Fake Reviews

[Monk]

Sniffing out fake reviews has been one of UG's most popular pastimes over the years. It's obvious that agencies (especially) and the savvier indies use fake reviews as marketing tools to promote their services (especially when introducing someone new to the market). When researching a possible rendezvous, does an obviously fake review immediately turn you off? Or, by now (since it's such an abused and widespread practice), do you simply take it in stride?

[ark123]

Sniffing out fake reviews has been one of UG's most popular pastimes over the years. It's obvious that agencies (especially) and the savvier indies use fake reviews as marketing tools to promote their services (especially when introducing someone new to the market). When researching a possible rendezvous, does an obviously fake review immediately turn you off? Or, by now (since it's such an abused and widespread practice), do you simply take it in stride?

Despite their fake reviews, treasureNYC always provide a nice service. I just took it with a grind of salt.

[curious]

... a grind of salt.

For when a grain just ISN'T enough!

[RuffToy]

Whenever I see a provider with a fake review....I bring my fake dick.

[scoochamenz1]

i bring my fake money

[fairemily]

How do you guys know when a review is a fake?

[genius]

How do you guys know when a review is a fake?
To quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it"

It is hard to define the criterion but perhaps an overabundance of effusive descriptions of the woman and the experience and usually followed by the words "well worth the money".

[seeker6591]

How do you guys know when a review is a fake?



1. when the writing style of the ad matches the style of the review.

2. when 2 different reviews over a period of time have a similiar format or writing style.

[ark123]

How do you guys know when a review is a fake?

The asian joints are easy to spot.

[justlooking]

1. When it doesn't have a single negative or even slightly negative thing to say.

2. When it mainly focusses on non-sexual aspects as subjects of its efusive praise.

3. When it speaks only in (highly complimentary) generalities.

[fairemily]

Some of my reviews are all good and some of them are non-sexual and some wrote "worth the money" and I know all are real reviews. I would be angry if a friend wrote one without asking me, you have to experience the session for the review to sound believable.

Is the only way to prove real reviews is to have lots of them. I think the real test is getting reviewed by a respected and known hobbyist. Then again I was reviewed on another site by a guy who reviewed alot of providers (40+)and his review was real but off. I think anything written on UG by respected members can legitimize a provider. As an independent without reviews if it difficult to generate buiseness.

[justlooking]

Of course. None of us is saying our criteria are infallible. Only that that's what makes our antennae tingle.

[rough1]

Do not post links to other forum sites. Do not direct anyone to other forum/review sites. This includes ANY Yahoo Group of any kind, for any reason.

Do not copy reviews, warnings, "informational posts", public service announcements OR ANYTHINBG ELSE from sites such as CL, TER, T*B*D, etc. If it is not your first hand experience, do not post it here. If "your friend" experienced it, tell him to get his own account here and post about it.?
Emphasis added.

So, in this thread, can we discuss the general quality, reliability, etc. of reviews on other sites without running afoul of the above?

[jimbo44]

Especially when the review begins with , "Hey guys, or hey fellas"

[seeker6591]

Especially when the review begins with , "Hey guys, or hey fellas"


sometimes, they actually seem like they were in fact written by a female.

[justlooking]

Emphasis added.

So, in this thread, can we discuss the general quality, reliability, etc. of reviews on other sites without running afoul of the above?

OF COURSE we can.

[RuffToy]

I especially hate reviews that state, "Guys, treat her nice"

[thevenerablebede]

because she's a sweetheart...

[justlooking]

The worst part is, those usually aren't fake.

[Monk]

I checked with management, and here are the ground rules:

These particular rules exist to prevent a series of things: shilling providers and other sites; maliciously attacking a particular provider; passing someone else's review off as your own; as well as a desire to generate original content on UG.

For this discussion, it will be okay if you wish to quote from reviews on other sites if, and only if, you do not reveal who wrote the review, what site it was posted on, or who the reviewer was reviewing (that means NO NAMES, PHONE NUMBERS, URLs or any other identifying information -- period). And, the quotation must be relatively short (two or three lines max).

[Monk]

How do you guys know when a review is a fake?

Often the first few reviews are clearly fake. They're extremely generic, completely positive, and seem to promise the world. The provider is depicted as the be all and end all of providers. She looks fantastic, has the best attitude, is willing please, etc.. But when you get down to the details, there's little substance.

[greyfox]

The worst part is, those usually aren't fake.

Amen.There are also probably more reviews written by delusional white knights and shills with bad taste and poor judgment than reviews that are blatantly fictitious.

[billyS]

Unless it from a poster on UG that I've known to be honest I don't pay attention to reviews.

[curious]

The worst part is, those usually aren't fake.

I'd be willing the bet that more than a few of them are recycled, though; sort of a client-initiated end run around certain sites' already lax* ad-post policies.

*Lax in practice; they can institute any terms they want, but if they don't enforce them, what good are they?

Shit, they often don't even remove them from the areas where it's explicitly stated there are to be NO ADS.

[cindyq11]

Oh, yeah,

Santa gave me a good spanking, I highly recommend him.

http://fapomatic.com/thumbs/0652/20061226.jpg

[stevana]

When an ad says see my reviews on some designated site and when you look you see only one review and it is only a couple of days old, the word fake seems to come to mind. I wonder why.

[curious]

Oh, yeah,

Santa gave me a good spanking, I highly recommend him.

http://fapomatic.com/thumbs/0652/20061226.jpg

That fucking Theedge7... the brute!

(hope he tipped you, at least!)

[curious]

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/engrish-store_1929_7416677

[cindyq11]

Back in the past, some girls I worked with would hire some professional out of work ad man to write nice reviews and post on fourms, websites, etc.

Ten to twenty dollars would get you a nice paragraph.

Did any of us give the ad man a freebie, a sample?

Oh, well, pay at the door, please, first come, first served.

Like the old sign I saw on a truck stop.

"Grass, Ass, or cash, nobody rides for Free!!"

Thanks for the nice greetings.

[fairemily]

Screw Magazine used to send a guy for a free session then he would write a review on behalf of the magazine, he must have loved his job. They had a good thing going before the Internet craze.

[seeker6591]

Screw Magazine used to send a guy for a free session then he would write a review on behalf of the magazine, he must have loved his job. They had a good thing going before the Internet craze.


its funny you mention that!

thats how I found out about the Harmony Theatre!

lol.

[stevana]

You were sent there by Screw Magazine?

[seeker6591]

advertiser

[stevana]

Nice work if you can get it as they say. Good for you.

[seeker6591]

the harmony and screw mag. are long gone!

[stevana]

Yeah, I know. Had some tears in my beers on both occassions.

[UG Staff]

Screw Magazine used to send a guy for a free session then he would write a review on behalf of the magazine, he must have loved his job. They had a good thing going before the Internet craze.


We should do that.

[stevana]

I can't wait for the response.

[cindyq11]

As far as I know, Screw is still a viable business concern.
Oh, I know you guys are gonna make a mockery out of this, but go ahead.

Goldstein the founder still rants sometimes in the adult search engine Booble.

That is what they say.

[fairemily]

We should do that.

Who would go? Would you draw straws?

[fairemily]

We should do that.

All I know about is the bodyrub places who did this. The owners pick their best girl, pay the girl her half so she would make something for the session and hope for a good review. It was a good thing for the places and Screw. Sent out a letter to establishments and see who will participate and start a review thread just for this purpose. It will completely unbiased since there is no attachments to the place or provider and all the reviews will have the same uniformity. It might be a fun experiment.

[stevana]

Seems to me that knowing one is being evaluated would change behavior so the result would be skewed to some degree by the subject no matter how objective the observer might be. Zagat reviewers, to my understanding, are not known to be present by the proprietors. That seems to be more conducive to resulting in a rendering of true/normal service IMHO.

[fairemily]

Seems to me that knowing one is being evaluated would change behavior so the result would be skewed to some degree by the subject no matter how objective the observer might be. Zagat reviewers, to my understanding, are not known to be present by the proprietors. That seems to be more conducive to resulting in a rendering of true/normal service IMHO.


A good provider will provide a good service no matter what, she has an energy about her that cannot be faked. If a provider does not like what she does for whatever reason and is forcing herself to be better for a review I am sure the experienced moderators here will detect it. It doesn't even matter because only girls who care about thier reputation will participate to do a complemtary session for a review anyway and those are the ladies that guys want to see.

[Escort_King]

All I know about is the bodyrub places who did this. The owners pick their best girl, pay the girl her half so she would make something for the session and hope for a good review. It was a good thing for the places and Screw. Sent out a letter to establishments and see who will participate and start a review thread just for this purpose. It will completely unbiased since there is no attachments to the place or provider and all the reviews will have the same uniformity. It might be a fun experiment.

Most of these places were actually buying advertising and threw in the review pop to get a little more press....

[Escort_King]

This could be done here... have a random number selection method and the person who posted that post number does the review... has to include the ambiance of the establishment and heavy on personality etc.
make a review form.... hmmm know that has been around before

[cindyq11]

Seems to me that knowing one is being evaluated would change behavior so the result would be skewed to some degree by the subject no matter how objective the observer might be. Zagat reviewers, to my understanding, are not known to be present by the proprietors. That seems to be more conducive to resulting in a rendering of true/normal service IMHO.

Hey, this is otherwise known as the "Observer Effect", that is, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed.

Moreover, the effect refers to how people change their behavior when it is observed and set down. People often do not behave in their usual manner when aware of being watched.

I noticed this, back in the days when I was doing porn, I would try to perform better in front of a camera than when I was not.

Of course, this depends on the observer also. Observer bias can also be introduced because researchers see a behavior and interpret it according to what it means to them, whereas it may mean something else to the person showing the behavior.

It is like doing porn reviews, you like it or you don't.
There may be some truth in the old saying, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Oh, man, this depends on the time of day, the hour, the minute.
Some times I feel charged, and other days I don't give a damn.

You catch me on a bad hair day, you opinion of me is zilch.
You catch me on good hair day, I am a goddess.

Well, let me put it this way, would you kiss me in the morning when I have such bad breath from performing a sexual a few hours ago?

No, you would say, Cindy got bad breath in the morning, she needs some mouth wash.

Yeah.

[stevana]

Hey, this is otherwise known as the "Observer Effect", that is, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed.

Moreover, the effect refers to how people change their behavior when it is observed and set down. People often do not behave in their usual manner when aware of being watched.

Right, Cindy. It is a basic tenant of scientific research - particularly in the fields of physchology and sociology (those pertaining to human behavior).

[theword]

I wouldn't trust a review if the service provider knew she was being reviewed. I would think it's nearly impossible to resist giving a known reviewer SFT that an ordinary patron would not get.

This is why restaurant reviewers make their reservations under a fake name, and Consumer Reports buys the stuff they review anonymously from a retail store. I think it works the same way in this business...the provider or agency is going to try harder for reviewers.

[stevana]

Word, theword.

[fairemily]

I wouldn't trust a review if the service provider knew she was being reviewed. I would think it's nearly impossible to resist giving a known reviewer SFT that an ordinary patron would not get.

This is why restaurant reviewers make their reservations under a fake name, and Consumer Reports buys the stuff they review anonymously from a retail store. I think it works the same way in this business...the provider or agency is going to try harder for reviewers.

A restraunt review is totally different then a provider review. I have seen this comparison often and it just isn't the same. I still believe that is the provider is naturally good the reviewer will see it and if she is faking it just to get some points an experience reviewer will see it. Lets take bodyrub for instance, if you can't do it properly nothing is going to make it good all of a sudden just for the sake of the review. You can try as hard as you like you can't obtain skills on a whim. As far as appearance the reviewer should not book that far in advance. I provider that cares about her appearance looks the best she can everyday she works. My point being you can only fake so much and in an experienced eye it will be apparent.

[stevana]

A natural tendency that humans have is what the scientists, Consumer Reports, Zagat, etc. attempt to take into account in connection with observing behavior.

[UG Staff]

Hey, this is otherwise known as the "Observer Effect", that is, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed.

See also "Hawthorn Effect" (not to be confused with Von Neumann's postulate).

[UG Staff]

PS From what's written above, think about this: reviews about women who use PMB handle as a screening method.

[stevana]

Oh, Fuck! Homework! :)

[justlooking]

A restraunt review is totally different then a provider review. I have seen this comparison often and it just isn't the same. I still believe that is the provider is naturally good the reviewer will see it and if she is faking it just to get some points an experience reviewer will see it. Lets take bodyrub for instance, if you can't do it properly nothing is going to make it good all of a sudden just for the sake of the review. You can try as hard as you like you can't obtain skills on a whim. As far as appearance the reviewer should not book that far in advance. I provider that cares about her appearance looks the best she can everyday she works. My point being you can only fake so much and in an experienced eye it will be apparent.

There's the stuff you can change and the stuff you can't, though. Sure, maybe an indifferent, borderline hostile service provider can't easily turn herself into an enthusiastic one. But a prostitute who normally doesn't kiss can kiss, and a prostitute who normally requires the use of a condom can offer to go bareback. (All the while making the john promise not to talk about that stuff in his review, either because she purports to find it a violation of her privacy or simply gouche to get detailed reviews, or cuz this john is "special".) She can also allow the session to go way overtime. And hell, for the duration of the session, she can even bother to pretend she doesn't hate it.

[MikitheMilf]

I wouldn't trust a review if the service provider knew she was being reviewed. I would think it's nearly impossible to resist giving a known reviewer SFT that an ordinary patron would not get.

This is why restaurant reviewers make their reservations under a fake name, and Consumer Reports buys the stuff they review anonymously from a retail store. I think it works the same way in this business...the provider or agency is going to try harder for reviewers.

as if I were going to be reviewed...

[Monk]

There's a difference between a provider who solicits reviews as a marketing tool to promote herself to a broader market, and a provider who simply gets reviewed by clients who genuinely want to share their opinions with the community. Obviously, as a matter of "ethics" (a dubious subject always when discussing the hobby), the former is problematic. The latter, on the other hand, can be extremely useful. As for the problems of individual reviews describing unique experiences that can/will never be duplicated -- I seldom decide to visit a provider based on one review. Instead, I rely more on the aggregate. If enough known reviewers make similar observations, chances are you have a better than average chance of experiencing what they have described.

But all of this seems like common sense. I'm more curious, in this forum, about the use of reviews as marketing tools. When, and on what boards, are they useful? What type of review solicits better business? Is it better to be reviewed in the TER review section, or on their discussion board, for example?

[fairemily]

There's a difference between a provider who solicits reviews as a marketing tool to promote herself to a broader market, and a provider who simply gets reviewed by clients who genuinely want to share their opinions with the community. Obviously, as a matter of "ethics" (a dubious subject always when discussing the hobby), the former is problematic. The latter, on the other hand, can be extremely useful. As for the problems of individual reviews describing unique experiences that can/will never be duplicated -- I seldom decide to visit a provider based on one review. Instead, I rely more on the aggregate. If enough known reviewers make similar observations, chances are you have a better than average chance of experiencing what they have described.

But all of this seems like common sense. I'm more curious, in this forum, about the use of reviews as marketing tools. When, and on what boards, are they useful? What type of review solicits better business? Is it better to be reviewed in the TER review section, or on their discussion board, for example?


The thing is if you are in an oversaturated market like bodyrub in Manhattan having reviews can make the difference. I do admit I use my reviews not so much to say I am great but to show I am a legitimate provider that will not scam you. I hate proving myself and I don't do a selling pitch so my reviews speak when I don't want to.

The problem with TER is that even if someone did not see you they can write a horrible review or untrue and then that's it. If the staff does not remove it you can't use that as a reference point anymore. I had a review that said I demanded the money, gave a lousy service and freaked out like a lunatic in someone apatment. It was a total lie to I had to submit a series of questions to TER (what color is my tote bag, coat, ect) to ask him to prove he did not see me.

UG is the most fair venue for providers who depend on reviews. It is one of the only places that independently confronts reviews with or without the provider getting involved that seem false right away before the damage is done.

[Monk]

See, that's interesting. For you, reviews help to validate your legitimacy as a trusted service provider. Which is, ultimately, one of the most valuable roles reviews play. And I'm sure you're right -- in a relatively unmoderated board, the propensity for fake and harmful reviews runs high. (Generally speaking, I only pay attention to reviewers with a proven track record.)

[fairemily]

See, that's interesting. For you, reviews help to validate your legitimacy as a trusted service provider. Which is, ultimately, one of the most valuable roles reviews play. And I'm sure you're right -- in a relatively unmoderated board, the propensity for fake and harmful reviews runs high. (Generally speaking, I only pay attention to reviewers with a proven track record.)

I had a questionable review once by a reviewer with a long track record because he expected me to take a ride to the Hampton's with him for the hell of it (I do not do anything for money other than the service I provide anyway) and I respectfully declined. The motives to get even with any form of rejection can be as strange as that. Many reviewers realize the power they hold especially for independent providers because we really depend on them more in such a competitive market.