Frank, I really enjoyed my time with Brittney, but when I booked her there were already reviews on here suggesting she was unreliable, so you're not alone. I decided to proceed at risk on a same day jaunt, and was just prepared to go for a pint if she let me down. Sorry you weren't as lucky. I've had no further contact with her since leaving her AW feedback by the way. She could've found out in a regular conversation. I don't want to shit stir, so just by way of example, when I saw Platinum Cindy, she asked how I'd heard of her, I said UKP. She was actually positive about the site. Had I known about the past debacle at the time it would have been natural for me to then ask, what was all that shit about then?
Anyway, I've not re read the thread a second time, but why shouldn't we want WGs to read their negative reviews? I guess it takes a rare one to take any criticism on the chin, even if it's constructive, and either drop their prices a bit to ensure the business still keeps coming in while they work on their service and profile, or just reconsider whether this line of work is really for them. We have seen so many lose it over the blemish on their carefully orchestrated internet marketing presence, which seems to be more dear to some of them than actually doing a good job in the first place and gaining business by word of mouth the old fashioned way. But that's their problem, unless the reviewer could be traced to their real identity, or for some bizarre reason wants to rebook after writing a negative review, why do we punters give a shit if a WG sees a negative review of theirs?