Linking reviews of SP's with historical AW ID's / review count

[Urban_G]

I was reading a >> review << of a girl who I have previously reviewed under an older AW ID and wondered if there is a way to index them so they all appear in the same list when you click their reviews link?

Another thing, this link showed she had 2 reviews yet when I clicked it there were actually 4 in the list. I'm wondering why this is and how common is it as it could potentially be misleading to other punters.

[SeekingtheTruth]

Just post the links on the reviews and then a helper can index them at the top so that they are all available to view.

[Urban_G]

Just post the links on the reviews and then a helper can index them at the top so that they are all available to view.

Thanks, I thought about that but didn't know if it would work and screw anything up.

Would still like some insight regarding the 2nd part of my post.

[SO595]

Would still like some insight regarding the 2nd part of my post.

I recall old admin saying that the counts were updated by a scheduled job.  I suspect that it's not been working since the handover as the API is returning similarly outdated counts.  I'll mention it on the forum issues thread if it's not there already.

[scutty brown]

At present if a girl changes profiles her existing reviews all need to be indexed to the new profile manually by the Helpers or Mods
OldAdmin did say that he was looking at a way of linking profiles but obviously never got round to it.

As for the score count not updating, OldAdmin messed that up BEFORE the handover, at the same time as he amended the profile summary pages to show "scores" and maps

[SO595]

As for the score count not updating, OldAdmin messed that up BEFORE the handover, at the same time as he amended the profile summary pages to show "scores" and maps

Yes, I just found your post mentioning that on the forum issues thread.  I've added a note that it's affecting the API as well.

[Steely Dan]

It is Admins call, but I find it confusing to re-index an old review for a new name - particularly when it might go wrong.  Better to see both names at top of post.  Perhaps one name has 4 reviews, and the other has 6. 

Because if we (partially) re index, does she have 10 or not?  Are the 6 new ones with the new name, or are some the same reviews as before, reindexed?

To me the 'less work, more clarity' way is to only index a review one time ever.  But post the old AW profile in the review so both appear at top.  We can all add 6+4.  To make the lists on Puntingwiki, it is easy to add the counts for the two profiles.  Nightmare to have to read through to remove duplicates.

(Ignoring the software glitches, how many reviews does the escort Elizafitness the OP linked have?  Answer=5: 4 under new name ,  2 under old name.  But one of those is same review. A mess.  Easily solved by not double indexing)

[scutty brown]

It is Admins call, but I find it confusing to re-index an old review for a new name - particularly when it might go wrong.  Better to see both names at top of post.  And one name has 4 reviews, and the other has 6. 

Because if we (partially) re index, does she have 10 or not?  Are the 6 new ones with the new name, or are some the same reviews as before, reindexed?

To me the 'less work, more clarity' way is to only index a review one time ever.  But post the old AW profile in the review so both appear at top.  We can all add 6+4.  To make the lists on Puntingwiki, it is easy to add the counts for the two profiles.  Nightmare to have to read through to remove duplicates.

if I come across a girl with a new profile I reindex all the existing reviews to the new profile
OK they'll each end up with two index links, but thats not a problem
Subsequent reviews obviously won't show both, but at least the new profile will be linked to all

[Steely Dan]

if I come across a girl with a new profile I reindex all the existing reviews to the new profile
OK they'll each end up with two index links, but thats not a problem

I know you do.  I wish you wouldn't. It creates a mess.  It is a problem - because across the board this is only done partially - makes all the numbers wrong.

Better to just add the old (or new) profile to a comment.  Just my opinion.  (Look at the example of the one the OP linked - you can only tell she has 5 reviews with hard work))

[scutty brown]

I know you do.  I wish you wouldn't. It creates a mess.  It is a problem - because across the board this is only done partially - makes all the numbers wrong.

Better to just add the old (or new) profile to a comment.  Just my opinion.  (Look at the example of the one the OP linked - you can only tell she has 5 reviews with hard work))

thats a good example of why it SHOULD be done: the one negative wasn't linked to the newest profile. It is now, and once the indexing bug is fixed all will show under 4267783
As the old profile 4055168 is dead adding the newer reviews to it is pointless

[Steely Dan]

But the negative did show at the top.  Just the count was messed up.

And will you personally sort out all the hundreds of other escorts with multiple profiles?  And untangle punting-wiki? And confirm that the profile wasn't sold? Easier to just have the rule, 'one review, one index'.  Just my view.

We all need to do the same thing is all. You and I are both trying to help punters. Thanks for all you do to help UKP.