Removing previous reviews

[samlad]

It may be useful to rather than to say the previous review has been deleted to say the number of previous reviews that have been deleted.
The deleted reviews wouldn't count as now but by knowing that a reviewer has seen an escort 4 previous times for example may help a prospective client to make a decision who to see.
An escort with returning clients would be seen as a big plus.

The point really is to try and make the reviews system fair, easy to follow as a quick reference guide and to give a brief snap shot of an encounter. If a client sees an escort 10 times and is happy on every occasion, I don't think it adds credibility to mention the same thing 10 times. However, if the expected experience changes for whatever reason, itwould be simple enough to make that point. We can't really have a diary of events, for reasons I have explained above, even if they are limited to a number of copies.

It seems as of late, people are trying to over complicate a relatively simple and already useful system. To quote someone from earlier... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[El Gordo]

For people who don't remember why the rule was introduced originally: The number of reviews is listed in various places. That includes, for escorts, on the escort's profile or the "Top Reviewed" list, and, for reviewers, on the review itself, in the "Top Reviewers" list, and after the reviewer's name in lists of reviews. It was felt, correctly, that counting multiple reviews of the same escort by the same reviewer would create a misleading impression. It was argued, incorrectly, that disallowing multiple reviews was the only practical solution to that problem.

But allowing people to copy and paste doesn't affect the numbers of reviews and therefore doesn't create a misleading impression, so it shouldn't fall under the rule.

Also, this new interpretation represents a change of policy. We should be told when the rules change.

[anon361]

If there have been reviews in the past with previous review content included, going forward, this is something we will no longer allow.

Also, this new interpretation represents a change of policy. We should be told when the rules change.

I think we just were informed!

[El Gordo]

I think we just were informed!

True, but deleting part of someone's review is not really an appropriate way of informing people of rules changes.

[anon361]

True, but deleting part of someone's review is not really an appropriate way of informing people of rules changes.

I think it's more a case that Sam has decided to interpret the rules in a way to suit his decision.. Not to worry, in another 2 years time when Sam has moved on to greener pastures we can dig all this up again and maybe then the next manager will look at it from a different view point.

[samlad]

True, but deleting part of someone's review is not really an appropriate way of informing people of rules changes.

The rules were never imposed because this is a relatively new concept (well, only recent in terms of when Nicole and I became message board managers), so yes, quite often we do have to react rather than sit down and consider every single possible eventuality that may occur.

We allow one review, per escort, per client. Copying and pasting them everytime is not actually one review, it's a collection of reviews. In my opinion, this is just a case of people splitting hairs here. As I've stated earlier in this thread, reviews are supposed to be a quick reference tool to aid punters into making a decision on visiting a particular escort, and granted, punters wish to share their experiences with a particular escort, but we have to balance the two things here, so that things can be consistent and fair, without a review page becoming 'War and Peace'.

[samlad]

I think it's more a case that Sam has decided to interpret the rules in a way to suit his decision.. Not to worry, in another 2 years time when Sam has moved on to greener pastures we can dig all this up again and maybe then the next manager will look at it from a different view point.

Not really... if the rules needed changing, I could simply change them

[El Gordo]

The rules were never imposed because this is a relatively new concept (well, only recent in terms of when Nicole and I became message board managers), so yes, quite often we do have to react rather than sit down and consider every single possible eventuality that may occur.

We allow one review, per escort, per client. Copying and pasting them everytime is not actually one review, it's a collection of reviews. In my opinion, this is just a case of people splitting hairs here. As I've stated earlier in this thread, reviews are supposed to be a quick reference tool to aid punters into making a decision on visiting a particular escort, and granted, punters wish to share their experiences with a particular escort, but we have to balance the two things here, so that things can be consistent and fair, without a review page becoming 'War and Peace'.

New? The current rule was added two years ago. It was interpreted consistently in one way until very recently. Suddenly that changed.

Also, no one ever forced anyone to read a long review. I often stop reading a review when I get bored. If the old review is pasted in at the bottom then those of us with short attention spans are free to ignore that part. So I don't see how deleting it serves any useful purpose, and it means it's not there for anyone who wants to read it.

If my memory is correct, I've done this with four escorts, most recently with Mandy a few months ago. The reason was always the same. I had written an accurate review of the first appointment, but after visiting the lady regularly I felt I had more information to add. The original review was as valid as ever, so I included it in the new review. In the case of Diana M's reviews, now gone as she opted out when she retired, this was done for me, by AdStaff when the 1 review per reviewer rule was introduced two years ago.

[anon361]

Not really... if the rules needed changing, I could simply change them

Don't get me wrong Sam, I'm with you on this one, I don't see the point of copying old reviews either, if there is a certain aspect of the previous review you wish to carry forward do so by just wording it into your new review, no need to copy and paste of write it again verbatim.

As for the rule Sam, I think you should take it under counsel that this was allowed, it was officially stated although there are too many hits when searching to be arsed trying to find where exactly but as one of the members that was around at the time I can tell you Nicole's and your interpretation of this rule is a U-Turn to what was previously advised so maybe a rule amendment is necessary.

[samlad]

New? The current rule was added two years ago. It was interpreted consistently in one way until very recently. Suddenly that changed.

Also, no one ever forced anyone to read a long review. I often stop reading a review when I get bored. If the old review is pasted in at the bottom then those of us with short attention spans are free to ignore that part. So I don't see how deleting it serves any useful purpose, and it means it's not there for anyone who wants to read it.

If my memory is correct, I've done this with four escorts, most recently a few months ago. The reason was always the same. I had written an accurate review of the first appointment, but after visiting the lady regularly I felt I had more information to add. The original review was as valid as ever, so I included it in the new review. In the case of Diana M's reviews, now gone as she opted out when she retired, this was done for me, by AdStaff when the 1 review per reviewer rule was introduced two years ago.

Ad Staff are no longer in charge of the rules on the message boards, nor are they in charge of the reviews system, and as I've said already, moving forward, this is not something we will continue to do. The Ad Staff structure has actually changed in the past few months, so if this has been done on your behalf, it's not something that will be continued.