SKYE WOODS More bang for the boy

[jackhammer91406]

In todays review section is a review for this hunk.

 

This is just 2 weeks after he was featured as cover boy but the review from that date is no longer visible or has been changed to today's date.

My point is this: Why is he being featured in the review section for the second time in two weeks when I know there are reviews older than that waiting in the queue? I have a review of Raul G Manzo that was acknowledged as received last March 28th. I had hoped his review would be published prior to his return to L.A. (last week) to help guys who might be interested in hiring him.

 

Don't get me wrong, Skye looks looks hot and I have no problem seeing him again, but not as long as there are other reviews waiting to be published.

 

 

And before my buddy Deej chimes in with daddy's email address, it's already been sent. This post was to solicit other opinions.

[+ deej]

Hmmm ... it looks like todays upload was horked all the way around. Coverboy seems to have been corrected (no doubt because of your cordially-worded email to Daddy). It's high time Small Town John's number came up!

 

Skye's previous coverboy day, by the way, was because of a new verification and a new photo. There was no new review. The index for that day says as much.

 

Of today's reviews, there are only two with photos showing face. (In other words, only two candidates for coverboy.) But one of the reviews has the camera icon and a "new photo" note, yet it has no photo. (I just sent this one in.)

 

It must be gremlin Friday.

[jackhammer91406]

Not sure if Daddy thought it was cordially worded since it was basically the original post in email format. Did receive a prompt reply explaining that the previous cover day was for new photo and verification.

 

I still wish Raul's review had posted in time for his visit, (since he currently has no other reviews) but he will be back this way again and as long as it gets published sometime, hopefully it will help other KMART shoppers.

[+ deej]

See, you got the information by asking Daddy. I got it by going and looking. ;-)

 

>I still wish Raul's review had posted in time for his visit,

>(since he currently has no other reviews) but he will be back

>this way again and as long as it gets published sometime,

>hopefully it will help other KMART shoppers.

 

I happen to agree. But this is STRICTLY personal opinion and not based in fact.

 

My impression is that the review queue is entirely too binary. A review of a "new" guy should jump to the front of the queue, but it appears they sit at the hind end, waiting for all the escorts with previous reviews to have their 30-day "use by" date expire.

 

Because I write software, I suspect I know why the software was written the way it was. It's the easiest way. But as I said above, I'm guessing.

 

I've been beasting on Daddy (privately) about a number of things since this site opened, most of which have now been addressed. I'm kinda tired of yelling at him. ;-) (And he's probably tired of hearing from me!)

 

Maybe with a little reasoned and considered input from the contributors he can now address this issue? Who knows?

 

All I know with absolute certainty is that no matter how the reviews are processed, no matter what queue is used, no matter what adjudication process is used, SOMEBODY will bitch. If your review of Escort X is published before your review of Escort Y, somebody will bitch. It has been that way since the beginning.

 

I'm glad it's not my job!

[jackhammer91406]

Well, yeah I guess my posts would qualify as bitching although when I wrote them I wasn't using a bitching voice in my head. I really just meant to express an opinion and was curious how others felt about it.

 

I wouldn't want the headaches that come with running this site and am glad someone else is willing to deal with them.

[+ deej]

Oh, I didn't mean to say YOU were bitching. You're too damn reasonable to bitch about things. But you've been around here long enough to recognize the syndrome.

 

You did complain a little about the queue. Would you prefer days on end with no reviews at all? Do you remember the general hue and cry when Hooboy would drop/dunk/spill/kick his notebook and not publish ANYTHING for several days?

 

The queue is designed to give you your daily fix even if Daddy is sick for a day, takes a <gasp> day off, or pulls an all-nighter to recover a server gone wonky. (The latter actually happened recently.)

 

I have quibbles with how it's processed, but not about the necessity of it.

[raulgmanzo]

Why not post reviews as they become ready

 

Thanks Jackhammer for submitting a review. Another client told me he submitted one months ago but I've not seen anything. So I've been reluctant to ask other clients to review me.

 

In reference to the holding queue for reviews Deej asks:

>Would you prefer days on end with no reviews at all?

 

Absolutely if it means reviews are posted as soon as available. In the days of paper there were discrete press runs so things weren't published immediately but now I see no reason to delay the release of useful information.

Instead of 5 reviews everyday there might be two days with nothing and then 15. So what? Just leave up the 15 until the new ones are ready. It's actually simpler and more useful in my opinion.

 

And that some of us have to wait behind escorts with 50, 60 even seventy something reviews is NOT very nice. I'm also a programmer, with more than 20 years experience, I'll write the queue prioritizing software for free. In C, C++, Perl, PHP, even 80386 assembly. I see nothing difficult about it. Actually I suspect no new code needs be added but rather some broken code removed.

 

Well now I've a bunch of satisfied regulars here in Chicago and in Los Angeles so maybe I'll be ok even with no reviews on this site. Especially since I've started getting a couple reviews on other sites.

 

Still I appreciate Daddy's reviews and the large amount of work it surely requires.

 

Raul

[+ Charlie]

What means "horked", please?

[+ deej]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=horked

[+ Charlie]

Since the posters there can't seem to agree on a meaning (it sounds almost like a US/Canadian border dispute), I guess I'll avoid using it for now.

[Funseeker 22]

>What means "horked", please?

 

Glad that somebody else asked. I thought it was a typo for "porked" .;-)

Anyway I also am remiss in not doing a review for Raul however he`s apparently been "horked" or vice versa all over so no doubt enjoying the potential afterglow. ;-) ;-)