New Trusted Reviewer Proposal.

[dublin laddie]

the op was too long to read

[dave1dave]

the op was too long to read

This also concerns me greatly.

So in another 100 or so posts this guy will become a TR ?

[jacksparrow2010]

I have PMed 10 members with the following proposal, (4 TRs, 4 established members non TR and 2 Escorts). Having received a great response I have changed the text to represent their opinions and ideas. We would now like to throw it open to the general public for discussion. Please read the resultant proposal and vote.

I maintain that EI have just about the best reviewing system on the net. But it is our forum that makes it such, and it is the constant policing by its members that keeps it so and keeps it as trustworthy as possible. I am always looking for a faster way of scanning a large review profile. The badges do make reviews stand out, but in fairness TRs are far and few between. You would be lucky to get 1 or two TRs on a review profile of 20 reviews. But upon scrutiny I would spot one or two of our buddies here. I have often PMed a member to get a “one on one” review. There may be other members on this same list but I don’t see them, because I don’t immediately recognise the established posters.

I think I would be happy with the majority of established members being TRs. I have spent some time examining reviews by our fellow members and could really find little or no fault. So I feel the system needs more TRs and here is a list of criteria I would suggest:

1. A list of all current TRs to be posted in sticky mode, in the established members lounge, allowing all established members to examine their suitability.

2. The criteria to automatically qualify for TR status is suggested as a reviewer that has at least 5-10 ten reviews and be established & currently active member

3. The TR must present his reviews in such a calibre & using standards expected of someone of his status. Trusted reviews should be informative, un-biased and should not contain any graphic content.

4. TRs must be actively posting. This is to ensure that they are answerable to the forum. If a member decides to take a break or cut back on his posts this would be acceptable.

5. A TR caught up in a fake scandal loses badge immediately


I propose we petition the Managers/Mods but I would value your feedback first.

Please vote on the Poll or discuss here.

Thanks in advance.
James Cork.

2 points I have highlighted i would have a problem with...

1. wat do you mean using standards expected of someone of his status?
(I agree with the point on not being graphic but that should be for all reviewers)

2. must be actively posting? to be answerable to the forum?
that is a bit unfair as some dont want to post and have no interest in the forum but may wish to be a TR... answerable to the forum sounds like its the mafia or something...
if E-I are happy with the reviews why would a poster then have to answear to the forum?

Captain J...

[Westsidex]

5. A TR caught up in a fake scandal loses badge immediately

I dont think this should ever be the case because,

(1) a positive review "could" still be a fake one

whereas

(2) a positive review from a trusted reviewer is highly unlikely to be fake.

A positive review from a trusted reviewer has a lot more credence to it than a positive review from anyone so if a trusted reviewer looses his badge then its the escort that is being punished more so than him especially considering he can start up with a new ip addy again.

I think the escorts earn their reviews so any punishment on anyone shouldnt in any way undo that.

my 0.02,
Westside.

[Sensual Delights]

This also concerns me greatly.

So in another 100 or so posts this guy will become a TR ?

No, in 100 posts he will become an established forum member, having access to the Established Forum.
For being a TR there are more conditions, things that this thread is looking at the moment.

[n73]

2 points I have highlighted i would have a problem with...

1. wat do you mean using standards expected of someone of his status?
(I agree with the point on not being graphic but that should be for all reviewers)

2. must be actively posting? to be answerable to the forum?
that is a bit unfair as some dont want to post and have no interest in the forum but may wish to be a TR... answerable to the forum sounds like its the mafia or something...
if E-I are happy with the reviews why would a poster then have to answear to the forum?

Captain J...

I completely agree with the good captain. I'm in reading posts every day and would therefore be in a position to read any request that it may be felt I need to be answerable to or for, but to be honest, I don't post much because I don't really have much to say. I am interested in the forum and find some of the posts and piss takes hilarious but I just don't normally post. I also don't see what's wrong with the current criteria, I'm currently trying to acquire my badge with one reference written (thanks Alyssa) the only prob I have is visiting girls with enough English to write a reference but I'll get there. So if I'm happy to go with the current criteria, why fix what's not broken ?

[JAMESCORK]

2 points I have highlighted i would have a problem with...

1. wat do you mean using standards expected of someone of his status?
(I agree with the point on not being graphic but that should be for all reviewers)

2. must be actively posting? to be answerable to the forum?
that is a bit unfair as some dont want to post and have no interest in the forum but may wish to be a TR... answerable to the forum sounds like its the mafia or something...
if E-I are happy with the reviews why would a poster then have to answear to the forum?

Captain J...

1. I agree that all reviews should not contain graphic content Jack, but any reviewer my review as he pleases. What is being proposed is that a TR especially must adhere to guidlines as deemed accepted by his peers.

2. If a reviewer wants to review and not post of course that is fine. But how can there be the trust unless he is known to us, and the only way he is known to us is to interact here. To be ‘answerable’ is probably too strong language. It is not as if every review will be thrown before judge and jury. But if a TR is seen to be submitting reviews that are not suitable or deemed fake etc. at least the members have the opportunity to question the matter with him personally.

[dave1dave]

No, in 100 posts he will become an established forum member, having access to the Established Forum.
For being a TR there are more conditions, things that this thread is looking at the moment.

Hey SD,

It's just that in the OP James states in point 2.
2. The criteria to automatically qualify for TR status is suggested as a reviewer that has at least 5-10 ten reviews and be established & currently active member

Would lead me to believe that 269 posts and and 5-10 posts are the only qualifying factors.
Correct me if I'm wrong

[JAMESCORK]

I completely agree with the good captain. I'm in reading posts every day and would therefore be in a position to read any request that it may be felt I need to be answerable to or for, but to be honest, I don't post much because I don't really have much to say. I am interested in the forum and find some of the posts and piss takes hilarious but I just don't normally post. I also don't see what's wrong with the current criteria, I'm currently trying to acquire my badge with one reference written (thanks Alyssa) the only prob I have is visiting girls with enough English to write a reference but I'll get there. So if I'm happy to go with the current criteria, why fix what's not broken ?

You are a prime example N73. The fact that you do frequent the boards as you say is sufficient in my mind for your eligibility. There is also no reason why the existing criteria may not work in conjunction with the new. If you do not want to post and feel you may never meet the minimum posts required, continue to apply using the old criteria.

And I feel the system is broken and in need of fixing. Since the introduction of the new criteria last Feb/Mar we have had only a handful of new TRs. The whole process is taking too long…

[Sam Spade]

Regarding the established member criteria on 269 posts.

You may also wish to include a time limit where a member has been active before he becomes eligable to become a TR, together with the quality of posts posted.

For example I should reach the required number of posts within 3 months of joining, which many here would say is too short a time to be a TR.

I won't be voting in this poll as in believe my time in this forum is again too short, I do however have great interest in it's outcome and good luck,