Inside Connection with Providers Here

[NYXboy]

5 hours ago, FaustOust said:

 

My question was simply my question.  It seems to have stirred only one person’s pot.

Your question attacks the integrity of not only the providers who submit invaluable insights here, but also of the entire forum itself.

It's kind of mind blowing that you can light a fuse  and then so 'oh I was just asking a question'.  Be honest. 

Edited June 25, 2024 by NYXboy
spelling error

[SouthOfTheBorder]

On 6/24/2024 at 12:37 PM, FaustOust said:

I wondered why there are providers who participate very heavily on this site, yet they are not reviewed here? And many who rarely participate are reviewed

the question itself doesn’t attack the integrity - and the answer for why is below

the providers who tend to heavily participate on COM don’t live in the same cities as most non-provider members.   

the reviewed providers on COM tend to be clustered as would be expected according to market/city size - with the biggest cities having more reviewed providers. same on RM.  smaller cities with outsized gay populations may be the exception- like Palm Springs 

providers that travel as their business model may throw it off a bit.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2024 by SouthOfTheBorder

[+ APPLE1]

22 hours ago, rvwnsd said:

UPDATE: I forgot to mention the non-member providers who receive bad feedback, join, and make comments about the members in general and those who commented about them. That usually does not end well for them. Their response essentially validates the negative feedback. They have a habit of learning their lesson and not returning.

Since we are talking about potential bias, I think it's very important to point out
@rvwnsd use of the word "usually" is very  accurate. I have certainly seen occasions where a non-member provider joined to refute things in a member's negative review, and it worked out well. The provider supplied an account of the session that seemed much more logical and believable to me, and other members, than the info from the original reviewer.

I even recall one instance where addressesing a miscommunication via this forum led to a free repeat session. The client ended up pleased, wrote a new review, and the provider maintained a good reputation.

Edited June 26, 2024 by APPLE1

[rvwnsd]

1 hour ago, APPLE1 said:

Since we are talking about potential bias, I think it's very important to point out
@rvwnsd use of the word "usually" is very  accurate. I have certainly seen occasions where a non-member provider joined to refute things in a member's negative review, and it worked out well. The provider supplied an account of the session that seemed much more logical and believable to me, and other members, than the info from the original reviewer.

I even recall one instance where addressesing a miscommunication via this forum led to a free repeat session. The client ended up pleased, wrote a new review, and the provider maintained a good reputation.

Excellent point @APPLE1. A smart provider will address negative commentary calmly and professionally. You are right - that works well. Sadly, we have seen many instances where a provider refers to our members collectively as "pathetic old men," "old ladies," and "queens" and finds it necessary to rant about whatever has touched a nerve. That's when things don't go well. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often.