Reviews can be posted up to 6 months after the event, there is no requirement to post immediately.
I notice you've chosen to ignore my reply #66 so let me ask you this. -
How does it serve punter's interests to post about unadvertised services if it results in the girl getting sacked so she's no longer there to offer the service to anyone.
Upto 6 months (or more) is possibly useful if the intel is still actionable i.e. the SP is still trading. If she's not then what good is the review? Perhaps we get some indication of form for the management involved
She may return in which case fair enough review once she does, noting where certain services received are no longer on her menu. If she doesn't come back then all we have is unactionable history, a punter's memoir, a perhaps frustrating or cautionary tale over a pint.
If the punter has good reason to believe she won't be in the area long then for the sake of the rest of us here it would surely be best if the review occurs before she leaves? Thus serving UKP's raison d'etre.
Sorry DM, confused by your reference to #66, I hadn't read it when I composed and posted #67.
I'm talking about extra services a lady offers to the punter for a price in comms or in the room.
Most massage parlours and their ladies mentioned on this site as offering extras advertise on various listing sites where they either don't mention any sexual elements or they categorically (and mostly ironically) state "no sexual service". It is the unwritten rule that services are either discussed in comms or in the room i.e. unpublished.
If we're talking about the situation where a bloke goes to a legit establishment based on an advert in mainstream media (Web, TV or print) or by innocent recommendation by a presumed non-punter, where the certainty is high that there is no sex allowed (and perhaps the punter wasn't after extras), then it would be understandable if conscience triggered discretion and he might keep schtumm. But if the supposedly legit practitioner asks for money in return for performing a sex act then why shouldn't that be fair game to review here on UKP? Are we supposed to believe the SP who says she only does this for us as an individual? Are we to assume that the establishment has a rule of prohibition which we haven't been informed of?
Sure if there's a warning sign on the walls but then I've only seen those in ropey parlours under scrutiny by councils rather than legit places I've been.
The punter could review only the legit aspect here and say nowt about the paid extra but then whose interest would he really be serving here? If he's posting with an unseen *nudge nudge wink wink say no more* and chooses to only tell some people via PM then that's anathema to the site ethos.