Star rating for reviews

[Nagilum]

Just a thought.

I wonder if Admin could introduce star ratings for reviews? Almost like an IMDB rating system where you could have varying levels for positive, neutral and negative reviews.

You could even introduce top 10 rated lists from it, etc...

Too complex? What do we think?

[collector]

Like it. Between a positive borderline neutral and a great positive review there is a huge difference.
I read in old reviews that before the ratings used to be only positive and negative, no neutral.
With the stars rating might be an other improvement for the forum.

[Steely Dan]

I am assuming you are talking about grading the reviews, not moving from a 3 point scale to a 10 point scale.  (If the later, I still say not broken don't fix it)

Is the purpose of grading reviews to help the punter?  Problem is that most likely, the well written enjoyable reviews will get more votes than the boring simple reliable ones.  Many of the punters that are banned today (Mangoguy, Name8) had a stream of helpful reviews that I suspect would have been rated in the day. Some of those may still be accurate. Others had discredited reviews that may have been written for discounts.  But on the day these would have been rated.

I think the current system of allowing comments and counter comments works pretty well. Most true White Knighting is seen.  Some arguing with negatives turns out to be anything but WK, but rather it is stopping bull shit negatives.

Not broken don't fix it I say.

[smiths]

Just a thought.

I wonder if Admin could introduce star ratings for reviews? Almost like an IMDB rating system where you could have varying levels for positive, neutral and negative reviews.

You could even introduce top 10 rated lists from it, etc...

Too complex? What do we think?

IMO reviews are just fine as they are but as ever its up to admin of course.

[yorkshire123]

I'm not punting at the moment thus no reviews but here's my two-penneth anyway for what its worth.

Why change what works already?

Surely the words within the review will be enough to see if it was borderline or not?

And to be honest recent events have shown that the creeps out there focus on popular girls enough without drawing up a league table for them to pick through.

[vw]

Not important for me, the reviewer is much more an important factor to me than variables.

There is only  a 2 point scale in my mind visit or not visit, but it it helps others wouldn't object.

[PLeisure]

I can understand Nagilum's desire for a 10-point system but also note the struggles over Jason's Attractiveness Rating chart with endless debates on whether a girl merits 8, 8.25 or 8.5. Decent enough idea to introduce a bit more accuracy but may also open up the review to being sidelined by varying differences of opinion. 

[Rod trotter]

Its a never from me.alls fine the way it is and never introduce a "like" to this board either 

[Billy no mates]

Perfectly happy with the system as is. I mean what would be the difference between a 6/10 or a 7/10? its too hard to standerdise

They way it is at the moment, makes sure you read the review carefully, and form your own opinions. The Postive/neutral/negative bit is just the introduction

(I read a neutral review yesterday for skinny_ginger, but still want to see her, because the things she was 'marked down' for, do not personally bother me)
(I wrote a positive reveiw for Roxette, but made it plainly clear she does not FK, which again for me is no issue, but for others probably is)

[Nagilum]

Fair points from all.

I like the review system as it is too. However the expression "if it's not broken, don't fix it" seems to apply.

[Type_O_Negative]

Huh, i can imagine all fluffies ganging up once again and voting 10 out of 10 for their "ladies".
We don't want to see this here.

[Urban_G]

I think a 10 point system would be too much, if anything were to be implemented perhaps a 5 would be better? The extra 2 could be for borderline positives or negatives.

The current system works pretty well so I don't think we'll see any changes and members can always elaborate on their chosen rating anyway.

[DickDiver]

What is useful about a review is not the headline "score" it is the words that accompany it.  No scale can compensate for a review that lacks objective facts and is high in fluff.

[Corus Boy]

IMO?  The system is fine as is.

More detailed/longer reviews are fine as it give me the chance to 'read between the lines.'

Knowing the reviewer and cross referencing other reviews gives a better picture.

The devil is in the detail, not the star count.

[lostandfound]

Huh, i can imagine all fluffies ganging up once again and voting 10 out of 10 for their "ladies".
We don't want to see this here.

Indeed! 

[Jimmyredcab]

Just a thought.

I wonder if Admin could introduce star ratings for reviews? Almost like an IMDB rating system where you could have varying levels for positive, neutral and negative reviews.

You could even introduce top 10 rated lists from it, etc...

Too complex? What do we think?

I think Admin has quite enough to deal with already.   

[hendrix]

I'm in the "it works fine, no need to change it" camp.

[LondonPunter69]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

[5th Musketeer]

What is useful about a review is not the headline "score" it is the words that accompany it.  No scale can compensate for a review that lacks objective facts and is high in fluff.

I agree.  If I see "negative" I would not be interested.  If I see positive with enough words in the description to make a judgement, then it's worth reading. 

If there were a change I would only want one on the "positive" end to, say, "positive+" or "Positive-" to indicate that everything was exactly as described by the WG and wanted by the punter (+) or worth going to and seeing again but nor everything was perfect (-). 

But, as others have said, the current isn't really broken as long as you use common sense and, there is always a PM to the reviewer if you have questions.

[yumyum3]

Fine as it is IMO. I go on the reviewer and whether I trust or find them credible or not.

[uutarn]

Like it. Between a positive borderline neutral and a great positive review there is a huge difference.

This is something i've been fighting with for a while, two different positives can be a world apart and that has made me question my rating a couple of times.

But as others have said, thats where the review comes in. The text (and the reviewer) is more important than the rating IMO.

Though i'm not adverse to a "star" rating system, i'm in the -if it ain't broken, don't fix it- camp also.

[hantshagger]

Quote from: DickDiver on Today at 11:35:51 am ......

    What is useful about a review is not the headline "score" it is the words that accompany it.

I agree.  If I see "negative" I would not be interested.  If I see positive with enough words in the description to make a judgement, then it's worth reading. 


If there were a change I would only want one on the "positive" end to, say, "positive+" or "Positive-" to indicate that everything was exactly as described by the WG and wanted by the punter (+) or worth going to and seeing again but nor everything was perfect (-). 


But, as others have said, the current isn't really broken as long as you use common sense and, there is always a PM to the reviewer if you have questions.

I agree  entirely with this.  Well said!  (particularly the bit in blue)

[cueball]

What is useful about a review is not the headline "score" it is the words that accompany it.  No scale can compensate for a review that lacks objective facts and is high in fluff.

That sums it up nicely, just read the review and decide if she's got you or not.

[Kerosene]

Not keen myself on marks out of ten myself as. At the extremes of a scale, you'd be pretty much equally sold on a 9/10 review as a 10/10. With positive, neutral and negative you can see at a glance what the overall picture is. And if it's borderline, the review should mention why.

Also, what happens to existing reviews - should they be regraded to fit in?

[NIK]

I think Admin has quite enough to deal with already.   

Totally agree. A star system is unnecessary.
It could end up like Northern Angels where every review was ten stars.
When I asked them what was the point of a review system if only ten star reviews were allowed I was banned.

[threechilliman]

That sums it up nicely, just read the review and decide if she's got you or not.

That's exactly how I took things with the girl I saw last week.

tcm

[helmsdale]

I think an 'Excellent' or some such category would be helpful but on the other hand if a provider is really excellent, then they will quickly clock up a number of positive reviews and that is better indication of excellence than the opinion of one poster.

In time though there will probably be rating inflation, 'excellent' will come to mean 'positive' and 'positive' will come to mean 'neutral'. so all in all its better to keep things the way they are.

[vw]

I think an 'Excellent' or some such category would be helpful but on the other hand if a provider is really excellent, then they will quickly clock up a number of positive reviews and that is better indication of excellence than the opinion of one poster.

In time though there will probably be rating inflation, 'excellent' will come to mean 'positive' and 'positive' will come to mean 'neutral'. so all in all its better to keep things the way they are.

Excellent is not one man's call though, Excellence is recognised by a pattern of reviews. 

One punter alone cannot declare excellence in my opinion.

[Redwoodentransistor]

Excellent is not one man's call though, Excellence is recognised by a pattern of reviews. 

One punter alone cannot declare excellence in my opinion.

Completely agree with that....we all want different things....who am I to say that my "excellent" punt would be "excellent" to you?

IMO the positive/neutral/negative option is enough, it enables you to give other people a rough idea of your general view of the punt and a full on rating system would just end up getting skewed as people rate and review in different styles.

For me, you can only get maximum value out of this site if you take the time to read other peoples reviews and take from them what is important to you. If people want marks out of ten, then with respect, they are probably on the wrong site.

[TheNewSeeker]

Reviews are far too subjective, and will always be so, to merit anything more than the + N - ratings we do now.

Far more important is for reviewers to say what was requested, what was received, and how good was the delivery, as well as other indicators such as attitude, hygiene, ease of communication etc.

[5th Musketeer]

Totally agree. A star system is unnecessary.
It could end up like Northern Angels where every review was ten stars.
When I asked them what was the point of a review system if only ten star reviews were allowed I was banned.

Cute! 

[RedKettle]

Really no point to this - current system works pretty well and as someone says above often you can get what you need from the comments made.  The ratio of positive reviews to  others is a better guide than stars

[GreyDave]

Really no point to this - current system works pretty well and as someone says above often you can get what you need from the comments made.  The ratio of positive reviews to  others is a better guide than stars

+ Meee   some times I shag girls reveiwed here as negs I do not reveiw all I have shagged ofte they have been well reveiwed and I cant add  to it I am well sus of the 10 star girls and the fluffy brigade that follow them just my 2p worth  ...did two walkups no point in reveiwing as they will more than likely be long gone next week as is the way attudie to age types is what I look for in the reveiws