Bogus Reviews/Blacklisting by Escorts

[Guest Hanover]

>Hanover, I might be a moron,

>but I do have a

>sense of humour. However,

>I can assure you a.

>my post was not meant

>to be ironic and b.

>it was not a joke.

>

 

I was out of order using "moron". A momentary lapse for which I apologise. It is interesting to know that you are serious, your sense of humour notwithstanding. I had hoped that you weren't.

[Losgatan]

>Still, I appreciate your taking the

>time to answer my post,

>and I have to admire

>such dogged loyalty to Hooboy.

>Yours, I'm afraid, is an

>impossible task.

 

CZ,

 

My loyalty is not to HooBoy but to this board which I believe serves an extremely valuable service. And, since I know that the board wouldn't exist without Hoo, I'm more than willing to overlook his occasional gaffes and temper tantrums.

 

And I truly do believe that this whole sorry incident was just a combination of the two.

 

So, please accept my invitation to join into some of the mainstream discussions here -- the ones this board was created to foster. I'm sure you've got some interesting insights to share.

[Guest regulation]

As I've said elsewhere on this message board, I don't think one can make a living as an escort for very long without telling plenty of lies to plenty of people. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that, having discovered that positive reviews on this site can have a positive effect on their income, escorts are increasingly posting false reviews or trying to obtain positive reviews in other dishonest ways. I don't agree that the poster of false reviews will soon be exposed by a negative review from a genuine client who hires him and has a bad experience; I've seen too often that a negative review of an escort is frequently followed by one or more glowing reviews so that the negative review is pushed farther down the list and is less likely to be read.

 

I have no suggestions to offer on dealing with this problem. I can say only that as the false reviews increasingly crowd out the real ones this site will become a less and less reliable guide.

[Guest CZ]

>OK, CZ, I will take up

>your challenge and answer your

>points one by one as

>dispassionately as I can.

 

>Please tell me how (reviews) are

>any less "worthless" than chatter

>on the message board.

 

As phrased that's a hard one to answer, but let me point out that I didn't say reviews were worthless, but that they were 'virtually worthless.' (I realize that won't strike you as much of a difference, but read on.) Message board chatter is likelier to give you more useful information precisely because it IS chatter, not the carefully composed & agenda-haunted artifact so many reviews end up being. Nor does chatter--which is fleeting by nature--have that set-in-stone quality of reviews slowly accumulating, one on top of the other, in an escort's dossier, often with such similarity of wording that one suspects them of being the escort's own--even when that's NOT the case. But most of all, chatter is arguably worth more (i.e. more reliable) than the official 'reputation' an escort acquires in the Review Section just because what's said about and by him hasn't first been processed by Hooboy.

 

If that's too convoluted a thought, just consider what sort of rep SeanWorld Escort had back in the days when he was Hooboy's great buddy & could point to a stack of glowing reviews (with a record-breaking 20 or more of them conveniently processed by H in a matter of days!); then compare it to the rep he now has--after self-destructing via his own words on the message boards (with a little help from Big Joey & others.) Then do the same before-and-after for BillyBoy, and maybe you'll get what I'm driving it. And while you're at it, bear in mind that the Overrated/Underrated thread began because of this disconnect-- when someone finally dared to question the supremacy of some of this site's sacred cows, and, to Hooboy's great distress, started naming names.

 

Apropos of my wondering if some clients were trading good reviews for future discounts, you write:

 

>Then I would guess that means

>the client was sufficiently satisfied

>to *want* to see the

>escort again, even if at

>a lower price. Gee,

>far be it for you

>to be fooled into thinking

>that an escort the reviewer

>wants to see again might

>actually be any good.

>I fear you are being

>too cynical by half here.

 

And you're not being cynical enough. Or maybe not experienced enough to know that there are some escorts one wouldn't see again at their original fee, but who'd do nicely enough at a significant reduction in price. Besides, the issue here (as in the 'overrated' thread) is the apparent exaggeration used in many favorable reviews of escorts (like the sacred cows) who are in truth hardly better than so-so.

 

>HooBoy doesn't change any of the

>submissions. (He's never changed any

>of mine, and no one

>has ever complained that he

>has changed any of theirs.

>So case closed.)

 

Case never brought: I didn't claim he had.

 

>He does occasionally refuse to

>post the odd (particularly negative)

>review when he feels he

>can prove it's a fraud.

>I don't see how

>that undermines the reviews that

>*are* published.

 

Oh, Lord, if you can't see that, what's the use? But your careful use of such qualifier/dodge wordings as 'occasionally,' 'the odd' and 'feels' suggests you DO see it. Without directly quoting a certain retired Chicago escort (now officially regarded as the Osama bin Laden of the site), let me remind you that Hoo's sensitivity to fraud in a negative review seems directly related to his past and/or hoped-for intimacy with the escort in question.

 

Apropos of my allowing that deceit/danger warnings served a valuable purpose in a review, you write:

 

>They do do that, but only

>if people post reviews detailing

>such experiences.

 

Hardly! Far better that such warnings be posted in the message center--tersely & quickly--than be expressed in drawn-out laments of abuse in a review that might not appear for a month or more.

 

Then, after several paragraphs devoted to comparing what you'd read about & what you experienced with a handful of escorts (info not exactly relevant to making your point) you say:

 

>From this I conclude that

>*any* review concerning an escort

>you plan to see is

>"worth reading". Whether is

>is worth "believing" is another

>matter.

 

But is it? If you're truly going to hold off 'believing' a review until you've been with the model, why would it be worth reading in the first place? Or to put the question another way: of what PRACTICAL use was having that review in making up your mind whether to engage the escort?

 

>A good review is not one

>that just says "He was

>great. Hire him."

>It tells me what the

>escort is into. It

>tells me what to avoid.

> It tells me something

>about the escort's personality.

>If it tells me he

>is a baseball freak for

>example (as one of my

>favorite escorts is), I'll know

>to take him to the

>ballpark if that sort of

>thing interests me. This

>is why reviews are such

>multidimentional tools. You can't

>just reduce them to "rate

>your escort from 1 to

>10".

 

Here, I really can't argue against what you're saying. That's because we have widely divergent notions of what seeing escorts is all about. Frankly, my interest in what an escort might have to offer is a good deal less than "multidimensional"; you might even say that it is singleminded in its focus on matters more carnal than, say, going out to the ballpark for a double-header. I fully realize that many regulars here (maybe most) prefer to see what I regard as a business transaction in terms of some form of 'friendship.' That's their call, and I'm not going to knock it. But when it becomes the basis for making a point (as it does here), all I can do is answer "If you say so. . ." and move on.

 

Concerning whether escorts' ads usually provide enough verbal & visual input for an informed decision, you write:

 

>Most adds don't, or at least

>they don't provide enough.

>Busy escort's often don't answer

>mails from those who are

>just fishing. You wouldn't

>believe the amount of "noise"

>they have to put up

>with -- people who hassle

>them for personal info without

>any intention of hiring them.

>I don't see the

>disadvantage in having all the

>relevent info set down in

>half a dozen reviews.

 

Again, our very different outlooks on escorting defeat all meaningful exchange here. I have no trouble in telling whether an escort interests me if the photos (even a single one) truly reflects reality and the ad copy contains all the relevant details. And I have to say that I've never had to wait for a callback or return email after deciding to make the initial contact. (Incidentally, I know all about what flakes clients can be from having 'managed' a few escorts myself over the years! It's quite mind-boggling, really. . .)

 

Along with some valid points (and some unarguable ones), you take me to task for things I never said, or even implied. Such as:

 

>And "radically subjective impressions" are inherently

>worthless?

 

Well, some might say so (within this context), but I didn't.

 

You also 'had news' for me in several areas.

 

>Most people don't consult

>the message center. And

>most who do aren't glued

>to it 24 hours a

>day. It was months

>before I even looked at

>the message center. Most

>of the posts are boring. . .

 

Do you really know how many consult the message center as opposed to the reviews? If so, share those percentages with us please. (I always like news.) And do you really find most posts boring? (But NOT those $2.50 valentine card reviews?) Well, OK. . .

 

>I found the reviews immensely

>useful right

>away. I travel a

>lot, and could read up

>on the escorts city by

>city, even arranging to make

>side detours to see some

>of those who interested me.

 

Which is it, then--right away or eventually? And let me add here that I'm impressed by your apparent hunger for information, even, it seems, for its own sake. As for acquiring it, you go on to claim that

 

>. . .none of that would

>have been even remotely possible

>if I was trying to

>navigate blind through the chaotic

>maelstrom of the message board.

>The reviews had stats,

>rates, photos, and told me

>what the escorts did or

>didn't do. they told

>me exactly what I wanted

>to know.

 

And yet, all of that is much more efficiently got from other sources--from Rentboy & the many websites like it to the most obscure chatroom self-advertising--and all of it without the moderating hand of someone who giveth & taketh away as it suits his purpose. Judging from your (almost sinister-sounding) handle, I doubt there's much going on in the escort world that escapes your keen gaze anyway. All you'd need to get truly candid additional info from the message boards is--as I never tire of saying--a powerful & reliable search engine. But I can see that I haven't been able to persuade you (or, indeed, many others here) that the review section is really little more than a vehicle of control and seat of power for Hooboy himself, not the boon to humanity you make it out to be.

 

>The reviews are the

>heart of the site, and

>if they didn't exist, you

>would be left chatting with

>the other half dozen types

>who come here just to

>mouth off or (more legitimately)

>for online company. The

>site would be as dead

>as the now proverbial parrot.

 

Be assured I don't come here just to mouth off or to find online company--at least not any more than you do, my friend. I come here for diversion and information. And in that regard, let me remind you that I never said I didn't 'enjoy' the reviews; I do, although probably not in the way intended by the clients, the escorts & the websmaster. But the fact is that I enjoy the message center far more--and that includes these spirited exchanges with fellow-posters like you, who take the time and troube to address the issues I raise.

[Guest jeffOH]

Regulation, I have also noticed the "glowing reviews" that pop

up following a negative review of an escort and have wondered if

this was some sort of orchestrated tactic to move the negative

review on down the list. Particularly when the "glowing review"

is from a client who has already reviewed the escort one or more

times. What's the purpose of this? This happened recently and the

reviewer basically rehashed everything from his first review of

the escort. Could someone explain to me why it's necessary for

a client to review an escort more than once? Couldn't they just

get on the message board and reiterate their evaluation of the

escort.

[Losgatan]

I can only speak for myself.

 

I recently reviewed Adam from San Francisco a second time for two reasons.

 

1) The second review was posted exactly one year after the first and I wanted to stress how consistently wonderful our times together have been for me, and

 

2) I was reporting on a completely different type of "date" -- a 2-day trip to Las Vegas during which we scheduled a couple of 3-ways.

 

No, I wasn't trying to push a negative review further down the stack. He just doesn't have any.

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

CZ, I am impressed and pleasantly surprised. With some people on the message board, I would by now be dodging flung insults and ad hominem attacks, or trying to puzzle my way past obscure non sequiturs. You have taken my post seriously and at face value, and have responded with a number of good and enlightening points. I flatter myself in thinking that with a few more tweaks we can probably reach substantial agreement.

 

>I didn't

>say reviews were worthless, but

>that they were 'virtually worthless.'

>(I realize that won't strike

>you as much of a

>difference, but read on.)

 

OK, you are right on both counts. You did say "virtually" and I see "virtually" no difference. ;-)

 

>Message board chatter is likelier

>to give you more useful

>information precisely because it IS

>chatter, not the carefully composed

>& agenda-haunted artifact so many

>reviews end up being.

 

I am still not convinced here. Insofar as I can tell, the chatter is *more* agenda driven. Now having said this, I want to be clear on one point. Individual reviews *do* need deconstruction before they can be most fruitfully exploited. But the same surely also applies to chatter. I don't see how one or the other enjoys an advantage in this particular respect.

 

>Nor does chatter--which is fleeting

>by nature--have that set-in-stone quality

>of reviews slowly accumulating, one

>on top of the other,

>in an escort's dossier, often

>with such similarity of wording

>that one suspects them of

>being the escort's own--even when

>that's NOT the case.

 

I would argue that this is because you fail the read the reviews in light of one another. Each new review, instead of just forming a new sedementary layer, shines new light on the reviews that have already been written. As such, I see the accumulation of reviews, not as brick work, but as collective composition with each new review adding a few more brush strokes. This may reflect differences in epistemology. Perhaps you can't see reviews as I do, and perhaps I can't assimilate useful info from chatter the way you claim to.

 

But

>most of all, chatter is

>arguably worth more (i.e. more

>reliable) than the official 'reputation'

>an escort acquires in the

>Review Section just because what's

>said about and by him

>hasn't first been processed by

>Hooboy.

 

In case you haven't noticed, the chatter is no less "processed" by HooBoy than the reviews. When we get out of line, he calls us to order. At times he deletes threads or even specific messages. If he were really pushing some dark personal agenda with the reviews, why wouldn't he be doing it with the chatter. And don't tell me it's because people can catch him doing it on the message board. It's not as easy to spot as you think. A couple of times he has deleted some of my postings and sent me a message to tell me why. If he hadn't sent me those messages, I probably would never have know as I don't usually check back to see if my postings are still there. Note that the search engines you seem to have great faith in would be of no use in fighting or detecting this "processing". At some basic level we have to either trust his judgement about these things or join some other site. But this trust applies just as much to the chatter record as to the reviews.

 

>

>If that's too convoluted a thought,

>just consider what sort of

>rep SeanWorld Escort had back

>in the days when he

>was Hooboy's great buddy &

>could point to a stack

>of glowing reviews (with a

>record-breaking 20 or more of

>them conveniently processed by H

>in a matter of days!);

>then compare it to the

>rep he now has--after self-destructing

>via his own words on

>the message boards (with a

>little help from Big Joey

>& others.) Then do

>the same before-and-after for BillyBoy,

>and maybe you'll get what

>I'm driving it.

 

Actually this is quite relevant to a point I will be making a bit later below. Has it occured to you that whatever Billyboy's ethical challenges and Sean's self-destructive urge to one-up his e-mail opponents, we have really very little reason to doubt they they are both in their own ways excellent bed partners? That info comes to us largely from the reviews. More on that later.

 

And

>while you're at it, bear

>in mind that the Overrated/Underrated

>thread began because of this

>disconnect-- when someone finally dared

>to question the supremacy of

>some of this site's sacred

>cows, and, to Hooboy's great

>distress, started naming names.

 

Ah, but by this line or reasoning the chatter has acted at best as a corrective to, and not as a substitute for, the reviews. I would argue it has not done this very well, however, for several reasons. I read a bunch of good reviews. Someone comes up and tells me thinks that they are hyped and that some other escorts have been under-rated in their reviews. What exactly am I suppose to make of such a claim? What does it tell me that I didn't already know? That I should excercise caution in reading reviews? I already knew that. That the writer dissagrees with the review? Yes, well, so what? What does this add to my useful pool of knowledge? If on the other hand the chatter says "I don't think this particuliar escort is as hot as his reviews say, and this is why:...", then I have something to work from. But would not the best way to express this be the posting of another review? Even if you subscribe to paranoid visions of an evil HooBoy doctoring and censoring all the reviews to protect his favorites, what makes the message board any less subject to such manipulations.

 

>

>And you're not being cynical enough.

> Or maybe not experienced

>enough to know that there

>are some escorts one wouldn't

>see again at their original

>fee, but who'd do nicely

>enough at a significant reduction

>in price.

 

I am not sure how we would resolve this one CZ. I can't see escorts that way. I either enjoy them a lot or I don't see them a second time. There is no escort whom I would enjoy for $100 but not at $200. Whether I see him again would be conditioned by whether I could afford him, not by whether I got value for money. If it isn't sterling, I wouldn't buy it for a dolloar. Obviously you experience things differently.

 

Besides, the

>issue here (as in the

>'overrated' thread) is the apparent

>exaggeration used in many favorable

>reviews of escorts (like the

>sacred cows) who are in

>truth hardly better than so-so.

 

Again I think our problem relates back to the fact that these escorts are not "so-so". They just appeal more to some clients than to others. I learn to read the reviews in light of what I can determine from the author's tastes. Your statement above still betrays the view that each escort has a standard objective appeal. It just isn't so.

 

>Without directly quoting a certain

>retired Chicago escort (now officially

>regarded as the Osama bin

>Laden of the site), let

>me remind you that Hoo's

>sensitivity to fraud in a

>negative review seems directly related

>to his past and/or hoped-for

>intimacy with the escort in

>question.

 

This is an unsubstantiated claim made by someone who at the same time admitted to planting false fake reviews on his competition. Believe him if you wish. To me it's like saying "Believe me now 'cause I've lied maliciously in the past." He *could* be telling the truth, but I am not going to credit his word until and unless he can come up with *very* convincing evidence. He is a self-tainted source.

 

>Far better that such

>warnings be posted in the

>message center--tersely & quickly--than be

>expressed in drawn-out laments of

>abuse in a review that

>might not appear for a

>month or more.

 

They appear in three or fewer days normally (in my experience). And nothing stops the reviewer from also posting a more immediate but (I would argue) more ephemeral warning on the message board in the meantime.

 

>

>Then, after several paragraphs devoted to

>comparing what you'd read about

>& what you experienced with

>a handful of escorts (info

>not exactly relevant to making

>your point) you say:

 

Well, technically nine escorts would be two handfuls, but I will let that pass. ;-)

 

>

>>From this I conclude that

>>*any* review concerning an escort

>>you plan to see is

>>"worth reading". Whether is

>>is worth "believing" is another

>>matter.

>

>But is it? If you're

>truly going to hold off

>'believing' a review until you've

>been with the model, why

>would it be worth reading

>in the first place?

 

You are the one who is assuming I should hold off believing a review until I have been with the guy. I never said that. What I meant is that each review should be weighed against any other evidence available. Normally this would consist of the other reviews concerning that escort. But it could also include the internal consistency of the review, the other reviews written by that reviewer, a rebuttal by the escort, any ads the escort may have posted, anything the escort may tell me over the phone or through e-mail, and yes, even chatter on the message board. But I would look at the other reviews first.

 

>Or to put the question

>another way: of what PRACTICAL

>use was having that review

>in making up your mind

>whether to engage the escort?

 

Because the chatterer rarely if ever describes the experience he had with the escort in any detail. Very few have the necessary self-discipline. And if he did, then he would be posting a quasi-review. And if he was, then why not post the real thing?

 

>

>>A good review is not one

>>that just says "He was

>>great. Hire him."

>>It tells me what the

>>escort is into. It

>>tells me what to avoid.

>> It tells me something

>>about the escort's personality.

>>If it tells me he

>>is a baseball freak for

>>example (as one of my

>>favorite escorts is), I'll know

>>to take him to the

>>ballpark if that sort of

>>thing interests me. This

>>is why reviews are such

>>multidimentional tools. You can't

>>just reduce them to "rate

>>your escort from 1 to

>>10".

>

>Here, I really can't argue against

>what you're saying. That's

>because we have widely divergent

>notions of what seeing escorts

>is all about. Frankly, my

>interest in what an escort

>might have to offer is

>a good deal less than

>"multidimensional"; you might even say

>that it is singleminded in

>its focus on matters more

>carnal than, say, going out

>to the ballpark for a

>double-header. I fully realize that

>many regulars here (maybe most)

>prefer to see what I

>regard as a business transaction

>in terms of some form

>of 'friendship.' That's their call,

>and I'm not going to

>knock it. But when it

>becomes the basis for making

>a point (as it does

>here), all I can do

>is answer "If you say

>so. . ." and move

>on.

 

Unfortunately this lies at the heart of the matter. I don't need either the reviews or the chatter to tell me an escort looks hot (though the review normally does come with a photo). A review will tell me whether the photo is authentic, as may the chatter. It will also tell me if the escort is a thief or abusive or a fraud, as may the chatter. But the chatter is far less likely to tell me how the escort comes across as a person (though I suppose it could. See my comment above re discipline).

 

Ironically, though, in some rare instances the chatter does reveal something about the escort that the review does or cannot. This brings me back to the cases of Sean and Billyboy. No one could see those two as we now do without the chatter. What I find ironic is that, in this case the chatter information is of no value to *you*, as you pretend not to care what the escort is like as a person (whereas I care a lot) so long as he is a good lay. Well, we have no reason to doubt that both Billyboy and Sean are/were.

 

I guess this leads to the one important truth that comes out of this particular exchange. There is a place for both the reviews AND the chatter -- that the site would lose by losing either. Though I did not consult the message board in almost the first year I was aware of this site's existence, and only lurked (as most people do) for a few months after that, I now participate. My point that people should not slag escorts on the message board without posting formal reviews still stands. Posters should use both media with the same handle so we can know more about them and their tastes, and so assess their views accordingly.

 

I have no

>trouble in telling whether an

>escort interests me if the

>photos (even a single one)

>truly reflects reality and the

>ad copy contains all the

>relevant details.

 

Those are pretty big "ifs".

 

>Do you really know how many

>consult the message center as

>opposed to the reviews?

>If so, share those percentages

>with us please.

 

I can only give you a deduced impression, of course, though I suppose HooBoy could provide you with hard numbers if he was so inclined. Let's look at this logically. Many more people have posted reviews than participate on the message board (lurking does not count as participating, in the same way as people who just read reviews don't). If you want to look simply in terms of lurkers and readers, just use your fancy search engines and check out all the references to this site on the web. Do they refer to the message board or to the reviews?.

 

And do

>you really find most posts

>boring?

 

Yes, I do.

 

(But NOT those $2.50

>valentine card reviews?) Well, OK.

>. .

 

Some reviews are more interesting than others, but I dilligently read all those relating to escorts in cities I might visit and whose pictures (not normally available on the message board) interest me.

 

>

>>I found the reviews imensely

>>useful right

>>away. I travel a

>>lot, and could read up

>>on the escorts city by

>>city, even arranging to make

>>side detours to see some

>>of those who interested me.

>

>Which is it, then--right away or

>eventually?

 

Both, of course. The first for the planning and the second for the execution.

 

And let me add

>here that I'm impressed by

>your apparent hunger for information,

>even, it seems, for its

>own sake. As for acquiring

>it, you go on to

>claim that

>

>>. . .none of that would

>>have been even remotely possible

>>if I was trying to

>>navigate blind through the chaotic

>>maelstrom of the message board.

>>The reviews had stats,

>>rates, photos, and told me

>>what the escorts did or

>>didn't do. they told

>>me exactly what I wanted

>>to know.

>

>And yet, all of that is

>much more efficiently got from

>other sources--from Rentboy & the

>many websites like it to

>the most obscure chatroom self-advertising--and

>all of it without the

>moderating hand of someone who

>giveth & taketh away as

>it suits his purpose

 

Trust me. I have book marked all those sites. They do not contain the wealth of information you can find in the reviews. Of course, if all you are interested in is how long his dick is and how much he charges.... But I don't see info on that in the message board.

 

Judging

>from your (almost sinister-sounding) handle,

>I doubt there's much going

>on in the escort world

>that escapes your keen gaze

>anyway.

 

LOL. It's a hobby. But like every collector, I have far less than what I would like to have. :-)

 

All you'd need

>to get truly candid additional

>info from the message boards

>is--as I never tire of

>saying--a powerful & reliable search

>engine.

 

Yes, but as I have indicated already, it isn't an either/or proposition. And it should not be treated as such. My original intervention was not an objection to a discussion on whether particular escorts were hyped or not, but on this being discussed by those who couldn't be bothered to express their opinions in formal reviews. I don't deny the utility of the chatter. I just don't think it is a suitable exclusive medium. If I could only have one (the message board or the reviews) you would never see me here. I would go further. If I was charged for access to the message board and the reviews were free, you would never see me here.

 

But I can

>see that I haven't been

>able to persuade you (or,

>indeed, many others here) that

>the review section is really

>little more than a vehicle

>of control and seat of

>power for Hooboy himself, not

>the boon to humanity you

>make it out to be.

 

You are right. You won't convince me or many others. There is one very good reason why this is the case. Your ascertion defies our direct experience. The reviews have proven invaluable to me. My life is better because of the reviews. The message board just eats up my time when I have nothing better to do.

 

>Be assured I don't come here

>just to mouth off or

>to find online company--at least

>not any more than you

>do, my friend. I

>come here for diversion and

>information.

 

OK, that's fair enough. I don't find the message board as informative or, apparently, nearly as diverting as you do (though enough for me to participate).

 

But the fact

>is that I enjoy the

>message center far more--and that

>includes these spirited exchanges with

>fellow-posters like you, who take

>the time and troube to

>address the issues I raise.

 

Let me return the compliment. If most of the chatter were as reasoned and informative as our current discussion, I would find the board far more interesting than I do. :-)

 

Esc-Tracker

(who doesn't see *anything* sinister in his handle, and who prefers to see himself as trying to save gem-like escorts from undeserved obscurity, in the same way St Bernards save mountain climbers lost in the snows) <g>

[Guest jeffOH]

>I can only speak for myself.

>

>

>I recently reviewed Adam from San

>Francisco a second time for

>two reasons.

>

>1) The second review was posted

>exactly one year after the

>first and I wanted to

>stress how consistently wonderful our

>times together have been for

>me, and

>

>2) I was reporting on a

>completely different type of "date"

>-- a 2-day trip to

>Las Vegas during which we

>scheduled a couple of 3-ways.

>

>

>No, I wasn't trying to push

>a negative review further down

>the stack. He just

>doesn't have any.

 

Losgastan, I was referring to a particular situation where an

escort received a negative review, he responded with a fairly

reasonable rebuttal and on the heels of that a review that

shared nothing new about the escort showed up.

 

I think that reviewing an escort when there is something new

(3-way, 4-way or more)to share is great. But if all you have to say is that he's been consistent, well maybe a sentence or two

added on to your original review would be adequate. I have

several wonderful reviews that I greatly appreciate, but if

someone is scrolling through 20 reviews with 1/2 of those from the same 4 or 5 clients, I think it just gets to be a bit

redundant. We've all seen them, "He's still wonderful, he's the

best...blah, blah, blah." I just think that for efficiency's sake

adding an update to an original would be best, otherwise it would

get to be quite cumbersome scrolling through an escort's reviews

loaded down with duplicates.

 

I didn't even know about this site until I had 3 or 4 reviews

and when I finally saw/read them--it was kind of weird. I mean

I truly appreciated them. Maybe I'm a bit modest, but I thought

some of them were a little over the top, you know what I mean?

I guess I knew it was all true, but I'd never thought about it

like that. This site has an upside and a downside. The up is that

it's been great for business and it's free advertising. The down

is that there is increased pressure to perform up to that level

all the time, which even the best of us can't do 100% of the time.

 

When someone tells me they saw me on this site I think, " Well

great they really know what all I'm into." But on the other hand

it can create some unrealistic expectations from a client. Are

there any other escorts who know what I'm talking about?

I guess I'd rather have one great review from a client than having too much of a build-up. You know, Less is Best and Quality not Quantity.

[Guest Hanover]

Regulation has expressed the basic problem well. I too have noticed that negative reviews are often followed by a series of suspiciously positive ones. It is just too easy and tempting for escorts and their friends to manipulate this site to their own advantage. Hence the value of negative reviews, although even they must be treated with scepticism. I see no solution either. I doubt there is one.

[Guest CZ]

Clearly, we two could go on & on in like vein into the next millennium. All of your points are well taken (even the ones I disagree with), but, as I just said in the Lounge, we are probably putting everyone else to sleep--as stimulating is this may be to the two of us! When all is said & done, I suppose my basic quarrel with the reviews comes down to distaste for Hooboy's webmaster style, and an instinctive mistrust of anyone with actual or potential conflicts of interest who assumes the role of arbiter. But since this inevitably leads to very frank (and to some, unfair) criticism of Hooboy--and to his not-always-rational response to it--the discussion shifts (literally) to another forum. And I look forward to seeing & reading you there.

[Guest Rickyday]

I have to aggree with Al commets on this site. Even if escorts use this site to post there own adds or have clients post them for them, well that is up to them. I have posted a few adds for some of the escorts I have used. The ones that are lets say not exciting to me dosn't mean they are not exciting to others. I have only had one truly neg experince with an escort from escort4you and I did post it. Other wise just because I don't like what the escort and I did in bed was not great dosen't mean that most will not like him. Tell me how would I post on someone that dosn't have the same chemistry as myslef. You don't know that until you meet and try it out. You can't blame the escort for that. I find this site perfect for me. I pick and chose who I am going to be with. The longer I look and read the better I am getting at picking the right escort for me.

 

I just did a lot of checking on an escort that I wanted to be with for a few days in NYC. After reading his reviews on Hooboy's site I made the decision to call him. I called and worte for a few weeks and came to New York to have one of the best two days in my life. It was because of Hooboy's site that helped me weed out the bad from the good.

 

Remember these escorts are not machines. They are people also!! Lets not forget that. This is there job and most do it very well. This is not a game for them. Well at least not the ones I have been with. As for being blacklisted I guess it could happen. I am not sure if escorts have a site for them to talk about there clients or not. I would hope not and if they do I hope they don't use our names. I would guess if you get blacklisted maybe you didn't think more about what happen between you and your escort? You each have to match. It is a two way street. I have picked a bad one but and have picked some great ones. Most I find are truly nice and caring people. But I have found that some of the neg feedbacks were only one or two when an escort had 10 good or great ones. Bogus reviews I guess anyone can write one. It just seems to me that the escorts that I have used don't have the time to write reviews. They are busy working hard for us clients. Ricky

[Guest BimmerMan]

How about reviews posted by someone who claim to be educated and older when it is seems quite obvious that the review written requires grammatical corrections. Written by the escort himself to boost declining sales calls?

[Losgatan]

Please remember that a signficant number of the reviews here are written by foreign visitors whose English is not always perfect.

 

The same can be said of many escort posts in the message center (Stephan LaCoste being the prime example.)

 

Bad English doesn't always mean something was written by a younger, uneducated person.