What Constitutes An Escort Review?

[HooBoy]

I'd like some input on what you think is a valid ESCORT review. I seem to be getting a lot of reviews on AOL hustlers, many of them no-shows.

 

Because these guys may not be around in a week, I am thinking they are not worth our time and the only gents we should be concerned with are those who make a living escorting and advertise as such.

 

There is also an ongoing problem of people submitting what I consider "press releases" - one paragraph of "he was great, met all my expectations, will definately hire him again."

 

Plese do not respond with how much you hate this place or how I run it. I already got that message. :-)

 

I'd like to keep this thread FOCUSED on the SUBJECT.

 

Your input, please...Thank you and happy holidays!

 

HooBoy

[marc anthony]

Hoo: Being a twinklover (as you well know), I often find a "diamond in the rough" in the AOL hustler group. Many of these young boys don't have the means to get out there and advertise any other way than to hang out in a chat room. Sometimes I just take a chance, but this site does provide a very valuable service by identifying the real con artists who are playing in that field.

 

And even though we know that some of these guys submit a "first-time" review on their own to get some free advertising, it points them out to us to be further explored.

 

Bottom line... I know it is more work for you. And if you felt the need to ignore some reviews no one could really blame you... but publishing all the incoming reviews with a verifiable email address as you do now appears to be the most comprehensive way to accomplish this site's mission. And that mission is to provide as much information as is possible for both clients and escorts. (At least I think that is your mission).;-)

 

What we then do with that information, and how we interpret that information, is our responsibility.

[Guest tmbg]

HooBoy here are my thoughts.

 

- Before you publish a review of a new escort you should first receive two reviews one not from a frist time reviewer/ I feel a first time reviewer and a new escort do not make for a very valid combination.

 

- I would like to see the stats listed by the escort, not the reviewer. This way if the escort claims to be 20 and looks 40 or claims to be 6' and is 5'2" the misrepresentation belongs soley to the escort. I feel any legitimate escort would be happy to supply you with his stats via email or the information can be taken from their AOL profile / website.

 

- Personally, I do not feel a fee should even be listed. That would be for the escort to note on his website or via contact with the potential client. It appears that no matter how many disclaimers you place about fees and stats there always seems to be some troll who doesn't pay attention.

 

- Like you, I dislike the press release reviews. In fact, I will not even read them. If I were given the choice they would not be publish. I would return them to the reviewer stating it doesn't meet the details the site requires.

 

- I also do not feel that escorts should have more than 12 reviews in a one year time frame. I believe that any greater number is simply using up your bandwidth and not adding any value. The exception would be if a pattern of reviews was broken by a noted reviewer.

 

- I would like to see noted reviewers. These would be guys who have been consistent in submitting reviews at least once per month and have shown maturity and a balance in their reviews. I beleive this would assist the escort as well as the client.

 

- Escort responses should be received within 7 days of the review.

 

- I do not feel a review should be published where the encounter was greater than 60 days from when it was submitted to you.

 

These are just a few of my thoughts. I'm sure you will receive a Zillion!

 

Thanks for providing such a cool place.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest WetDream]

I tend to agree with Mr. Anthony in his response (if not in his mystifying taste for twinks :-) ). Part of the value of the "review" section of this site is its openness. To remain vital, new escorts and new reviewers must be allowed into the system. If it is static, it will be boring.

 

Perhaps you could cut down on the number of reviews you process by requiring a minimum of two ways to contact the escort, i.e., some combination of phone number, e-mail address or web site for pictures. This wouldn't place too great a hardship of youngsters just starting out and potential clients would either be able to write them, call them or look at them. If only an e-mail address is given, the review wouldn't be posted on the site.

 

Quite frankly, I don't know what you can do about the quality of the reviewers. Maybe you could teach a how-to course for reviewing escorts. While there are many complaints about lack of professionalism on the part of escorts, let's face it...99% of men posting reviews are amateur writers.

 

Good luck! It will be interesting to see what other people think on this subject.

[Guest Traveler]

>- Personally, I do not feel a fee should even be listed.

>That would be for the escort to note on his website or via

>contact with the potential client. It appears that no matter

>how many disclaimers you place about fees and stats there

>always seems to be some troll who doesn't pay attention.

>

 

I personally feel the opposite way; that is, reviews without a fee listed should be deleted. Many escort sites do not list fees. It then becomes a game between the escort and the client, where the escort tries to guess how much he can squeeze out of the client. The escort has the right to change his fee, but it shouldn't be on a client to client basis. If he becomes very popular due to good quality, he should just raise his rates (although most escorts will let former clients hire them for the old fee). I've noticed that reviews with no fees listed are usually by first-time reviewers, and probably written by the escort. Of course, I've had escorts give me a break with the admonition "I'll give you a discount as long as you promise to post my regular rate if you review me." That's OK.

[HooBoy]

>>> I've had escorts give me a break with the admonition "I'll give you a discount as long as you promise to post my regular rate if you review me.<<<

 

In the three years that I've been doing this site I have NEVER once had an escort do this. And I travel a LOT. I do not reveal who I am, so there is no quid pro quo.

 

In fact, in only rare cases have escorts asked me to even submit a review.

 

My suspicion is that some unscrupulous clients may use this site to gain advantage.

[Guest cp8036]

Well, maybe some of us are amatuers writers, but that's not why we post/read here. Some folks write better than others, there are as many writing styles as men. This is what makes it more real, more interesting. If we all took a course on how to be a reviewers, and wrote in perfect, post-college English, the reviews would be almost identical and boring.

 

I would respectfully like to offer to Hooboy that most of the statistical data at the start of each review be removed. The first review would be as we see it now, and subsquent reviews for the same escort include just the unique parts such as experience, about you, hire again, meet expectations, etc. To scroll through 10 review and see 20 men repeat an escort's age/height/weight/internet addr/email addr/tel#/location is bit redundant.

 

I think good reviews that don't say anything interesting is like junk mail, but are still important for further validation. Maybe some further editting of the "generic positive" review in the name of brevity and content. Really good reviews should stand out, soemthing beyond "he was 15 mins late, but called, so was ok". "his fotos don't do him justice, he is one of the hottest escorts I have seen", and so on. May be true, but don't reveal interesting or new info on the escort.

 

Maybe make the "about you" be simple list of date from scroll down answers, such as age/ht/weight/how often hire/single-married/etc. So many times see the same comments... "hardly ever do this escort thing, as I am quite handsome", "Treat escorts with respect and want same in return".

 

Keep up the good work, Happy Holidays.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Hi Ritchie,

 

No offense, but did you notice that all your proposed reforms -- with the exception of the suggestion of having escorts list their stats instead of the reviewer -- are aimed specifically at restricting the flow of information on this site? I'll stick with the most dramatic example:

 

>- Before you publish a review of a new escort you should

>first receive two reviews one not from a frist time

>reviewer/ I feel a first time reviewer and a new escort do

>not make for a very valid combination.

 

Let's unpack this. YOU don't feel a first time reviewer and a new escort make for a valid combination. Under the current policy, you are free not to hire that suspect new escort, and someone a little more adventurous is free to read the review, take a chance, and then write and tell us about it (or not). Under your policy the client who likes to do things differently than you would be deprived of the opportunity even to learn about the escort via this site, even if that client happened to be a five-time-reviewer himself. I can assure you that if you had your way, I would have lost thousands of dollars in both new and repeat business from people who learned about me from this site and made the adult decision to contact me despite the fact that my first six reviews were from the untouchable first-time reviewer caste. Never mind that at least a couple I know of have gone on to write other reviews, thus lifting themselves out of their "probationary" status. But that's not all. I wouldn't even have been able to earn the one (glowing) review by a five-timer that I have gotten, because HE learned about me from those pesky first-time reviewers. Lucky for me he didn't get the memo that none of these people, being novices, could possibly write a lucid review that would be of any validity. I daresay he's quite pleased he had the chance to learn about me through HooBoy's site. And I'm sure HooBoy doesn't mind that I bought one of those Meet Local Men ads that links directly to the escort's reviews before I got a multiple-timer's review to make me "publishable" under the rules you would have him impose.

 

Staggering losses of business for emerging escorts. Drastically fewer escorts reviewed for clients to make up their own minds about. Less revenue to keep the site economically sound. All so that you don't have to sift through reviews of insufficiently credentialed escorts? Doesn't seem worth the tradeoffs.

 

Instead, why not create a new site, "Ritchie's Elite Escort Review" or whatever, in which all of these regulations apply? Let HooBoy keep it so that nearly any old ho can get reviewed here, but then you could impose all the restrictions you wanted on your site. Then you could see how many clients shared your vision of validity, and if it caught on, it would be a real badge of honor for escorts to get listed. The clients who don't share your stringent vision of what's valid would still have a site where they could get information, write reviews and make their own decisions like the grownups they are. You could have noted reviewers, honored reviewers and Infallible reviewers. Reviewer coverboy of the day. Whatever you like. Just please don't take away the openness and freedom (notwithstanding the various "censorship" grievances) that HooBoy's forum provides! Some of us gotta eat!

 

All the other suggestions go back to the theme of "I don't like it, so I don't want to see it and I don't want anyone else to either." The only exception is your proposal to have escorts post the stats instead of clients. Now that idea has potential. One question: am I allowed to put "didn't measure it" for dick size?

[Guest cp8036]

Dev,

 

You never measured your cock? ...just kidding. You are brilliant, what is your day job? I don't mean to patronize, but you sure do make some great points, and do so eloquently.

 

I might just have to run to the ATM and drive over the bridge.

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

>The only exception is your proposal to

>have escorts post the stats instead of clients. Now that

>idea has potential. One question: am I allowed to put

>"didn't measure it" for dick size?

 

Sorry, even this last restriction doesn't make much sense. What if the review is a bad one? Would the escort have a right to prevent stats from being posted? Sorry, but ALL aspects of a review (other than a rebuttal) including fee paid and stats should be written by the client, and only the client.

 

Otherwise I agree with you, the more info and the least censorship of the reviews the better. Unless it can be established that a review is fake or mendatious or contains unwarranted personal info, it should go up. The only exception I might consider are for reviews that contain no meaningful info ("He was great. Hire him.")

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

>I would respectfully like to offer to Hooboy that most of

>the statistical data at the start of each review be removed.

> The first review would be as we see it now, and subsquent

>reviews for the same escort include just the unique parts

>such as experience, about you, hire again, meet

>expectations, etc. To scroll through 10 review and see 20

>men repeat an escort's age/height/weight/internet addr/email

>addr/tel#/location is bit redundant.

 

Some reviewers get the info wrong especially the contact info, or the contact info might change over time. Please do not delete these. I rely on the repetition for verification.

 

>

>I think good reviews that don't say anything interesting is

>like junk mail, but are still important for further

>validation. Maybe some further editting of the "generic

>positive" review in the name of brevity and content. Really

>good reviews should stand out, soemthing beyond "he was 15

>mins late, but called, so was ok". "his fotos don't do him

>justice, he is one of the hottest escorts I have seen", and

>so on. May be true, but don't reveal interesting or new

>info on the escort.

 

I don't think this minor irritation justifies initiating a practice of censorship.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I seem to be getting a lot of reviews on AOL

>hustlers, many of them no-shows.

>

>Because these guys may not be around in a week, I am

>thinking they are not worth our time and the only gents we

>should be concerned with are those who make a living

>escorting and advertise as such.

>

 

Hoo,

 

I understand your concern and had similar thoughts in the past.

 

However, the bottom line is to provide info on those individuals working the business. A great many ply their trade on AOL, a great many of those are transient to the business, many others are in for a moderate if not longer haul -- the academic year for example. Many AOLers are not professional, don't show, don't deliver, don't whatever. THis is just as valuable info as those who stand and deliver, maybe more so to avoid rip-offs or wasted evenings.

 

I would also point out than some QUALITY escorts still haven't set up an AOL indpendent store front, relying on AOL and local print adds to funnel business (I agree this is short sighted nevertheless...) FOr these AOL is the contact gateway for those travellers beyond the local scene.

 

I know it's work to track these AOL guys but the potential benefit to the client is just as valuable; and many clients seem to fish the AOL waters.

 

 

>There is also an ongoing problem of people submitting what I

>consider "press releases" - one paragraph of "he was great,

>met all my expectations, will definately hire him again."

>

I have noticed. and I find them of no value except possibly for contact info. I would be reluctant to publish them but I wouldn't drop them on the floor without notice to the reviewer. (I think you make them aware now that it may not be posted if it appears to be a press release.) THe reason: if reviewers think that their reviews or others are not being published (for unclear reasons) it will stifle submissions. THus the need for them to have a reason -- not only to make clear the publication criteria but to educate them to submit useful reviews.

 

I know this is work for you that you don't need and I suggest that a clear statment of this issue be included in your standard review received notice.

 

 

>Plese do not respond with how much you hate this place or

>how I run it. I already got that message. :-)

>

 

OK... I really love the place... and yoo HOO too... :-)

 

>I'd like to keep this thread FOCUSED on the SUBJECT.

>

 

Sorry, too much shit already flying below... deja vu all over again. The stuff below about wide ranging restriction of reviews caused my first substantive posting to this site -- I cannot let it pass now, unless you promise to ignore these short-sghted comments. :-)

 

Happy holidays to you too! and I hope you enjoy your stop over in Boston although you'll be 'cramping my style' just a little. :-) Better not be the 20th unless late in the day -- special day for me.

 

 

TY

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Sorry Ritchie, I diagree right down the line on all of your points. Your criteria kills a lot of useful info and that is what this site is all about. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

[+ Charlie]

Dear Hoo,

 

I really appreciate they way you have continually tried to improve and professionalize this site; the first reviews of mine that you printed (under various handles) were often just my unformatted rambling recollections. I think that the current forms actually help focus the reviews, and I agree with those who would like to keep them as they are with only slight changes (for instance, instead of just the escort's advertised fee, how about asking "How much did you pay?").

 

To focus on your original question, however: I am not in favor of some medieval guild system which separates "real" escorts from the fly-by-nights. Even if someone advertises for only a short time and gets one review, it is possible that he will reappear again, maybe under a different name, and the eagle-eyed readers here will spot a pattern and alert others. It's important to have one site where information keeps flowing about all those who are marketing themselves as escorts, no matter how or where. In small markets, even the top escort in the area may be a part-timer who gets only one review, but it may be critical for the small number of clients who are confined to that area. Even press releases are useful to that end. In fact, maybe the way to reduce or eliminate the spurious "reviews" would be to have a section in which escorts could post press releases, with a link to the real reviews when and if they come in.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>You are brilliant, what is your day job? I don't mean to

>patronize, but you sure do make some great points, and do so

>eloquently.

 

Actually, the most brilliant move I made this year was LEAVING my day job, as my former coworkers never cease to remind me. :7 Cum to think of it, a lot of my appointments are "day jobs" -- morning wood, afternoon delight, etc... :9 (Seriously, though, I'm an artist -- painting, photography, and even a little writing here and there. And I consider escorting a type of performance art even though the "audiences" are small.)

 

>I might just have to run to the ATM and drive over the

>bridge.

 

Absolutely! Staying off the bridges instead of driving across them to meet an escort would only be giving the terrorists what they want! :+

[Scorpio]

>>>> I've had escorts give me a break with the admonition "I'll give you a discount as long as you promise to post my regular rate if you review me.<<<

>

>In the three years that I've been doing this site I have

>NEVER once had an escort do this. And I travel a LOT. I do

>not reveal who I am, so there is no quid pro quo.

 

Maybe I misread it, but I don't believe the implication of Traveler's post was that he received a discount in exchange for writing a review. He received a discount and was requested to quote the escort's regular rates IF he wrote a review. So I'm not sure there was any quid pro qou here -- at least as it was explained.

 

Something similar happened to me once. I hired an escort who was traveling in my area from a MAJOR metropolitan area. While his rates were probably in line with his home base, they were way overpriced for the local market -- in my opinion. So after he quoted his rates, I politely declined to engage his services stating that I was only accustomed to paying up to $XXX for hour or up to $XXX for an extended appointment. I wasn't trying to negotiate with the escort and assumed that ended our discussion. However, he accepted the rates that I suggested and we scheduled an appointment. Several days after the appointment was concluded I indicated to him that I was going to write a review. Only at this point, did he request that IF I did write the review that I include his regular rates and not the discounted rates, which I did. However, I don't view this as any sort of quid pro quo as the appointment was already concluded.

 

 

>My suspicion is that some unscrupulous clients may use this

>site to gain advantage.

 

I agree! But as a scrupulous client I try to use this site to my advantange as well. I always mention to an escort that I found him based on his reviews on this site, so that they know I'm aware of the site and hopefully it ensures that they perform as previously reviewed. Most of the times they do but not always. However, I never indicate to him that I write reviews until after the appointment.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Sorry, even this last restriction doesn't make much sense.

>What if the review is a bad one? Would the escort have a

>right to prevent stats from being posted? Sorry, but ALL

>aspects of a review (other than a rebuttal) including fee

>paid and stats should be written by the client, and only the

>client.

 

Good point. If there's a dispute about stats the escort already has a chance to email in his version of the numbers. I mainly wanted to acknowledge that at least this rule wasn't so much about suppressing information as getting it from a different source (the escorts). I guess one possibility would be letting escorts state their stats at the top of the page with the photo, and then asking clients whether the stats match what the escort has posted about himself. If the answer's usually yes, that could end up saving a certain amount of space and repetition. But that system could still be less revealing than letting clients answer each stat question individually.

[Scorpio]

As the above responses indicate, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. For the most part, I think you're doing an excellent job at present.

 

I agree the press release types of reviews are of no value. However, if you decide to stop accepting them, I think the reviewer should be made aware of the reasons why the review is being rejected, so they can correct the situation if they desire.

 

While this is slightly off-topic, here are a few of my suggestions for some improvements to the non-narrative portion of the reviews.

 

Kisser: Change the responses from Yes, No and I don't know to something more descriptive, such as Yes - passionate French kisser; Yes - limited French kisser; Yes - mostly closed mouth; No; and I don't know we didn't kiss. The reviews don't always specify and having these choices might be easier for some reviewers.

 

In addition to the top, bottom, versatile question, which is beneficial but isn't always indicative of an individuals experience, maybe it could be expanded to:

 

Oral: Yes - receive only; Yes - give only; Yes - versatile; No; and I don't know - not with me or I don't know - not important to me.

 

Anal: Yes - top only; Yes - bottom only; Yes - versatile; No; and I don't know - not with me or I don't know - important to me.

 

I'm sure the wording could be improved but the changes might be beneficial, especially to users who might not be comfortable actually writing these details in their narratives. Just a thought, but the kissing change would be a great improvement.

[OneFinger]

For what it's worth, here's my opinion: [ol][li]Restrict new reviews to only those escorts with established (and verifiable) sites, agencies, or print/electronic ads.

[li]Reject "AOL hustler" reviews (who don't meet above criteria) and suggest the reviewer post in the Message Center.

[li]Continue to accept new escort reviews from new reviewers when both the escort and reviewer info can be verified.

[li]Reject "no show" reviews for previously unreviewed escorts but continue to post "no shows" for escorts who have one or more reviews.[/ol]HooBoy, I'm not sure what you mean by "...the only gents we should be concerned with are those who make a living escorting and advertise as such."

 

My regular escort makes his living at a day job and escorts part-time. He does advertise on a couple of other sites but certainly could not make his living exclusively from escorting because of the local demographics. In smaller, rural areas most escorts must have a more reliable source of income.

 

I agree that "press release" reviews should be returned to the submitter for further clarification or a more meaningful submittal. I also feel that only reviews submitted within 30 days of the appointment should be published.

[Guest tmbg]

Devon As I mentioned this is one of my suggestions directed to HooBoy's specific question regarding reviews. Obviously you disagree yet that disagreement does not change my views.

 

The review section is meant to benefit the client first, not the escort. Though it's great to see how a positive review can have such a financial impact for the escort. That escort however, is not running paid ads via reviews. Therefore, to maintain the validity of the review section I feel strongly certain (simple) measures should be in place.

 

The escort has his own section on this site and as a client not only do I not have access, if something were written about me that was incorrect I have zero opportunity to respond. So, your remark about being elite was uncalled for.

 

My feeling is that there needs to be as much balance as possible.

 

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest tmbg]

>Sorry Ritchie, I diagree right down the line on all of your

>points. Your criteria kills a lot of useful info and that

>is what this site is all about. I'll leave it at that for

>the moment.

 

HooBoy has asked for reader's suggestions. He has requested we keep our comments on topic. Instead of noting your disagreement of my views why not offer your own and allow HooBoy to make the final decision.

 

My feelings about what I would like are just that my feelings.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest starfucker]

>I'd like some input on what you think is a valid ESCORT

>review. I seem to be getting a lot of reviews on AOL

>hustlers, many of them no-shows.

 

I think it's important that these hustlers be exposed. I am very reluctant to hire an escort who doesn't have a good review here. If I see a no show or bad review, I figure I have saved some money!

 

>There is also an ongoing problem of people submitting what I

>consider "press releases" - one paragraph of "he was great,

>met all my expectations, will definately hire him again."

 

I agree, this type of review reveals little useful information. More details are needed to define the reasoning for this type of reviewer's opinion and typically more information is needed to describe this client physically and his view of what constitutes a successful appointment. The "press release" reviews should be bounced back if they are lacking in specifics.

 

>Plese do not respond with how much you hate this place or

>how I run it.

 

Hooboy, this is a great site! Thank you for your time and effort in keeping it up and free to those who appreciate it! :*

[duke37]

>For what it's worth, here's my opinion: [ol][li]Restrict new

>reviews to only those escorts with established (and

>verifiable) sites, agencies, or print/electronic ads.

>[li]Reject "AOL hustler" reviews (who don't meet above

>criteria) and suggest the reviewer post in the Message

>Center.

>[li]Continue to accept new escort reviews from new reviewers

>when both the escort and reviewer info can be verified.

>[li]Reject "no show" reviews for previously unreviewed

>escorts but continue to post "no shows" for escorts who have

>one or more reviews.

 

I agree. However a automated response sent out to the escort in "AOL hustler" type reviews with basic information on what we think constitutes a serious escort (stable email/web site/participation on sites other tham AOL)might be helpful. Certainly to them and maybe to us as well. It might make HooBoys workload a little lighter if he has an easier time checking out the credentials of new escorts. I would think it would take quite a while checking out the multiple AOL personas of some people. If the only info we get is a no show announcemt I'm not sure how much that helps.

 

For first time or "press release' type reviewers perhaps a style sheet could be sent out with examples or suggestions on what kind of information is important and should be added. And what should not be added. How many reviews do we see that say "I'll leave the intimate details to just us"? Well how much does that help. Thats the kind of thing I want to know. If HooBoy had such a form letter at his disposal it would be easy to send it off to someone who submits a "press release" style review. That way a reviewer could polish up and resubmit his review. Perhaps with more detail.

 

Of course HooBoy could take suggestions on what to put in these form letters. Hope this helps.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>The review section is meant to benefit the client first, not

>the escort.

 

Quite right. Unfortunately, if your suggestions were carried out, clients would learn about far fewer escorts from this site. And first time reviewers would be barred from posting their impressions of a date until some other "more experienced" reviewer had independently chimed in -- and of course, that more experienced reviewer wouldn't have been allowed to learn about the reviewer from this site, but instead from some other source, like, say, the AOL chatrooms that prompted this thread in the first place. Hard to see how that "benefits" clients.

 

If your opinion is that reviews by first-time reviewers of escorts who haven't been reviewed by repeat reviewers aren't valid, that's fine, and there's nothing to stop you from publicly encouraging other clients not to hire those escorts. But you're asking HooBoy to enforce that opinion and deprive clients with a different outlook of information. I think you're so focused on your mistrust of new escorts that you haven't thought through the implications of your reforms.

 

>The escort has his own section on this site and as a client

>not only do I not have access, if something were written

>about me that was incorrect I have zero opportunity to

>respond. So, your remark about being elite was uncalled for.

 

I know you have no way of knowing this (maybe HooBoy can verify), but on the Escorts only section (unlike in the reviews) we are not allowed to post a client's name or contact/personal info (although escorts sometimes try to get around this by giving hints about some of the letters in the name or email address). Even if an escort were to smear you on the Escorts Only section, it's hard to see what the damage to you would be apart from escorts banding together and vowing not to take your money. It's nice to think we're that organized, but it isn't so.

 

But that has nothing to do with why I used the word "elite," which at any rate is hardly an insult, since escorts often advertise themselves as offering "elite companionship." In fact, what I suggested was that rather than asking HooBoy to impose restrictions on this site and shrink the pool of reviewed escorts, you (or someone else) could start an "elite" site in which only escorts who have fit your extensive criteria could be reviewed only by clients who measure up to your credentials. People could see an escort reviewed on HooBoy, then, if they have doubts, check to see if he's reviewed on your more exclusive site. Some clients would insist on waiting until he had made it on to the "elite" site, and some wouldn't. The point is that they'd the choice and the information to make that choice.

 

Of course, this would require more work than simply asking HooBoy to stop posting reviews by non-insiders, but it would have the effect of expanding people's options, rather than contracting them.

 

>My feeling is that there needs to be as much balance as

>possible.

 

Surely more information, not less, is the way to achieve that goal?

[Traveller]

Every sentence I write. That said.

 

No Shows should only be for somewhat established scorts. AOL hustlers should be ignored, especially as I don't got it.

 

Press releases should also be ignored. I want to know if there was plowage or not, and what else happened. This is generally mostly subjective anyway (so why not put some facts in), which is worthless unless you trust the reviewer because of past history.

 

The most important part of the review concerns the objective facts, as opposed to the reviews. Putting in a good guess on height, weight AND MOST IMPORTANTLY DICK SIZE, as well as the rate, preferred position and kissing, can actually aid the rest of us in hiring hot fucking sex objects.

 

Just rules to live by.

 

Later.

 

PS. Only 11 more days until the Fat Man comes. Craig, how many muslims do you think I can shoot (and not just wing) by then?