Mr. Tennis Guru's Negative Review ~ Amy's .0.02 cents

I think providers here are confused about what "no" means as a response here...

"No" is an answer to the question "Would you recommend this provider to others?" This reviewer stated that his answer was "no", but since you cannot read the ROS comments (that makes me chuckle actually ) you would see that his "no" comes with a qualification, and a reason why it was given. "No" has nothing to do with JUST service, or JUST looks, or JUST attitude, it has to do with the entire experience, and more importantly, it is their opinion whether THEY would reccomend you to others.

I respect your right to disagree with a review, and your apparent right to comment in Co-Ed about it. My opinion is that his review is honest, open, and does nothing to dent your credibility or service level with other hobbyists. Post what you want, but in this case his review cannot be attacked in any other way than "your opinion is different than mine." Since that's the case, your comments would have been seen in a better light if you'd stopped your post after "It was your perception and opinion of your experience with me."

I think providers here are confused about what "no" means as a response here...

"No" is an answer to the question "Would you recommend this provider to others?" This reviewer stated that his answer was "no", but since you cannot read the ROS comments (that makes me chuckle actually ) you would see that his "no" comes with a qualification, and a reason why it was given. "No" has nothing to do with JUST service, or JUST looks, or JUST attitude, it has to do with the entire experience, and more importantly, it is their opinion whether THEY would reccomend you to others.

I respect your right to disagree with a review, and your apparent right to comment in Co-Ed about it. My opinion is that his review is honest, open, and does nothing to dent your credibility or service level with other hobbyists. Post what you want, but in this case his review cannot be attacked in any other way than "your opinion is different than mine." Since that's the case, your comments would have been seen in a better light if you'd stopped your post after "It was your perception and opinion of your experience with me." Originally Posted by Wakeup

What he said. I've given favorable reviews that ended with a "No" recommendation -- all that means is that she's not my cup of tea. We didn't click, I felt like it wasn't worth the coin or the trouble, too many little things added up to a "pass" on a return trip, etc. But she's still G2G and other legs out there might feel different. FWIW, that's what I got from tennisguru's review.

Its not my problem if some guy out there without premium access can't get the whole story and only sees the "no". They should either pony up the dough or contribute if they want the whole enchilada.

Just another example of why 9 times out of 10, a provider is better off just letting a "negative" review slide. To OP's credit, her rebuttal was polite, professional and didn't hurt her rep (at least with me)... but she still started typing without the benefit of the Rest of the Story.

On a related topic...

Opposing a "no" recommendation??? C'mon. I can see defending yourself against an Alert, or an accusation of wrongdoing in another forum, but you're attamepting to defend yourself against someone else's opinion of a session where no wrongdoing was hinted at? Again...c'mon...

You're not always going to get "yes" recommendations...and any "no" recommendation review written as openly and honestly as this one was will never damage your reputation with other hobbyists. Let it go.

In all due respect I feel some of the members are oversimplifying this.

All she can read (forget oldman posting BCD info) is a yes or no recommendation. That's it. There is no context for her to see why she was rated a NO. Is it her looks, her service, is she a smoker, is she clean and fresh smelling? Is it one simple thing she can improve on to get a Yes?

I mean if I were rated bad at work I would want to know why.

This also can, most likely will, cause her a loss of customers and money.

Look, some of us can read between the lines on reviews, but there are a lot of guys who take any and all reviews literally.

In years past I've written many reviews and I defend the rite of a reviewer to make HIS review. But I would not find myself writing a bad review because someone was an advertised BBW and a BBW wasn't my type.

If the membership wants to make a YES or NO, then it is literal. If there is a NO with a caveat, then this is something else.

But, who's fault is it she got a NO. Her's or his. From what I read in his review thread (no BCD included), I would consider his NO recommendation to be his fault, not hers. Reviews are very variable, my NO recommendation would almost have to be an alert, where someone else may give a NO for some small reason.

Ya know j have seen a negative ros with a yes recommendation. The ros is pretty important when forming an opinion of the review.

Ya know I have seen a negative ros with a yes recommendation. The ros is pretty important when forming an opinion of the review. Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

I agree 100%!

However we need to view this thread from the context of a provider, who doesn't have ROS. This is her thread and all she saw was a NO recommendation.

In all due respect I feel some of the members are oversimplifying this.

All she can read (forget oldman posting BCD info) is a yes or no recommendation. That's it. There is no context for her to see why she was rated a NO. Is it her looks, her service, is she a smoker, is she clean and fresh smelling? Is it one simple thing she can improve on to get a Yes?

I mean if I were rated bad at work I would want to know why.

This also can, most likely will, cause her a loss of customers and money.

Look, some of us can read between the lines on reviews, but there are a lot of guys who take any and all reviews literally.

In years past I've written many reviews and I defend the rite of a reviewer to make HIS review. But I would not find myself writing a bad review because someone was an advertised BBW and a BBW wasn't my type.

If the membership wants to make a YES or NO, then it is literal. If there is a NO with a caveat, then this is something else.

But, who's fault is it she got a NO. Her's or his. From what I read in his review thread (no BCD included), I would consider his NO recommendation to be his fault, not hers. Reviews are very variable, my NO recommendation would almost have to be an alert, where someone else may give a NO for some small reason. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

By your criterion, a hobbyist should always give a "Yes" recommendation unless something occurs during the session that is alert-worthy. I completely reject that idea.

When I give a "yes" recommendation, I'm putting my reputation among other hobbyists on the line -- essentially saying, "Take Ender's word for it! She's worth the time and effort!" That's not something I take lightly. If a provider wanted to know why I gave her a "No", I'd be happy to tell her through back channels... hell, I'd probably let her know before I even posted the review. I've done it in the past and the exchanges are usually civil.



I think what I (and other hobbyists) have a problem with is providers attempting to censor or "damage-control" honest reviews. Hate to say it, but too fucking bad. We have no control over whatever shit-talking goes on in the ladies areas or gets posted on the national blacklists, no matter how specious or libelous. For all I know, there are entire threads there dedicated to what a needle-dicked douchebag I am. So be it.

If hobbyists only ever tip-toed around providers' feelings and left out parts of sessions that genuinely made them unenjoyable, there would be no point to reviews at all. There would only be ads.

My sincerest apology to Amy. I though my reply was going to be private, but I had a brain fart on the procedure and screwed up.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Most of my reviews were of Wildflowers, Juniors and Chalinos girls, Cherries of Houston girls, and indy providers. I did give a very negative review of an indy named English way back in the early days. So, in this context, my rep. wasn't on the line that much.

Some like myself would put something almost alert worthy to get a NO, where someone else would give a NO for the slightest reason. We all know reviews are highly variable, which is what BCD/ROS is for. But providers can't read those parts and when they give what they think is a good session, then the reviewer gives them a NO, it is just human nature to want to know why.

. If a provider wanted to know why I gave her a "No", I'd be happy to tell her through back channels... hell, I'd probably let her know before I even posted the review. I've done it in the past and the exchanges are usually civil. Originally Posted by enderwiggin

That would be one way to handle things. She would at least know what she did to deserve the NO.

C'mon DJ, you've been around the block a few million times buddy, you know how this works. This isn't your work. This isn't an open peer review where you get to sit down with the Bob's and discuss your bad TPS reports over a bag of Cheetos and a game of Tetris. The reason providers aren't allowed to see the ROS (again, that makes me laugh) is because we don't want to discourage hobbyists from giving honest reviews for fear of provider reprisals. In this case I'm beginning to think that providers shouldn't be allowed to see ANYTHING on the reviews, because this hobbyist did nothing wrong, except express his opinion evidently, and he gets a rebuttal for one line...the recommendation...his opinion.

Quick question. Do we have a rule on what a yes or no recommendation is based upon? Is it based on performance only or our opinion of the session as a whole?

I mean being honest and delivering what you promise does not always guarantee a satisfied customer. What if a provider garanteed a ncns, if she did exactly what she said she would does that mean she should get a yes recommendation?

C'mon DJ, you've been around the block a few million times buddy, you know how this works. This isn't your work. This isn't an open peer review where you get to sit down with the Bob's and discuss your bad TPS reports over a bag of Cheetos and a game of Tetris. The reason providers aren't allowed to see the ROS (again, that makes me laugh) is because we don't want to discourage hobbyists from giving honest reviews for fear of provider reprisals. In this case I'm beginning to think that providers shouldn't be allowed to see ANYTHING on the reviews, because this hobbyist did nothing wrong, except express his opinion evidently, and he gets a rebuttal for one line...the recommendation...his opinion. Originally Posted by Wakeup

+1

Quick question. Do we have a rule on what a yes or no recommendation is based upon? Is it based on performance only or our opinion of the session as a whole?

I mean being honest and delivering what you promise does not always guarantee a satisfied customer. What if a provider garanteed a ncns, if she did exactly what she said she would does that mean she should get a yes recommendation? Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

Yep. It's based on whatever the hobbyists who writes it wants to base it on. Nothing else.

This is a difficult one. This is his review but the NO recommendation is unfair since she did not misrepresent her physical appearance and she provided the service as promised.

Imagine at work, a higher up has retired, someone is going to get promoted to his job. The best qualified, most hard-working and productive candidate is denied the promotion because she does not look like a vogue cover-girl

It happens all the time

Isn't it unjust?

It would seem to me sessions with ladies who are good providers but whose physical appearance or conversation we cannot stand should either not get reviewed, or get positive recommendation they have earned. We can always give our fullest, detailed opinion of the negatives, BCD

This is a difficult one. This is his review but IN MY OPINION the NO recommendation is unfair since she did not misrepresent her physical appearance and she provided the service as promised. Originally Posted by Raphael

Fixed that for ya...

It would seem to me sessions with ladies who are good providers but whose physical appearance or conversation we cannot stand should either not get reviewed, or get positive recommendation THAT IN MY OPINION they have earned. We can always give our fullest, detailed opinion of the negatives, BCD Originally Posted by Raphael

You are ABSOLUTELY kidding me right? You're just fucking with me...right?

I'm going to be insensitive here...because I'm Wakeup and I don't give a shit if you think I'm a prick. So all the fat providers here in Houston get a free pass from us because some of us cannot stand them and won't give them a positive review? I'm sure a lot of the ladies in Houston will appreciate your comments here Raph, since we pay by the pound here a lot...

BTW, "misrepresenting her appearance" is a judgement call not by her...but by the hobbyist. It's just like me saying "she advertised as a redhead but her hair was glowing nuclear reddish/orange when I got there." Is that her misrepresenting herself? It's his opinion, not hers. People are just getting bent out of shape over this because we're supposed to not be insensitive where weight is concerned here. Why the hell do you think BBW came into use anyway? Big Beautiful Woman? The reviewers opinion is all that matters here, and he said her service was fine, her looks both were and weren't what he expected, end of story.