How Does This Get Published?

[Guest Spunk]

In todays (Saturday) massive upload of 4 reviews, I find a review of an escort named Joshua. There is no contact information, no notice of where he was found, and the 3 time reviewer doesn't even list previous reviews. What happened to all those fields that are marked mandatory? What happened to a little bit of editing? Whereis the integrity that tired and broke HooBoy speaks of. He doesn't even respect his own site! http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/joshu.html

[phage]

I thought that Hagen was being a little harsh with you, but he was obviously just paying attention because you really are a piece of work! You’re profile says you are in Michigan. Are you planning a trip to North Carolina? Do you have ANY intention of trying to hire this guy?

 

I don’t usually pay much attention to the reviews from parts of the country that I have no intention of traveling to – especially the ones without pictures – but your little tirade piqued my curiosity.

 

It seems to me there is some valuable information in the review. I’m sure that if you were in North Carolina (no doubt a hotbed of escort activity) you would appreciate knowing the escort’s name and having some information about his performance. The reviewer also gives the agency name, and I doubt it would be a big challenge to find the phone number if you were actually serious about hiring the guy.

 

Whether it’s the ideal review, chock-full of the information you would like to see, or not, why do you even give a shit?

[Guest]

I have to agree with the original poster. There's nothing complex or ambiguous about what a "required field" means. If one sets standards, one should keep them. Incomplete reviews should be sent back to the reviewer with instructions to finish the review form.

[Guest]

What's particularly galling is the statement "This is my third review," then later "My previously-published reviews: none."

The review should be taken off. Somebody was asleep at the switch...:+

[Guest elwood]

Yes...........l agree.....lame review....too little info.

[CT Dick]

>Whether it’s the ideal review, chock-full of the information

>you would like to see, or not, why do you even give a shit?

 

 

Phage, he obviously does. How do you know he won't travel to NC? Doesn't he have the right to point out that this review is weak? We all expect a minimum in the reviews and he pointed out that this one was short.

 

To the point: I think your reaction was way over the top. You made a personal attack rather than discuss the issue. I thought we were trying to avoid that.

 

Dick

[phage]

>Phage, he obviously does. How do you know he won't travel

>to NC?

 

I don’t know – that’s why I asked.

 

>Doesn't he have the right to point out that this

>review is weak? We all expect a minimum in the reviews and

>he pointed out that this one was short.

 

In fact he has already pointed it out. He started a similar thread five or six weeks ago and it was responded to. What’s the point of repeatedly complaining about it? These are not paid reviewers that HooBoy can demand a certain standard of behavior from. Of course he can always reject the review, but isn’t a little information better than none at all?

 

>To the point: I think your reaction was way over the top.

>You made a personal attack rather than discuss the issue. I

>thought we were trying to avoid that.

 

Over the top? Stating that someone is a piece of work and asking them why they give a shit is a personal attack? It’s this kind of thinking that has turned the message board into a sterile place that is hardly worth visiting anymore. Oh, it’s a more genteel place all right, but there is little discussion here – spirited or otherwise – let alone any provocative thoughts or ideas.

 

And for the record, I’m not part of the “we” that’s been trying to impose a certain standard of decorum on the others. While I have never been part of the attack pack or particularly contentious, I have also never been part of the “can’t we all just get along” crew either. All these pleas for civility have just succeeded in driving away many of the more interesting and thoughtful posters.

[Rod Hagen]

Everyone's so quick to defend the wrong person :-)

 

That Joshua's review didn't have every box completed was an oversight. Oversights fall under the category of "technical" problem.

 

Apart from simply ignoring the mistake, Spunk had two options. He could spend 30 seconds typing the following email:

 

Date: 6/08/02

To: [email protected]

From: [email protected]

Subj: Josh's Review

 

Hey Hoo, hope you're well. Noticed the review of Joshua today didn't contain his contact information (phone, webpage, email, etc). After you contact the reviewer fro the information and adjust the HTML, please send me an email to let me know. THANK YOU

 

-Spunk

 

He could have done that if he was actually concerned about the problem.

 

Or he could have written the bitchy little thread in this fine Message Center just to hear himself complain; accomplishing nothing. Am I right?