the worst of all ideas presented because it has the potential to UNDERMINE THE CONFIDENCE IN THE CREDIBILITY of the this site. Beyond the obvious questions of what constitutes more of the same (information content, tone of the review, both) who will decide. Does MORE OF THE SAME apply only to positive reviews or also negative and mixed reviews, whatever the latter is. I fear it will probably apply more to the positives. Again, who will decide how many positives will need to counterbalance one negative, not to mention mixed reviews. Now for the CREDIBILITY ISSUE -- the fact that we as clients can send in a review and see it posted gives real credibility to this site. We know that people like us also send in and are posted. If this site evolves to a point where only selected reviews get posted, it immediately raises issues of why one person is posted and not another. What is the real selection criteria and is it being applied consistently. Also, after a few submittals which are rejected, who will be motivated to continue to contribute reviews -- the lifeblood of this cite. Not to mention that this plays into the hands of the unscrupulous escorts (e.g. HooBoy’s recent favorite email partner from CA) who try to paint this cite as biased even rigged All in all, this is a terrible idea that strikes at the core of this cite -- my view anyway.

 

REGARDING THE LEAD-IN QUESTIONS ... These are, in many instances, the only real information content in a review, too bad when this happens. Also, sometimes there is insufficient attention paid to completing these questions -- again too bad. Nevertheless, some of these questions if answered give a quick snapshot of the escort which allows me to determine if I want to read on further -- personal stats, credibility and perceived performance of the escort, and range of services, all critical to my interests. KEEP THE LEAD-IN QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

 

 

It seems to me that HooBoy is facing some potentially serious growing pains, which while painful is also very good. It means that this cite is vibrant and serves a real purpose to an interested community. The solution is not to constrain the cite to retard growth in interest and participation but to find ways to accommodate and manage growth (all without killing HooBoy.) For now, on the limited question of aging reviews, the solution to me seems to be an archive. The alternatives are all too unwieldy or have unfortunate consequences. The real solution lies in applying technology to this problem that would support automated posting of reviews and with some overcite provided to flag suspicious reviews.

 

I could go on... but I feel I’ve had my 15 minutes here.

[Guest red]

RE: Re: Taking a Poll: Updating New Reviews

 

Thanks Tampa Yankee for more than 15-minutes worth of common sense.

[Traveller]

RE: Re: Taking a Poll: Updating New Reviews

 

For Tampa Yankee:

 

1. Regarding deleting after one year, if no deletion, then have the escort send in a new pic wearing nothing and holding a newspaper with a current headline over his johnson.

 

2. Regarding negative reviews, if it quacks like a duck....

 

3. Regarding reviews being more of the same, see item 2 above.

 

4. Regarding lead in questions, you're absolutely correct. These can be the most important items as they verify the description provided by the escort's ad. All of these items should be completed. And, if one more person says they didn't have a ruler with them, for God's sake, make an educated guess. Unless it was a total loss (i.e., limp dick, so you absolutely can't judge a measurement) remember that the handle on your princess phone is about 8 inches and judge accordingly.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Re: Taking a Poll: Updating New Reviews

 

Traveller,

 

Your points sound to me curiously similar to some of those of our esteemed Supreme Court Justices regarding obscenity: " I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it". This has led to our current patchwork quilt of community standards on obscenity, an obscenity itself. One thing seems clear to me -- it is only a matter of time ( and probably not much either) until HooBoy is going to need help to maintain the site (spelled it right this time). When more than one head has to determine what looks like a duck the playing field may no longer be quite so level.

 

Glad you agree on the lead-in questions.