I think he was giving an opinion but you are trying to influence admin using your usual weasel ways.
I think admin is more switched on to your reverse psychology tricks than you give him credit for. Did you learn that from your kids as it's a technique children use!
Like you would know anything about being ‘switched on’, minitus
. You can’t even read a five-point ratings scale for fucks sake! But thanks for responding on Quesadilla’s behalf. New troll in the house it would appear. You don’t need to reply to this post, but I have a feeling you won’t be able to help yourself.
And so you argued from the specific to the general, which I'm afraid is fallacious. You cannot generalise like that. All it proved was that at least one WG wasn't making a lot of money at that time.
No, I argued from the general to the general, but sadly one indiscreet fuckstick decided to make that general a very specific.
Your rating system is a nice try but looks like a beginner's stab to squeeze more out of artificially engineered number-crunching that can be supported by reality:
Looks and Service are simple observable categories.
That’s because it is a beginner’s stab to squeeze more out of non
-artificial number crunching. There are of course considerably less gradations available in a score from a possible 10 than of a score from a possible 50. The reality is a simple one: my opinion after having met each girl reviewed. It’s not scientific, but it’s good fun!
Looks should, I think, also include a mention of whether the photos in the advert or other sources of expectation were accurate, but unless you happen to be blind as well as sex-goggled most people will agree that a film star is better looking than a fat middle-aged woman with acne and a hairy chin. But, as with all the categories, a rating only has meaning if it is compared to something. Prostitutes do not, believe me, look like film stars. So the easiest comparison-set is "other prostitutes. Now if the "other prostitutes" in your admittedly very small sample (out of tens of thousands) are all in the 8 to 10 range, then there is little point in having a ratings with more than three options.
Fake photos, I walk. So that isn’t important to me. I walk, girl will in all likely get a negative.
You could perhaps instead have "Good / neutral / poor." Another advantage of this IMHO would be it also avoids giving the false impression that such things can be judged with such a high degree of accuracy as to distinguish by a tenth of a degree. (I admit that there is also a common parlance between long-time international punters that uses a rough "out of ten" but not in a way to suggest that it is that accurate or any more than a personal rough estimation. Your reviews are really not in that vein.) Good/neutral/poor might be an easier option, as long as you spread them about a bit (if they are all going to be more or less equal then not much point in mentioning it though is there?)
Such things can
be judged with pinpoint accuracy as I always take a highly sophisticated measuring instrument along to my punts. It’s called my cock.
Service is really about services received, whether services advertised were offered or refused, and whether the services received were performed "well". Again, if someone thinks every prostitute he has seen has given a good blowjob (out of good/neutral/poor) one has to ask, compared to what? His wife? Shaggy the sheepdog?
Ahh, the ‘services’ chestnut. I’ve yet to find a single girl who doesn’t provide that services in which I partake: chit chat, oral, kissing, cowgirl. Again, if I ever decide to become more adventurous, said review will include the salacious details.
Personality and Attitude are only really meaningful if battened down a bit. A prostitute's personality is actually either no business of punters; or else, if you happen to discover it outside of her working performance, not really relevant as it relates to her as Janet Thomson or whoever, not as "Selina Seductress the AW Shag" or "Selina Slag the High-Class Coutesan", who performs a service with whatever personality she can conjure up for the job. Easier to merge them into one and base a rating, (good, poor or neutral), on observable factors. Was she pleasant, polite, threw herself into the work? was she avoiding interacting much just doing it as if on a production line? was she downright rude, shortchanging on time, uncooperative over simple things, using her mobile phone during the time you had paid for? These are all useful to know.[/b]
Personality and attitude are more important than looks or services for me. For two reasons: if I don’t ‘like’ the girl in question, nothing is going to happen. Simple as. I’ll probably still pay her, but won’t necessarily touch her. The amateur socio-anthropologist in me enjoys the social part as much as the carnal – probably because the ‘sex part’ happens at least one a day with one girl or another regardless.
Venue & Comms is often mentioned, as a smelly bed with noisy people in the next room and a shitty or unsafe area that is hard to get to ruins a punt for some people. Comms just looks at how much time she wasted (or didn't) in setting up the appointment.
Yes, I usually make mention of the surroundings as I’m quite particular in preferring a comfortable incall.
UKP only has three categories for reviews. There's not much need for additional ratings although I personally think a note on the above lines is useful, especially confined to observable things. If I met another punter after a punt and we shared a pint, his experience might be worth a quick word: it only relates to one of many he has had and many I have had. So I'd probably expect him to say something like "Yeah, it was pretty good" or "It was ok, emptied my balls" or "Nah, it was a bit rubbish, best avoided." That for me would be three meaningful categories. If I asked him for more info (ie red the review beyond positive/neutral/negative) I'd probably want to know the sort of things mentioned above, just enough to bear in mind should I happen to think of seeing her in preference to many others. I won't take his opinion as gospel, just his opinion, but nice to know.
Vast detail about what you did with your knob might be entertaining for a few minutes in a crowd after a few beers. But I do know what a blow job is, thanks, without having it explained!
If and when there are specific forum guidelines for the composition and submission of punter reviews, I will of course abide by them. But as the rules are now very clear – reviewer discretion – I will post my reviews (fluffy or otherwise) as I see fit.
So whilst many may indeed prefer the typical:
‘I met her, I fucked her, I went home, it was good, I might go back’
…style of review. I do not.