Ok JD. It's banned. You can no longer use the reference gfe until you provide a definition that we will all recognize. To you it will be referred to as "efg". Over. Signed king of eccie.
Jk Originally Posted by 27west
- Perfect Playmate
- 05-13-2015, 08:21 PM
- dirt street cowboy
- 05-13-2015, 09:39 PM
I agree now, after several frustrating months, gfe is indefinable. It can mean dfk, tuma, or did you pick me up some tampons at QVC. But on the same hand, if a provider puts " see my reviews" under services offered, she Damn well should read her reviews and offer what is stated.
- john_deere
- 05-13-2015, 11:05 PM
Ok JD. It's banned. You can no longer use the reference gfe until you provide a definition that we will all recognize. To you it will be referred to as "efg". Over. Signed king of eccie.gfe:
Jk Originally Posted by 27west
"honey, can you bring me a beer? the second half just started."
"sure, but you have to rub my feet during commercials."
BOOM. <drops mike.>
- JDS87
- 05-14-2015, 11:11 AM
I am also guilty of seeing providers and not writing reviews.
Most of the time, if the information from the previous 3 reviews mirrors my experience, I won't write one. Also, if I have a session and the provider and I don't click for whatever reason, I worry about potential blowback from other providers for writing a "No."
I do recall an incident where a hobbyist was denied a session because he had written frank and honest reviews that resulted in a "No." review.
I think more information is shared in other sections outside of the review. I wonder if it'd be possible to have threads in ML dedicated to specific providers who have 10 or 20+ reviews? That way, if I see that provider, and the session was good, I don't necessarily need to write an entire review. I can just update the thread. I like this idea because it punishes lurkers who read but don't post, and incentives contributing/paying members of the community.
Thoughts?
Most of the time, if the information from the previous 3 reviews mirrors my experience, I won't write one. Also, if I have a session and the provider and I don't click for whatever reason, I worry about potential blowback from other providers for writing a "No."
I do recall an incident where a hobbyist was denied a session because he had written frank and honest reviews that resulted in a "No." review.
I think more information is shared in other sections outside of the review. I wonder if it'd be possible to have threads in ML dedicated to specific providers who have 10 or 20+ reviews? That way, if I see that provider, and the session was good, I don't necessarily need to write an entire review. I can just update the thread. I like this idea because it punishes lurkers who read but don't post, and incentives contributing/paying members of the community.
Thoughts?
- john_deere
- 05-14-2015, 03:06 PM
i just can't believe all the angst about writing a "no" review. you guys need to give fewer fucks.
- Phrasing
- 05-14-2015, 04:02 PM
Or at least write something in ML or co-Ed. Saw so and so, no because xyz and on with the show
- busternutzs
- 05-14-2015, 04:30 PM
With JDS87 and his current status as a valued poster posting something in the ML is not possible. It seems a review is in order to obtain PA.