Real Versus Fake Reviews

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Repeated Topics

 

"Why does this topic keep coming up over and over and over again?"

 

One of the reasons is that this topic (and the every-popular "to tip or not to tip") keeps coming up is that there are many new people using the board. And the repeat subjects are ones that are of concern to a broad group of men. Another reasons is that once a person discovers the board he may not return to read it every day. Even well-worn topics can veer off into interesting directions.

 

The regulars (kind and patient guys one and all) have pointed out the warning signs of a fake review. Take heed -- and make u your own mind. This site is a great guidepost, but it wont keep you from getting lost from time to time.

[Guest Viewmaster]

>>No one

>>will ever know the real

>>answer(is the review real or

>>not) so it seems kind

>>of like self flaggelation to

>>obsess over it.

>

>I disagree. At least I know

>the ones I wrote are

>real

 

I made the assumption that if you wrote a review then of course you could be confident that it was real.

>

>>At

>>the end of the day

>>the only experience that will

>>ever matter will be your

>>own.

>

>True. But why do you and

>many others including myself come

>to this site in the

>first place if we don't

>think the reviews are helpful?

 

I check in more for the message center than the reviews.

 

then why

>don't we hold those posters

>who keep saying "many" or

>"most" of the reviews here

>are fake ACCOUNTABLE?

 

I agree in principle, but I don't have any suggestions on how you'd go about holding people accountable without revealing their identities to a greater degree. I am not challenging you, but would you stand up here and say "My name is ---- and I wrote the review of ---- and if you have any concerns about it you can reach me at----" ?

[Guest Viewmaster]

>>No one

>>will ever know the real

>>answer(is the review real or

>>not) so it seems kind

>>of like self flaggelation to

>>obsess over it.

>

>I disagree. At least I know

>the ones I wrote are

>real

 

I made the assumption that if you wrote a review then of course you could be confident that it was real.

>

>>At

>>the end of the day

>>the only experience that will

>>ever matter will be your

>>own.

>

>True. But why do you and

>many others including myself come

>to this site in the

>first place if we don't

>think the reviews are helpful?

 

I check in more for the message center than the reviews.

 

then why

>don't we hold those posters

>who keep saying "many" or

>"most" of the reviews here

>are fake ACCOUNTABLE?

 

I agree in principle, but I don't have any suggestions on how you'd go about holding people accountable without revealing their identities to a greater degree. I am not challenging you, but would you stand up here and say "My name is ---- and I wrote the review of ---- and if you have any concerns about it you can reach me at----" ?

[Losgatan]

> I am not challenging

>you, but would you stand

>up here and say "My

>name is ---- and I

>wrote the review of ----

>and if you have any

>concerns about it you can

>reach me at----" ?

 

I certainly wouldn't mind doing this using my Losgatan screen name -- either here or on AOL.

 

Would that be helpful?

 

How many others of us who have "blind" email accounts would be willing to give out our addresses so that potential clients could ask questions about our reviews?

[Losgatan]

> I am not challenging

>you, but would you stand

>up here and say "My

>name is ---- and I

>wrote the review of ----

>and if you have any

>concerns about it you can

>reach me at----" ?

 

I certainly wouldn't mind doing this using my Losgatan screen name -- either here or on AOL.

 

Would that be helpful?

 

How many others of us who have "blind" email accounts would be willing to give out our addresses so that potential clients could ask questions about our reviews?

[Guest JT]

>I made the assumption that if

>you wrote a review then

>of course you could be

>confident that it was real.

 

So my question is: if many or most of the contributors know that they write their own reviews and that the reviews are real, then why shouldn't we challenge those who continue to say that many or most of the reviews are fake?

 

 

>I check in more for the

>message center than the reviews.

 

Ok, nice try. But your reply does not rule out the possibility that you come here and check the reviews too. :-)

 

 

>I agree in principle, but I

>don't have any suggestions on

>how you'd go about holding

>people accountable without revealing their

>identities to a greater degree.

> I am not challenging

>you, but would you stand

>up here and say "My

>name is ---- and I

>wrote the review of ----

>and if you have any

>concerns about it you can

>reach me at----" ?

 

Well, maybe you would like to direct the question to those posters who propagate the idea that many or most of the reviews are fake. :-)

 

Many reviewers (including me) include the handles they use in the message board in the reviews. If anyone has concerns about the reviews, I guess they can contact us through the message centre.

 

I'm not challenging you neither, VM. But you seem to hold me more accountable for what I say on this thread than those posters who keep on telling everyone here the reviews are fake. Have you posed somewhere in the message centre to ask them to stop or to provide evidence to support their claims before accusing me and others that we're obsessed with this issue. :-)

 

Humbly yours, (sorry FFF, stealing your traditional way of signing off here)

JT

[Guest JT]

>I made the assumption that if

>you wrote a review then

>of course you could be

>confident that it was real.

 

So my question is: if many or most of the contributors know that they write their own reviews and that the reviews are real, then why shouldn't we challenge those who continue to say that many or most of the reviews are fake?

 

 

>I check in more for the

>message center than the reviews.

 

Ok, nice try. But your reply does not rule out the possibility that you come here and check the reviews too. :-)

 

 

>I agree in principle, but I

>don't have any suggestions on

>how you'd go about holding

>people accountable without revealing their

>identities to a greater degree.

> I am not challenging

>you, but would you stand

>up here and say "My

>name is ---- and I

>wrote the review of ----

>and if you have any

>concerns about it you can

>reach me at----" ?

 

Well, maybe you would like to direct the question to those posters who propagate the idea that many or most of the reviews are fake. :-)

 

Many reviewers (including me) include the handles they use in the message board in the reviews. If anyone has concerns about the reviews, I guess they can contact us through the message centre.

 

I'm not challenging you neither, VM. But you seem to hold me more accountable for what I say on this thread than those posters who keep on telling everyone here the reviews are fake. Have you posed somewhere in the message centre to ask them to stop or to provide evidence to support their claims before accusing me and others that we're obsessed with this issue. :-)

 

Humbly yours, (sorry FFF, stealing your traditional way of signing off here)

JT

[Guest Viewmaster]

>So my question is: if many

>or most of the contributors

>know that they write their

>own reviews and that the

>reviews are real, then why

>shouldn't we challenge those who

>continue to say that many

>or most of the reviews

>are fake?

 

You should, and so should I. So the next time someone says a review is fake let's agree to to ask the person for the specifics as to why they feel it is not an honest reveiw.

 

 

>Ok, nice try. But your reply

>does not rule out the

>possibility that you come here

>and check the reviews too.

 

That's true, but I really don't use the reviews to shop and buy. More loke window shopping. My dance card is sort of full that way for now at least.

 

 

>But you seem to hold

>me more accountable for what

>I say on this thread

>than those posters who keep

>on telling everyone here the

>reviews are fake.

 

Sorry it seems that way, but I really am just trying to have a dialog here with you and others.

 

> Have you

>posed somewhere in the message

>centre to ask them to

>stop or to provide evidence

>to support their claims

 

No I haven't, but I will in the future

 

>before

>accusing me and others that

>we're obsessed with this issue.

 

Poor choice of words maybe. I certainly didn't mean it to sound like an attack. It just seems like you(not personally you) are pounding your head against the wall trying to figure out how to solve a problem that probably doesn't have a solution. I wish it did, but I don't see it.

[Guest Viewmaster]

>So my question is: if many

>or most of the contributors

>know that they write their

>own reviews and that the

>reviews are real, then why

>shouldn't we challenge those who

>continue to say that many

>or most of the reviews

>are fake?

 

You should, and so should I. So the next time someone says a review is fake let's agree to to ask the person for the specifics as to why they feel it is not an honest reveiw.

 

 

>Ok, nice try. But your reply

>does not rule out the

>possibility that you come here

>and check the reviews too.

 

That's true, but I really don't use the reviews to shop and buy. More loke window shopping. My dance card is sort of full that way for now at least.

 

 

>But you seem to hold

>me more accountable for what

>I say on this thread

>than those posters who keep

>on telling everyone here the

>reviews are fake.

 

Sorry it seems that way, but I really am just trying to have a dialog here with you and others.

 

> Have you

>posed somewhere in the message

>centre to ask them to

>stop or to provide evidence

>to support their claims

 

No I haven't, but I will in the future

 

>before

>accusing me and others that

>we're obsessed with this issue.

 

Poor choice of words maybe. I certainly didn't mean it to sound like an attack. It just seems like you(not personally you) are pounding your head against the wall trying to figure out how to solve a problem that probably doesn't have a solution. I wish it did, but I don't see it.

[Guest JT]

>You should, and so should I.

> So the next time

>someone says a review is

>fake let's agree to to

>ask the person for the

>specifics as to why they

>feel it is not an

>honest reveiw.

 

Well, I started this thread in the hope that the "other" side would have the opportunities to provide us with the evidence and statistics to justify their claims. But so far, they've been silent. Does it have anything to do with their lack of supporting evidence?

 

 

>Sorry it seems that way, but

>I really am just trying

>to have a dialog here

>with you and others.

 

>>before

>>accusing me and others that

>>we're obsessed with this issue.

>

>Poor choice of words maybe.

>I certainly didn't mean it

>to sound like an attack.

 

I'd love to have dialogues with any posters here who are positive and sincere. In the last 2 months that I've been on the message board, I have indeed found some very nice people in this community! :-) We may disagree but we always try our best not to attack or appear to attack the individuals. Now we understand each other better, how about let bygone be bygone. Deal? :-)

 

 

> It just seems like

>you(not personally you) are pounding

>your head against the wall

>trying to figure out how

>to solve a problem that

>probably doesn't have a solution.

> I wish it did,

>but I don't see it.

 

Trust me, I'm not and I haven't been pounding my head against the wall (okay maybe when someone is pounding me and my head hits the headboard)

 

It's not that I'm trying to figure out how to solve a "solution-less" problem. I'm asking the posters on the "other" side to substantiate their claims which are insulting to HooBoy, escorts and reviewers. But until now, no one has come forward.

 

JT

[Guest JT]

>You should, and so should I.

> So the next time

>someone says a review is

>fake let's agree to to

>ask the person for the

>specifics as to why they

>feel it is not an

>honest reveiw.

 

Well, I started this thread in the hope that the "other" side would have the opportunities to provide us with the evidence and statistics to justify their claims. But so far, they've been silent. Does it have anything to do with their lack of supporting evidence?

 

 

>Sorry it seems that way, but

>I really am just trying

>to have a dialog here

>with you and others.

 

>>before

>>accusing me and others that

>>we're obsessed with this issue.

>

>Poor choice of words maybe.

>I certainly didn't mean it

>to sound like an attack.

 

I'd love to have dialogues with any posters here who are positive and sincere. In the last 2 months that I've been on the message board, I have indeed found some very nice people in this community! :-) We may disagree but we always try our best not to attack or appear to attack the individuals. Now we understand each other better, how about let bygone be bygone. Deal? :-)

 

 

> It just seems like

>you(not personally you) are pounding

>your head against the wall

>trying to figure out how

>to solve a problem that

>probably doesn't have a solution.

> I wish it did,

>but I don't see it.

 

Trust me, I'm not and I haven't been pounding my head against the wall (okay maybe when someone is pounding me and my head hits the headboard)

 

It's not that I'm trying to figure out how to solve a "solution-less" problem. I'm asking the posters on the "other" side to substantiate their claims which are insulting to HooBoy, escorts and reviewers. But until now, no one has come forward.

 

JT

[Guest]

>"...it's true that many (if not

>most??) of the positive reviews

>are fake..."

>

>This is a quote I took

>from one of the recent

>threads in the Deli section.

>More than once I have

>come across similar statements on

>the message board in the

>last two months. I DON'T

>AGREE with such an assessment

>but I'm curious as to

>how others (clients and escorts)

>come to their own conclusion?

>What criteria they use in

>determining whether a review is

>real or fake?

 

Since it was I who made the original comment, I guess I should respond. Obviously, there is no way to know what percentage of reviews are fake. I don't think that anyone can seriouysly argue that there aren't a substantial number of fake ones. In my own home town, San Francisco, there are at least two escorts who eventually fessed up to having had ALL their reviews fake (Danny Damon and some other guy, no longer listed, called Jason). Another escort here, Collin Jennings, had a few good reviews, then had two which "exposed" him, and hasn't had any reviews here since. He still advertizes in the Bay Area Reporter, and obviously still gets business from people who don't read this website. I suspect he no longer "advertizes" on this site because he doesn't want to attract any clients from here, along with other bad reviews.

As I look at today's "Newest Reviews" I notice an escort with lots of positive reviews. I don't know if they're all legit or if just some are. Some are written by repeat reviewers. The vast majority, though, are written by first-time reviewers, and there are stylistic similarities. This obviously proves nothing, but it does make one go "hmmm." In addition, the escort had far more frequent reviews when HooBoy allowed them, and the volume of reviews dropped at about the same time HooBoy changed his policies.

I certainly don't mean to pick on any one escort. I enjoy reading the "Newest Reviews" section whenever I can. My sense is that first-time reviewers comprise about half of the reviews I read. My guess is that most of the clients who frequent this site are "experienced" escort hirers, or at least not people who would only rarely hire an escort.

Although all reviewers have to start sometime, they're only a first-time reviewer once, and then the're repeat reviewers forever more. I can't pretend I have absolute knowledge of the answer, but this fact must be taken into account. Even when there is a repeat reviewer, a very sophisitacated faker could write a couple of positive reviews on an escort he's never met in order to establish himself. I doubt the receiving escort would complain. In fact, there was a recent string in which the poster said he'd met a number of escorts who were aware of fake positive reviews they had nothing to do with. What's that about?

On a similar vein, I've done site searches on some putative repeat reviewers, only to find out they were NOT, in fact repeat reviewers (Hooboy recently discovered one himself, although it was with a negative reviewer).

So do I pretend to know how big the problem is of fake reviewers? Of course not. I can't know. I would be hard-pressed to believe the percentage is less than 10% or more than 90%. But could it be 20%? 80%? Neither figure would surprise me too much. A prior response to the original post on this string noted that escorts see a jump in calls after a positive review, and I have been friends with enough escorts to know this is absolutely true. How many escorts submit to the temptation to do something they know will substantially affect the bottom line? I have no way of telling. But it definitely happens.

[Guest]

>"...it's true that many (if not

>most??) of the positive reviews

>are fake..."

>

>This is a quote I took

>from one of the recent

>threads in the Deli section.

>More than once I have

>come across similar statements on

>the message board in the

>last two months. I DON'T

>AGREE with such an assessment

>but I'm curious as to

>how others (clients and escorts)

>come to their own conclusion?

>What criteria they use in

>determining whether a review is

>real or fake?

 

Since it was I who made the original comment, I guess I should respond. Obviously, there is no way to know what percentage of reviews are fake. I don't think that anyone can seriouysly argue that there aren't a substantial number of fake ones. In my own home town, San Francisco, there are at least two escorts who eventually fessed up to having had ALL their reviews fake (Danny Damon and some other guy, no longer listed, called Jason). Another escort here, Collin Jennings, had a few good reviews, then had two which "exposed" him, and hasn't had any reviews here since. He still advertizes in the Bay Area Reporter, and obviously still gets business from people who don't read this website. I suspect he no longer "advertizes" on this site because he doesn't want to attract any clients from here, along with other bad reviews.

As I look at today's "Newest Reviews" I notice an escort with lots of positive reviews. I don't know if they're all legit or if just some are. Some are written by repeat reviewers. The vast majority, though, are written by first-time reviewers, and there are stylistic similarities. This obviously proves nothing, but it does make one go "hmmm." In addition, the escort had far more frequent reviews when HooBoy allowed them, and the volume of reviews dropped at about the same time HooBoy changed his policies.

I certainly don't mean to pick on any one escort. I enjoy reading the "Newest Reviews" section whenever I can. My sense is that first-time reviewers comprise about half of the reviews I read. My guess is that most of the clients who frequent this site are "experienced" escort hirers, or at least not people who would only rarely hire an escort.

Although all reviewers have to start sometime, they're only a first-time reviewer once, and then the're repeat reviewers forever more. I can't pretend I have absolute knowledge of the answer, but this fact must be taken into account. Even when there is a repeat reviewer, a very sophisitacated faker could write a couple of positive reviews on an escort he's never met in order to establish himself. I doubt the receiving escort would complain. In fact, there was a recent string in which the poster said he'd met a number of escorts who were aware of fake positive reviews they had nothing to do with. What's that about?

On a similar vein, I've done site searches on some putative repeat reviewers, only to find out they were NOT, in fact repeat reviewers (Hooboy recently discovered one himself, although it was with a negative reviewer).

So do I pretend to know how big the problem is of fake reviewers? Of course not. I can't know. I would be hard-pressed to believe the percentage is less than 10% or more than 90%. But could it be 20%? 80%? Neither figure would surprise me too much. A prior response to the original post on this string noted that escorts see a jump in calls after a positive review, and I have been friends with enough escorts to know this is absolutely true. How many escorts submit to the temptation to do something they know will substantially affect the bottom line? I have no way of telling. But it definitely happens.

[Guest JT]

>Since it was I who made

>the original comment, I guess

>I should respond. Obviously,

>there is no way to

>know what percentage of reviews

>are fake.

 

 

On the one hand, the poster admitted that he does not know what percentage of reviews are fake. On the other hand, he remarks that there are "substantial number of fake ones". Do the statements appear contradictory? :7

 

 

>In my own home

>town, San Francisco, there are

>at least two escorts who

>eventually fessed up to having

>had ALL their reviews fake

>(Danny Damon and some other

>guy, no longer listed, called

>Jason). Another escort here,

>Collin Jennings, had a few

>good reviews, then had two

>which "exposed" him, and hasn't

>had any reviews here since.

> He still advertizes in

>the Bay Area Reporter, and

>obviously still gets business from

>people who don't read this

>website. I suspect he

>no longer "advertizes" on this

>site because he doesn't want

>to attract any clients from

>here, along with other bad

>reviews.

 

That might be true for the two or three ecorts mentioned above. But how many escorts, past and present, have been listed on this site? Given that the reviews of those three escorts were fake, do they constitute a substantial number or the majority of the reviews for SF escorts here? What is the percentage, really?

 

Let us consider the following scenario: How would we feel if someone says MOST or the MAJORITY OF GAY MEN in SF must have AIDS since two or three gay men in SF have AIDS? Or MOST or the MAJORITY of GAY MEN in the US (or elsewhere) must have AIDS? :o This is what one would call ILLOGICAL induction. Yet some people think it's okay to generalize the observations of two or three escorts to all other escorts (in SF or elsewhere)? ;-)

 

>I enjoy reading the "Newest

>Reviews" section whenever I can.

>As I look at today's "Newest

>Reviews" I notice an escort

>with lots of positive reviews.

> I don't know if

>they're all legit or if

>just some are. Some

>are written by repeat reviewers.

> The vast majority, though,

>are written by first-time reviewers,

>and there are stylistic similarities.

> This obviously proves nothing,

>but it does make one

>go "hmmm."

 

An attempt was made to use the observations on ONE SINGLE DAY's (today's newest) reviews to generalize all other reviews. Are today's reviews TRULY REPRESENTATIVE of all the reviews listed on this site? If the observation was not used to prove or suggest anything, why was it brought up? If someone goes to visit Richmond, (a suburb near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) now, he may find a lot of Asians living there. Based on that observation ALONE, he might conclude that the majority of people in BC or Canada are Asians. However, this is FAR FROM THE TRUTH! Why? Because he bases his conclusion on the observations he makes on a NON-REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. In other words, a sampling bias has occurred. :o

 

 

> My sense is that

>first-time reviewers comprise about half

>of the reviews I read.

 

Once again, another attempt at illogical induction. There's nothing wrong to express our individual experience, but to assume that individual experience represents those of others may be rather presumptuous.

 

 

> My guess is that

>most of the clients who

>frequent this site are "experienced"

>escort hirers, or at least

>not people who would only

>rarely hire an escort.

>Although all reviewers have to start

>sometime, they're only a first-time

>reviewer once, and then the're

>repeat reviewers forever more.

>I can't pretend I have

>absolute knowledge of the answer,

>but this fact must be

>taken into account.

 

I guess your guess is as good as anybody's guess. :-) Now I have two questions:

(1) Are experienced clients more likely to write more than one reviews?

(2) Does the majority of experienced clients submit reviews?

 

If the answer to any or both of my last two questions is NO, then would we be surprised to find that a significant proportion (let's accept previous poster's estimate of 50%) of reviews are written by first-time reviewers?

 

 

>Even

>when there is a repeat

>reviewer, a very sophisitacated faker

>could write a couple of

>positive reviews on an escort

>he's never met in order

>to establish himself. I

>doubt the receiving escort would

>complain. In fact, there

>was a recent string in

>which the poster said he'd

>met a number of escorts

>who were aware of fake

>positive reviews they had nothing

>to do with. What's

>that about?

>On a similar vein, I've done

>site searches on some putative

>repeat reviewers, only to find

>out they were NOT, in

>fact repeat reviewers (Hooboy recently

>discovered one himself, although it

>was with a negative reviewer).

 

Enough said about false generalizations.

 

 

>So do I pretend to know

>how big the problem is

>of fake reviewers? Of

>course not. I can't

>know. I would be

>hard-pressed to believe the percentage

>is less than 10% or

>more than 90%. But

>could it be 20%?

>80%? Neither figure would

>surprise me too much.

 

Yet individuals feel comfortable to make sweeping statements like "many/most/the majority of the reviews here are fake"!

 

 

>A prior response to the

>original post on this string

>noted that escorts see a

>jump in calls after a

>positive review, and I have

>been friends with enough escorts

>to know this is absolutely

>true. How many escorts

>submit to the temptation to

>do something they know will

>substantially affect the bottom line?

> I have no way

>of telling. But it

>definitely happens.

 

I have never suggested in any way, shape or form that there is ABSOLUTELY NO fake review here. What I'm asking is for those who continue to propagate the idea that "many or most of the reviews here are fake" to come forward and show us their evidence --- evidence that is verifiable, logical and truthful. Unfortunately, the logic underlying the argument "on the other side" seems to be "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT"! Sweeping, insulting statements have been and are still made about the truthfulness of the reviews, albeit the absence of any valid and supporting evidence.

 

Scientifically yours,

JT

[Guest JT]

>Since it was I who made

>the original comment, I guess

>I should respond. Obviously,

>there is no way to

>know what percentage of reviews

>are fake.

 

 

On the one hand, the poster admitted that he does not know what percentage of reviews are fake. On the other hand, he remarks that there are "substantial number of fake ones". Do the statements appear contradictory? :7

 

 

>In my own home

>town, San Francisco, there are

>at least two escorts who

>eventually fessed up to having

>had ALL their reviews fake

>(Danny Damon and some other

>guy, no longer listed, called

>Jason). Another escort here,

>Collin Jennings, had a few

>good reviews, then had two

>which "exposed" him, and hasn't

>had any reviews here since.

> He still advertizes in

>the Bay Area Reporter, and

>obviously still gets business from

>people who don't read this

>website. I suspect he

>no longer "advertizes" on this

>site because he doesn't want

>to attract any clients from

>here, along with other bad

>reviews.

 

That might be true for the two or three ecorts mentioned above. But how many escorts, past and present, have been listed on this site? Given that the reviews of those three escorts were fake, do they constitute a substantial number or the majority of the reviews for SF escorts here? What is the percentage, really?

 

Let us consider the following scenario: How would we feel if someone says MOST or the MAJORITY OF GAY MEN in SF must have AIDS since two or three gay men in SF have AIDS? Or MOST or the MAJORITY of GAY MEN in the US (or elsewhere) must have AIDS? :o This is what one would call ILLOGICAL induction. Yet some people think it's okay to generalize the observations of two or three escorts to all other escorts (in SF or elsewhere)? ;-)

 

>I enjoy reading the "Newest

>Reviews" section whenever I can.

>As I look at today's "Newest

>Reviews" I notice an escort

>with lots of positive reviews.

> I don't know if

>they're all legit or if

>just some are. Some

>are written by repeat reviewers.

> The vast majority, though,

>are written by first-time reviewers,

>and there are stylistic similarities.

> This obviously proves nothing,

>but it does make one

>go "hmmm."

 

An attempt was made to use the observations on ONE SINGLE DAY's (today's newest) reviews to generalize all other reviews. Are today's reviews TRULY REPRESENTATIVE of all the reviews listed on this site? If the observation was not used to prove or suggest anything, why was it brought up? If someone goes to visit Richmond, (a suburb near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) now, he may find a lot of Asians living there. Based on that observation ALONE, he might conclude that the majority of people in BC or Canada are Asians. However, this is FAR FROM THE TRUTH! Why? Because he bases his conclusion on the observations he makes on a NON-REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. In other words, a sampling bias has occurred. :o

 

 

> My sense is that

>first-time reviewers comprise about half

>of the reviews I read.

 

Once again, another attempt at illogical induction. There's nothing wrong to express our individual experience, but to assume that individual experience represents those of others may be rather presumptuous.

 

 

> My guess is that

>most of the clients who

>frequent this site are "experienced"

>escort hirers, or at least

>not people who would only

>rarely hire an escort.

>Although all reviewers have to start

>sometime, they're only a first-time

>reviewer once, and then the're

>repeat reviewers forever more.

>I can't pretend I have

>absolute knowledge of the answer,

>but this fact must be

>taken into account.

 

I guess your guess is as good as anybody's guess. :-) Now I have two questions:

(1) Are experienced clients more likely to write more than one reviews?

(2) Does the majority of experienced clients submit reviews?

 

If the answer to any or both of my last two questions is NO, then would we be surprised to find that a significant proportion (let's accept previous poster's estimate of 50%) of reviews are written by first-time reviewers?

 

 

>Even

>when there is a repeat

>reviewer, a very sophisitacated faker

>could write a couple of

>positive reviews on an escort

>he's never met in order

>to establish himself. I

>doubt the receiving escort would

>complain. In fact, there

>was a recent string in

>which the poster said he'd

>met a number of escorts

>who were aware of fake

>positive reviews they had nothing

>to do with. What's

>that about?

>On a similar vein, I've done

>site searches on some putative

>repeat reviewers, only to find

>out they were NOT, in

>fact repeat reviewers (Hooboy recently

>discovered one himself, although it

>was with a negative reviewer).

 

Enough said about false generalizations.

 

 

>So do I pretend to know

>how big the problem is

>of fake reviewers? Of

>course not. I can't

>know. I would be

>hard-pressed to believe the percentage

>is less than 10% or

>more than 90%. But

>could it be 20%?

>80%? Neither figure would

>surprise me too much.

 

Yet individuals feel comfortable to make sweeping statements like "many/most/the majority of the reviews here are fake"!

 

 

>A prior response to the

>original post on this string

>noted that escorts see a

>jump in calls after a

>positive review, and I have

>been friends with enough escorts

>to know this is absolutely

>true. How many escorts

>submit to the temptation to

>do something they know will

>substantially affect the bottom line?

> I have no way

>of telling. But it

>definitely happens.

 

I have never suggested in any way, shape or form that there is ABSOLUTELY NO fake review here. What I'm asking is for those who continue to propagate the idea that "many or most of the reviews here are fake" to come forward and show us their evidence --- evidence that is verifiable, logical and truthful. Unfortunately, the logic underlying the argument "on the other side" seems to be "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT"! Sweeping, insulting statements have been and are still made about the truthfulness of the reviews, albeit the absence of any valid and supporting evidence.

 

Scientifically yours,

JT

[Guest pickwick]

>I have never suggested in any

>way, shape or form that

>there is ABSOLUTELY NO fake

>review here. What I'm asking

>is for those who continue

>to propagate the idea that

>"many or most of the

>reviews here are fake" to

>come forward and show us

>their evidence --- evidence that

>is verifiable, logical and truthful.

 

Excuse me, but you have misquoted the statement that you are attacking. The original statement was "many if not most," not "many or most." The meaning of each phrase is quite different. If someone asserts that "many" reviews are fake, what percentage of reviews does that refer to, and what evidence would be necessary to substantiate it? How many is "many"? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

 

I have seen HB question the veracity of both positive and negative reviews on this message board. He did so in a thread on Anthony Holloway in the Deli section earlier this week. Do you say that he is defaming his own website?

 

I have no idea what percentage of reviews here is real, and neither do you. Since this can never be anything other than a matter of opinion, I do not understand why you seem so anxious to prevent people from expressing their opinions.

 

As for holding people accountable, when someone starts a thread questioning the veracity of a review (calling FFF!) anyone who cares to comment on either side of the argument is free to do so. What more do you want?

[Guest pickwick]

>I have never suggested in any

>way, shape or form that

>there is ABSOLUTELY NO fake

>review here. What I'm asking

>is for those who continue

>to propagate the idea that

>"many or most of the

>reviews here are fake" to

>come forward and show us

>their evidence --- evidence that

>is verifiable, logical and truthful.

 

Excuse me, but you have misquoted the statement that you are attacking. The original statement was "many if not most," not "many or most." The meaning of each phrase is quite different. If someone asserts that "many" reviews are fake, what percentage of reviews does that refer to, and what evidence would be necessary to substantiate it? How many is "many"? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

 

I have seen HB question the veracity of both positive and negative reviews on this message board. He did so in a thread on Anthony Holloway in the Deli section earlier this week. Do you say that he is defaming his own website?

 

I have no idea what percentage of reviews here is real, and neither do you. Since this can never be anything other than a matter of opinion, I do not understand why you seem so anxious to prevent people from expressing their opinions.

 

As for holding people accountable, when someone starts a thread questioning the veracity of a review (calling FFF!) anyone who cares to comment on either side of the argument is free to do so. What more do you want?

[Guest N]

Does it really matter....most? some? none? all?

 

Of course there are fake reviews. But, of course there are real reviews. Why the need to quantify?

 

After reading the reviews for a while it is fairly easy to 'discard' the ones that appear (note the word "appear" not

"are") to be fake.

 

Eventually someone who relied on fake reviews will write their own review (as a public service to warn the rest of us about it) and we will then have more information on which to base our choice of hire or not hire.

 

As someone pointed out if the review is accurate does it matter whether it is fake or not.

 

Personally all the reviews I have submitted - both raves and pans - have been printed as I wrote them. A couple of them probably sound like the escorts wrote them themselves - they are that good!

 

Reading the reviews has helped me to have really wonderful experiences as well as some not so good. But I have had to take them all with a grain of salt and make my choice based on what I believed to be the most accurate - at least to my mind. And yes I am more prone to be swayed by a bad review - if it is echoed by others then I am to be swayed by a good review - unless it sounds like my exact taste.

 

To me, the escort's responses to the bad reviews or negative points in an otherwise good review, tell me more about the escort then the reviews themselves.

 

Of course when we are thinking with our dick, we tend to believe what we want about a fantasy in spite of the reviews. (I would put in a smile face here, but I don't know how!)

 

N

[Guest N]

Does it really matter....most? some? none? all?

 

Of course there are fake reviews. But, of course there are real reviews. Why the need to quantify?

 

After reading the reviews for a while it is fairly easy to 'discard' the ones that appear (note the word "appear" not

"are") to be fake.

 

Eventually someone who relied on fake reviews will write their own review (as a public service to warn the rest of us about it) and we will then have more information on which to base our choice of hire or not hire.

 

As someone pointed out if the review is accurate does it matter whether it is fake or not.

 

Personally all the reviews I have submitted - both raves and pans - have been printed as I wrote them. A couple of them probably sound like the escorts wrote them themselves - they are that good!

 

Reading the reviews has helped me to have really wonderful experiences as well as some not so good. But I have had to take them all with a grain of salt and make my choice based on what I believed to be the most accurate - at least to my mind. And yes I am more prone to be swayed by a bad review - if it is echoed by others then I am to be swayed by a good review - unless it sounds like my exact taste.

 

To me, the escort's responses to the bad reviews or negative points in an otherwise good review, tell me more about the escort then the reviews themselves.

 

Of course when we are thinking with our dick, we tend to believe what we want about a fantasy in spite of the reviews. (I would put in a smile face here, but I don't know how!)

 

N

[Guest JT]

>Excuse me, but you have misquoted

>the statement that you are

>attacking. The original statement

>was "many if not most,"

>not "many or most."

 

Well I didn't misquote the "original statement". I left it unmodified. However, I wasn't referring only to that statement ALONE in my discussion. I HAVE STATED CLEARLY IN MY FIRST POST THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR STATEMENTS MORE THAN ONCE IN THE MESSAGE CENTRE. There are indeed numerous statements out there that state "the majority" or "most" of the reviews here are fake. The one I quoted was just an example of those statements. Perhaps someone else here MISINTERPRETED my position.

 

 

>The meaning of each phrase

>is quite different. If

>someone asserts that "many" reviews

>are fake, what percentage of

>reviews does that refer to,

>and what evidence would be

>necessary to substantiate it?

>How many is "many"?

>Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

 

Well, I'm still waiting those who say "many" reviews are fake to come forward to give us a number that is supported by evidence.

 

 

>I have seen HB question the

>veracity of both positive and

>negative reviews on this message

>board. He did so

>in a thread on Anthony

>Holloway in the Deli section

>earlier this week. Do

>you say that he is

>defaming his own website?

 

Have I ever said people who propagate the idea that "many, most or the majority of the reviews are fake" are defaming this website? Is that what you think those posters are doing? As I stated previously (and if you have read my posts CAREFULLY), "I have never suggested in any way, shape, or form that there is absolutely no fake review here". Does it contradict with your observation that even HooBoy has discovered some fake reviews. Did someone MISQUOTE me here?

 

 

>I have no idea what percentage

>of reviews here is real,

>and neither do you.

 

Absolutely true. So why is it okay for people to make sweeping statements (note PLURAL form) like "many, most or the majority" of the reviews here are fake? And why would you appear to object that I ask for more information and evidence from those who seem to know the answer when making their sweeping statements.

 

 

>Since this can never be

>anything other than a matter

>of opinion, I do not

>understand why you seem so

>anxious to prevent people from

>expressing their opinions.

 

Well, if you have not read my previous post (esp. the examples given) carefully, then I guess you would not understand why. Plus, AM I PREVENTING others from expressing their opinions? On the contrary, I'm really looking forward to the "other side" to espress their opinions --- opinions that can be substantiated by valid statistics and evidence (I think I stated that quite clearly in my previous post)! By the way, are you not expressing your opinions here? And how have I prevented you from doing so?

 

 

>As for holding people accountable, when

>someone starts a thread questioning

>the veracity of a review

>(calling FFF!) anyone who cares

>to comment on either side

>of the argument is free

>to do so. What

>more do you want?

 

YES, please comment! :-) But if those comments are going to be sweeping statements that make ILLOGICAL GENERALIZATIONS about other reviews here, they are insulting to the reviewers, escorts and HooBoy. Then the individuals making those statements should be held accoutable for producing valid evidence to support their claims. Yet we still haven't seen any substantiating evidence from the "other side", other than one post in which someone misquoted me and misinterpreted my position.

 

JT

[Guest JT]

>Excuse me, but you have misquoted

>the statement that you are

>attacking. The original statement

>was "many if not most,"

>not "many or most."

 

Well I didn't misquote the "original statement". I left it unmodified. However, I wasn't referring only to that statement ALONE in my discussion. I HAVE STATED CLEARLY IN MY FIRST POST THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR STATEMENTS MORE THAN ONCE IN THE MESSAGE CENTRE. There are indeed numerous statements out there that state "the majority" or "most" of the reviews here are fake. The one I quoted was just an example of those statements. Perhaps someone else here MISINTERPRETED my position.

 

 

>The meaning of each phrase

>is quite different. If

>someone asserts that "many" reviews

>are fake, what percentage of

>reviews does that refer to,

>and what evidence would be

>necessary to substantiate it?

>How many is "many"?

>Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

 

Well, I'm still waiting those who say "many" reviews are fake to come forward to give us a number that is supported by evidence.

 

 

>I have seen HB question the

>veracity of both positive and

>negative reviews on this message

>board. He did so

>in a thread on Anthony

>Holloway in the Deli section

>earlier this week. Do

>you say that he is

>defaming his own website?

 

Have I ever said people who propagate the idea that "many, most or the majority of the reviews are fake" are defaming this website? Is that what you think those posters are doing? As I stated previously (and if you have read my posts CAREFULLY), "I have never suggested in any way, shape, or form that there is absolutely no fake review here". Does it contradict with your observation that even HooBoy has discovered some fake reviews. Did someone MISQUOTE me here?

 

 

>I have no idea what percentage

>of reviews here is real,

>and neither do you.

 

Absolutely true. So why is it okay for people to make sweeping statements (note PLURAL form) like "many, most or the majority" of the reviews here are fake? And why would you appear to object that I ask for more information and evidence from those who seem to know the answer when making their sweeping statements.

 

 

>Since this can never be

>anything other than a matter

>of opinion, I do not

>understand why you seem so

>anxious to prevent people from

>expressing their opinions.

 

Well, if you have not read my previous post (esp. the examples given) carefully, then I guess you would not understand why. Plus, AM I PREVENTING others from expressing their opinions? On the contrary, I'm really looking forward to the "other side" to espress their opinions --- opinions that can be substantiated by valid statistics and evidence (I think I stated that quite clearly in my previous post)! By the way, are you not expressing your opinions here? And how have I prevented you from doing so?

 

 

>As for holding people accountable, when

>someone starts a thread questioning

>the veracity of a review

>(calling FFF!) anyone who cares

>to comment on either side

>of the argument is free

>to do so. What

>more do you want?

 

YES, please comment! :-) But if those comments are going to be sweeping statements that make ILLOGICAL GENERALIZATIONS about other reviews here, they are insulting to the reviewers, escorts and HooBoy. Then the individuals making those statements should be held accoutable for producing valid evidence to support their claims. Yet we still haven't seen any substantiating evidence from the "other side", other than one post in which someone misquoted me and misinterpreted my position.

 

JT

[Guest pickwick]

>>Excuse me, but you have misquoted

>>the statement that you are

>>attacking. The original statement

>>was "many if not most,"

>>not "many or most."

>

>Well I didn't misquote the "original

>statement". I left it unmodified.

 

No. You used a specific quotation in the post with which you began this thread to exemplify the "assessment" with which you disagree. In the later post to which I referred you altered that quotation in such a way as to alter its meaning.

 

>However, I wasn't referring only

>to that statement ALONE in

>my discussion. I HAVE STATED

>CLEARLY IN MY FIRST POST

>THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR

>STATEMENTS MORE THAN ONCE IN

>THE MESSAGE CENTRE. There are

>indeed numerous statements out there

>that state "the majority" or

>"most" of the reviews here

>are fake. The one I

>quoted was just an example

>of those statements. Perhaps someone

>else here MISINTERPRETED my position.

>

 

But the different statements to which you refer have different meanings, and that is rather important when you are chiding others for failing to provide evidence to support them, which seems to be the import of ALL of your posts in this thread.

 

 

>Well, I'm still waiting those who

>say "many" reviews are fake

>to come forward to give

>us a number that is

>supported by evidence.

 

And who says it is they who have the burden of proof?

 

>Have I ever said people who

>propagate the idea that "many,

>most or the majority of

>the reviews are fake" are

>defaming this website? Is that

>what you think those posters

>are doing?

 

Have I ever said that that is what YOU said? Show me the post in which I made such a statement. I merely asked a question.

 

 

As I stated

>previously (and if you have

>read my posts CAREFULLY), "I

>have never suggested in any

>way, shape, or form that

>there is absolutely no fake

>review here". Does it contradict

>with your observation that even

>HooBoy has discovered some fake

>reviews.

 

No, and I never said it did. Show me the post in which I did say that if you can.

 

Did someone MISQUOTE me

>here?

 

I don't know who you are talking about. It certainly isn't me. Show me the post in which I purported to quote your words and altered the quote. Well?

 

 

>>I have no idea what percentage

>>of reviews here is real,

>>and neither do you.

>

>Absolutely true. So why is it

>okay for people to make

>sweeping statements (note PLURAL form)

>like "many, most or the

>majority" of the reviews here

>are fake?

 

Why isn't it okay? Did someone make a rule that says it isn't?

 

>And why would

>you appear to object that

>I ask for more information

>and evidence from those who

>seem to know the answer

>when making their sweeping statements.

 

But you did more than ask for information. You accused them of insulting HB, isn't that true?

 

>>Since this can never be

>>anything other than a matter

>>of opinion, I do not

>>understand why you seem so

>>anxious to prevent people from

>>expressing their opinions.

>

>Well, if you have not read

>my previous post (esp. the

>examples given) carefully, then I

>guess you would not understand

>why.

 

I'm afraid you still haven't made it clear.

 

Plus, AM I PREVENTING

>others from expressing their opinions?

 

Who said you were?

 

>On the contrary, I'm really

>looking forward to the "other

>side" to espress their opinions

>--- opinions that can be

>substantiated by valid statistics and

>evidence (I think I stated

>that quite clearly in my

>previous post)!

 

[/b]If you are looking forward to that, then I suppose you should try to come up with some method of persuading them to do it, since they have no obligation to do it.[/b]

 

 

>By the way,

>are you not expressing your

>opinions here? And how have

>I prevented you from doing

>so?

 

Who said you had?

 

>YES, please comment! :-) But if

>those comments are going to

>be sweeping statements that make

>ILLOGICAL GENERALIZATIONS about other reviews

>here, they are insulting to

>the reviewers, escorts and HooBoy.

 

I disagree.

 

>Then the individuals making those

>statements should be held accoutable

>for producing valid evidence to

>support their claims.

 

According to you. But I know of no such rule and would not support one if it were proposed for a vote -- which to the best of my knowledge it never has been.

 

 

Yet we

>still haven't seen any substantiating

>evidence from the "other side",

>other than one post in

>which someone misquoted me and

>misinterpreted my position.

>

 

Who misquoted you? Show me the post, I would like to see it.

[Guest pickwick]

>>Excuse me, but you have misquoted

>>the statement that you are

>>attacking. The original statement

>>was "many if not most,"

>>not "many or most."

>

>Well I didn't misquote the "original

>statement". I left it unmodified.

 

No. You used a specific quotation in the post with which you began this thread to exemplify the "assessment" with which you disagree. In the later post to which I referred you altered that quotation in such a way as to alter its meaning.

 

>However, I wasn't referring only

>to that statement ALONE in

>my discussion. I HAVE STATED

>CLEARLY IN MY FIRST POST

>THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR

>STATEMENTS MORE THAN ONCE IN

>THE MESSAGE CENTRE. There are

>indeed numerous statements out there

>that state "the majority" or

>"most" of the reviews here

>are fake. The one I

>quoted was just an example

>of those statements. Perhaps someone

>else here MISINTERPRETED my position.

>

 

But the different statements to which you refer have different meanings, and that is rather important when you are chiding others for failing to provide evidence to support them, which seems to be the import of ALL of your posts in this thread.

 

 

>Well, I'm still waiting those who

>say "many" reviews are fake

>to come forward to give

>us a number that is

>supported by evidence.

 

And who says it is they who have the burden of proof?

 

>Have I ever said people who

>propagate the idea that "many,

>most or the majority of

>the reviews are fake" are

>defaming this website? Is that

>what you think those posters

>are doing?

 

Have I ever said that that is what YOU said? Show me the post in which I made such a statement. I merely asked a question.

 

 

As I stated

>previously (and if you have

>read my posts CAREFULLY), "I

>have never suggested in any

>way, shape, or form that

>there is absolutely no fake

>review here". Does it contradict

>with your observation that even

>HooBoy has discovered some fake

>reviews.

 

No, and I never said it did. Show me the post in which I did say that if you can.

 

Did someone MISQUOTE me

>here?

 

I don't know who you are talking about. It certainly isn't me. Show me the post in which I purported to quote your words and altered the quote. Well?

 

 

>>I have no idea what percentage

>>of reviews here is real,

>>and neither do you.

>

>Absolutely true. So why is it

>okay for people to make

>sweeping statements (note PLURAL form)

>like "many, most or the

>majority" of the reviews here

>are fake?

 

Why isn't it okay? Did someone make a rule that says it isn't?

 

>And why would

>you appear to object that

>I ask for more information

>and evidence from those who

>seem to know the answer

>when making their sweeping statements.

 

But you did more than ask for information. You accused them of insulting HB, isn't that true?

 

>>Since this can never be

>>anything other than a matter

>>of opinion, I do not

>>understand why you seem so

>>anxious to prevent people from

>>expressing their opinions.

>

>Well, if you have not read

>my previous post (esp. the

>examples given) carefully, then I

>guess you would not understand

>why.

 

I'm afraid you still haven't made it clear.

 

Plus, AM I PREVENTING

>others from expressing their opinions?

 

Who said you were?

 

>On the contrary, I'm really

>looking forward to the "other

>side" to espress their opinions

>--- opinions that can be

>substantiated by valid statistics and

>evidence (I think I stated

>that quite clearly in my

>previous post)!

 

[/b]If you are looking forward to that, then I suppose you should try to come up with some method of persuading them to do it, since they have no obligation to do it.[/b]

 

 

>By the way,

>are you not expressing your

>opinions here? And how have

>I prevented you from doing

>so?

 

Who said you had?

 

>YES, please comment! :-) But if

>those comments are going to

>be sweeping statements that make

>ILLOGICAL GENERALIZATIONS about other reviews

>here, they are insulting to

>the reviewers, escorts and HooBoy.

 

I disagree.

 

>Then the individuals making those

>statements should be held accoutable

>for producing valid evidence to

>support their claims.

 

According to you. But I know of no such rule and would not support one if it were proposed for a vote -- which to the best of my knowledge it never has been.

 

 

Yet we

>still haven't seen any substantiating

>evidence from the "other side",

>other than one post in

>which someone misquoted me and

>misinterpreted my position.

>

 

Who misquoted you? Show me the post, I would like to see it.

[Guest JD]

I have left sooo many bulletin boards and chat rooms because of the internal bitching!!

 

Can't we put away the claws and let people have differing opinions?

 

What in the hell happened to the suggestion that we attack the issues and not authors?!? :'(

[Guest JD]

I have left sooo many bulletin boards and chat rooms because of the internal bitching!!

 

Can't we put away the claws and let people have differing opinions?

 

What in the hell happened to the suggestion that we attack the issues and not authors?!? :'(