Fair point - I created a program that meticulously calculated his entertainment factor vs the mind-numbing predictability and banality of his comments and - computer said no.
He's been here a long time. You maybe haven't quite got used to the furniture yet.
I like the layout of your reviews. The essentials (only bit I generally read) at the beginning which makes for good reference, then the other stuff afterwards for those that like that. As I only regularly punt in Scotland and abroad, I can't really comment on accuracy.
Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder -- at least to an extent -- but the "beholder:" who reads the review is not the same person that wrote it, so I try to bear that in mind (as I don't write reviews for my benefit or the prossie's). Some people like old and fat, for instance, no problem as long as they realise that is not everyone's taste.
I used to do photography (which is maybe also a hobby for you?). Having looked at professional models critically it is easier to apply the same eye to anyone, and most people are pretty shit-looking to a degree. A lot is about how well they transform themselves. Some models are shit looking off camera, but they learn how to fool the lens. One or two are indeed actually stunning.
In terms of a prossie's looks, and reviews, I think the best guide is getting to know the reviewer's standards and tastes. There are competent reviewers in any field that just don't ring my bells as they have such different ideas about what is 10/10. I think at least if you can compare what they say about different prossies, from shit-awful to best-available, then you get a guide, and it's why I try to do a 'comparison' review occasionally, hopefully to give other punters a more useful idea.
One of my bugbears with escorts is the one who does a great photo, not necessarily photoshopped, but looking at least pretty hot. Then when I arrive they have no make-up on and look honestly as if they have made little or no effort in terms of appearance.
The other bugbear is ones who are average to ok looking, but then post an offputting load of shit in a 50p PG. A fanny photo is one thing, but if it just happens to include rolls of belly fat, stretch marks, a caesarian scar and skid marks then all the nice main profile stuff was not only a waste but misleading (thank for being honest *eventually!!*).
My bugbear with reviews, apart from complete fluffy ones, is ones that look as if they were copied from AW with minor amendments. I can't trust AW reviews, so why should I trust the same review on UKP? Nice that someone bothers. But it would be even nicer if they put the punter (ie wrote on UKP)
first.