RadioRob

That sounds like something that is perfect to include in the free-form ("Your Review" below) space!

How do we differentiate it? There needs to be something that is clear as people interpret things very differently. Imagine getting somewhere and saying “I wanted VERY hairy! He’s just basic hairy!”

Reviews are associated with the forum handle. The thought is if someone wants to provide a description, you would use the existing profile system. That would link the two concepts. In a later release, I actually plan to include a tab in your profile for all submitted reviews as well. This would let you share a link to everything you’ve reviewed. I am also thinking about creating a signature generator that would dynamically update with some stats such as your latest person reviewed, total number of reviews, etc. That’s still in the “hey that could be cool” stage though. I have not had a chance to think through and draft a full set of requirements.

Moderators can cleanup/hide/split posts if a master topic is too far off track.

Included. Hair Hair Color Hair Length Facial Hair Body Hair Daddy did not have a concept of body hair, so there was not any specific examples to include. I was thinking: Smooth, Shaved, Trimmed, Hairy, and Other If there are other ideas, those can be looked at.

In that case, it can’t be in the item record. It would need to be in the review. The item record cannot apply on a per user experience. That’s part of the reason for trying to keep the item record close to the ad. If the encounter did not match what was listed, the review should reflect there was a discrepancy.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Going forward, if it happens a mod might simply merge the topics. (I don’t know how well merging will ultimately work and if it would generate a ton of “busy work” for the mod team yet. It’s something we may try and measure it’s effectiveness and level of effort.)

In the item record itself, how do you determine this? In Daddy’s system, he typically asked what was listed on the ad. Which means we could only really provide options from RM/Friendboy, etc. I’m not saying that can’t be changed, but just trying to think/reason through the impact. Is this a better question inside of the review form to ask if safe play was used?

The way Daddy asked it was how did they advertise their orientation. My plan was to do something similar in the tool tip. If a majority find this not useful, it can be removed. So that people are not free-form typing languages, I need to provide a list to choose from. If this were to be included, what languages should be listed? I would most likely need to do a multi-select drop down since someone could have multiple languages. Do we really care about the language spoken itself versus how well do they communicate in English? Maybe we make that a question in the review form as something you rate 1-5.

As a question... if/when I can do premium fields, what does the group want to see for options regarding safe sex status? I was thinking about something like: Safe Only, Anything Goes, Unknown (On Rent.men they have "Ask Me". Considering the escort does not own the record, it's not really appropriate to say "Ask Me". I was going to leave it simply as Unknown.)

Hopefully with all activity in one thread, it will be less likely to fall into that two year with zero activity. However Admins can bypass the 2 year reply rule... just likely an admin can reply in a locked topic, we can reply in a 2 year reply lock topic as well. If we bump it, that two year counter is reset and anyone at that point can reply. If it ends up being something we run into frequently following the launch of Master Threads, I can look at making that entire forum exempt from the check.

I am thinking about leaving Top/Bottom/Vers alone, however we have existing questions just below it that show a little more detail on activities... the select boxes associated with them would have options such as get/give. Kissing Give Only Give/Receive Receive Only Frot Give Only Give/Receive Receive Only Oral Give Only Give/Receive Receive Only Anal Give Only Give/Receive Receive Only More detailed things like toys, bondage, rimming, etc are most likely more appropriate in some sort of "Activities" field that would be in the review form instead of at the item level. I'm thinking this field would be check box group that lists things like rimming, toys, etc that people could optionally check off. As it stands right now, I'm still working on the logic to have "premium fields" that only show to specific member groups. This means all of the sexual stuff MAY not end up in the initial "1.0" release. If it does not make it there, it will absolutely be in a "1.5/2.0" version. It's high on the list of things I want to see happen so it will happen before some other things I want to do.

My initial plan is to require all new items to require approval. This would allow review editors to add/cleanup photos if necessary, check for duplicates, etc.

One of the biggest challenges that I've observed over the years is the number of "411" threads on a specific person. There are times we could have anywhere from 3-12 on a single person! This could happen for different reasons... such as someone not knowing how to use the search function or the provider had changed their name. When we eventually launch the new review site, when a new item is added... a forum topic will automatically be created for that place/person. It will have a subject of: [ Category ] Item Name So for example, it might look like: [ Escort ] John Doe The first post inside of that topic will contain fields from the review (I can pick which fields get brought over so not all may be posted). The goal will be that the topic will become the master topic about discussion about that item (person/place). Over time... if we see information that changes about the item, people will be able to report it so that it can be updated. So if an escort changes their name for example, someone would report that record and provide the new name. A moderator will be able to update the item. They'll also be able to add the old name to a special field called "Former Names". This will let us to better track those who change their names from time to time. Inside the review record, it might look something like: If other things change, that can be updated in the record itself. All of the detail from that record anytime it is edited would also sync to the master thread and edit the first post in it with the updated info, including the topic title if there was a a name change involved. Now... I'm going to put this out there now that moderators may from time to time not publish a name change in the "Former Names" field. If we have reason to believe there is a risk to the person or there is another legitimate reason, we may update the name field only without adding the old name to the former name field. This will hopefully allow the first post to contain all of the latest known info about each item as it gets changed over time without needing to update 500 places. If it works out the way I'm hoping, this will become the "source of truth" about the item and people can comment over time with their own observations, etc. The topic itself would not be used for reviews. (That's what the review system is for.) But general discussion about the person would happen there. Eventually if someone does post a new thread about someone where a master topic exists, the moderators may end up merging that post into the master. This is obviously not in place yet. I'm just tossing the idea out there now so folks have a chance to comment on it and get used to the idea.

To ADD an item... if you are on the home page, you would see a button that says "Add Item". It would ask you to pick which category you want. If you are already viewing a category, it will assume you want to post in that one and will take you directly to the add item form. That's how the forum homepage itself works today. I'm copying that logic and carrying it over into the reviews. Regarding the screen to add a new item, it would look something like: Photos are not required. However before making the item available to the public, we'll most likely add a photo as part of the approval process. As you scroll down, it will continue to show all of the questions, etc.

In PHASE 1, we won't be able to have explicit images in the item records. This is because I don't have a way (YET) to flag them as NSFW or hide them from guests. That's something I plan to add, but that would be post launch so I don't slow this down any further. Technically I could add them now, but they would violate the site rules of no explicit content in areas accessible to guests. I already have it on my post launch list of stuff to come back to!

The plan to put them into entirely separate categories. It's up to the person to decide what kind of encounter they had. The idea is you would pick a category. Once inside a category, you would see all of the items in it. Initially it will be simply by name. (Eventually it will be similar to Daddy's where you could find by locations on a map as well as by date on a calendar.) Below is part of what the review home page would look like. Above this space would be a widget that shows a featured item/person.

I'll leave this here to see if there are any other feelings on this. I'm not opposed to a yes/no question.

I pasted this in the Deli... but below is a mockup of what an a page might look like.... basically all of the personal info would be along the left hand side of the page. The reviews themselves would be listed on the right hand side. This is a work in progress and subject to change. I just thought ya'll would like to see the overall direction I'm moving towards.

What options would you expect to see? Just Cut, Uncut, Other? In addition to the question, unless we want someone to free-form type an answer, we need to give them options to pick from.

Think of it this way... you found the company of a gentleman and you want to tell the world about the experience. So you come here! (And we thank you for doing so!) You come to the review database. That gentleman you saw was not in our database, so you add them... the questions that we ask about them are hopefully all going to be things you can answer either from the encounter itself or from their online ad. Basically once you sit down after the fact, are you going to have access to that info? (Either remembering it or copying it). Most people won't be able to go back to the provider afterwards... "Hey... I'm writing a review about you. Would you mind answering these 10 questions?" Once the person is in the database, you get to tell the world about your encounter with them. Was it hot or not?!

One thing to keep in mind is that between 90-93% of our site is from the US. So questions have to make sense to the "majority" audience.

I could potentially have a question in the review form itself (not the item record) for "Activities". Something like: But that would require building out a complete matrix of what options we want to ask. I also would not make it a REQUIRED question. Some folks are not comfortable sharing that publicly.

I could absolutely see that as well. That's also why putting safe status into the review question is most likely better. It's going to be too complicated to ask if they tried to negotiate rates based on the service, and if so, what... in those situations, the freeform text field is the better spot to capture anything like that.

In general, yes. Things like height, weight, build, style, etc. Those are generic questions that someone could reasonably copy over. However things like HIV status, etc is a special category of Protected Health Information protected by HIPAA. The person making the ad is the person reporting the status. (Meaning they're sharing their own info. It's their own info to share) In this case, someone else would be reporting what they learned from a different source. I don't have permission from them to take that info from a different source. (In a court, that's like hearsay. Don't tell Judge Judy what someone else told you about someone else!) That's where I don't 100% understand the legalities and have to tread softly.