Perb policy on removing poor reviews of advertisers

[popazuda]

What is perb's policy on removing poor reviews of advertisers?

Yesterday, I saw a poor review of an advertiser from what seemed to be a reputable poster. Today, poof it's gone.

Can advertisers simply say to the admin "that review's not accurate, please remove it", and it's gone? Even if it is posted by a reputable reviewer? I've seen posts of "why was my review of so-and-so (paid advertiser) removed", and it's always concerned me, but this is the first time I've seen it first hand.

From my point of view, after a few bad experiences, I've started relying heavily on perb reviews to choose who I will and will not see. Knowing that bad reviews of advertiser's bad reviews are likely to be removed, this makes me want to see non-advertisers with good reviews more than the advertisers with good reviews. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen an advertiser here (partly by co-incidence, partly because of this reason). If I was an advertiser who always gets good reviews, I'd be pretty pissed off at this policy.

I'm aware that there is alot of both shilling and untrue bad reviews to boost or sabotage SP's reputations, and those reviews should be removed, but not the ones from reputable reviewers here.

My solution?

After a poster here has been on for 6 months, and has posted (say) 5 quality reviews here with no questions of shilling or sabotage, they should have their status upgraded ("reputable reviewer"), and if they post a bad review of an advertiser, it stays, no matter what the advertiser says.

 

[sonoman]

My solution?

After a poster here has been on for 6 months, and has posted (say) 5 quality reviews here with no questions of shilling or sabotage, they should have their status upgraded ("reputable reviewer"), and if they post a bad review of an advertiser, it stays, no matter what the advertiser says.

For better or worse, those names in red are what keep this board running... If we all agreed to pay some moderate subsciption fee as well, your solution might work. Given the amount of drivle that gets posted here sometimes, that might not be a bad idea.

 

[wpgguy]

Damn good idea.

There are a ton of members who I think have a good reputation and I would tend to trust. If someone posts a negative review of a paid advertiser, it would be in the advertisers best interest to fix the problem not just cover it up. Well that's how a reputable business would handle it.


Wpgguy

P.S. I still think any SP who wants a NRP should have the right to, but we should also know who they are so we can make an educated choice to see them or not.

 

[henryhill]

What you are referring to has been "The Great Debate". Some folks have experienced it first hand, others have only heard about its "lore". Some folks even refer to this phenomenon as the "No Review List", which may or may not even exist. Who knows? One day a review is here, the next day....poof.

 

[apple juice]

Sorry to interrupt...

P.S. I still think any SP who wants a NRP should have the right to, but we should also know who they are so we can make an educated choice to see them or not.

what does this acronym NRP stand for again? Thanks

 

[popazuda]

For better or worse, those names in red are what keep this board running... If we all agreed to pay some moderate subsciption fee as well, your solution might work. Given the amount of drivle that gets posted here sometimes, that might not be a bad idea.

This kind policy only helps advertisers that get bad reviews, and makes me want to only see non-advertisers. I fail to see how this helps either perb or the majority of it's advertisers.

 

[wpgguy]

what does this acronym NRP stand for again? Thanks

It stands for No Review Policy.

I can understand that some girls may not want to be reviewed, I have no problem with that. BUT, if there is a NRP here, it would be nice to know who is on it.

 

[wpgguy]

This kind policy only helps advertisers that get bad reviews, and makes me want to only see non-advertisers. I fail to see how this helps either perb or the majority of it's advertisers.

Agree 100%, just because you pay the ad fee, a SP, MP etc should not be able to pick and choose which reviews stand. Anyone getting repeated poor reviews should improve the service.

This is a great disadvantage to all of the great SP out there that care about their reputations and try to keep their customers happy. No business can survive without repeat clientèle.

 

[apple juice]

Anyone getting repeated poor reviews should improve the service.

I agree with this...but isn't this just common sense?

 

[wpgguy]

I agree with this...but isn't this just common sense?

Absolutely common sense, but common sense and real life don't always go hand in hand.

 

[popazuda]

I agree with this...but isn't this just common sense?

What motivation is there to improve service if they can simply remove bad reviews?

Imagine if as a paid advertiser to "Car and Driver", General Motors could pick and choose which reviews get into their magazine, and which ones don't? If you knew this was the case, would you use the reviews in Car and Driver to decide if you want to buy a Cavalier?

 

[apple juice]

Absolutely common sense, but common sense and real life don't always go hand in hand.

I guess...lol...some senses are just not common for everyone...

 

[Guardian Angel]

Hmmm

I guess...lol...some senses are just not common for everyone...

You seem very sensible!

G.A.

 

[apple juice]

What motivation is there to improve service if they can simply remove bad reviews?

Imagine if as a paid advertiser to "Car and Driver", General Motors could pick and choose which reviews get into their magazine, and which ones don't? If you knew this was the case, would you use the reviews in Car and Driver to decide if you want to buy a Cavalier?

No...I probably wouldn't Popazuda...but I probably wouldn't use any reviews to begin with because if it was a cavalier I wanted...a cavalier I shall get...no matter what...

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

Not so fast fellas

If an SP or a review has been given the axe, then there is good reason for it and isn't just for the obvious commercial reasons.

A review/rant of a well-known SP by a very reputable pooning member was taken to new heights this past weekend...

What we really all need to remember is that there are at least two sides to the story/incident. Regardless, the SP, at least in this case, got the short end of the stick as she looked to take the high road and protect him (as any good SP will do) at the same time, all the while people (both, SPs and other members) fell into a feeding frenzy ripping the "Perp"/SP a new one based on only the top notch reputable pooning member's perspective on the incident. The bullshit went one for 17+ pages with not a word from the thread starter having ommitted the specific details of the arrangement. Had those key elements have been disclosed, the thread would've been shorter and the opinions would've been ones of support and encouragement for parties involved.

Most of us rely on the reviews to make their erotic purchasing decisions but
the reviewing pooner has the responsibility to be truthful about the encounter. And if the SP doesn't care to draw too much negative attention to themselves thay have little recourse but to pull the thread/review or let it run its' course and have it fester causing damage (I've seen it done) or it may not affect them at all (but VERY few are able to let that slide off of them).

There are a few strange, perhaps even sick, individuals out there that are masquerading as reputable posters but their elevated esteemed position can't be used as a reliable seal of approval. At the same time more people reading reviews need to take the time to sort through facts, from both sides, before making their opinion/judgement, even known. As a reader and/or poster you have a responsibility to check the facts before making an informed decision, if you don't, you could very well be hurting someones livelihood all at the hands of someone venting their frustrations or possessing an unbalanced moral compass.

Not matter which way you look at it, only the parties involved know what happened but reserve your judgements until at least all perspectives that have been heard.

This also applies to PMs, I believe moreso, as PMs can (and have been on more than a few occasions) be altered to bolster the claimants testimony.

You can never get all the facts from just one newspaper, and unless you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgements about what is going on. - Mr. Citizen, 1960.
-Harry S Truman

Ask after you read or hear. Think before you poon or judge.

After the latest shameful shit show involving a prominent member, I'd scruntinize all reviews from thread initiators from now on. No one is safe.

 

[athaire]

A review/rant of a well-known SP by a very reputable pooning member was taken to new heights this past weekend...What we really all need to remember is that there are at least two sides to the story/incident. Regardless, the SP, at least in this case, got the short end of the stick as she looked to take the high road and protect him (as any good SP will do) at the same time, all the while people (both, SPs and other members) fell into a feeding frenzy ripping the "Perp"/SP a new one based on only the top notch reputable pooning member's perspective on the incident. The bullshit went one for 17+ pages with not a word from the thread starter having ommitted the specific details of the arrangement. Had those key elements have been disclosed, the thread would've been shorter and the opinions would've been ones of supprt and encouragement for parties involved.

Most of us rely on the reviews to make their erotic purchasing decisions but
the reviewing pooner has the responsibility to be truthful about the encounter. And if the SP doesn't care to draw too much negative attention to themselves thay have little recourse but to pull the thread/review or let it run its' course and have it fester causing damage (I've seen it done) or it may not affect them at all (but VERY few are able to let that slide off of them).

There are a few strange, perhaps even sick, individuals out there that are masquerading as reputable posters but their elevated esteemed position can't be used as a reliable seal of approval. At the same time more people reading reviews need to take the time to sort through facts, from both sides, before making their opinion/judgement, even known. As a reader and/or poster you have a responsibility to check the facts before making an informed decision, if you don't, you could very well be hurting someones livelihood all at the hands of someone venting their frustrations or an unbalanced moral compass.

This also applies to PMs, I believe moreso, as PMs can (and have been on more than a few occasions) be altered to bolster the claimants statements.

You can never get all the facts from just one newspaper, and unless you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgements about what is going on. - Mr. Citizen, 1960.
-Harry S Truman

Ask after you read or hear. Think before you poon or judge.

After the latest shameful shit show involving a prominent member, I'll scruntinize all reviews from thread initiators from now on. No one is safe.

*Sigh*.......CLM some of this post is very good advice. I agree that all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt as they are all opinions of the poster. As for the "Debacle" on the other board........well a poster vented frustration at a situation and then felt that perhaps rather than add to the fire it was better to allow the thread to run its course. As you say there are two sides to every story and I believe that there are omissions from both.
I believe that the other board has flourished due to the fact that threads and reviews stand there no matter the outcome.

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

*Sigh*.......CLM some of this post is very good advice. I agree that all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt as they are all opinions of the poster. As for the "Debacle" on the other board........well a poster vented frustration at a situation and then felt that perhaps rather than add to the fire it was better to allow the thread to run its course.

Omitting details IS adding fuel to the fire and if the poster had any common decency, they would not have allowed the vicious beating the SP took. But I suppose the poster doesn't want to look like an ass and instead opt to have an angry mob pick at someone for their latter day sins, if any.

I believe that the other board has flourished due to the fact that threads and reviews stand there no matter the outcome.

And at what cost, only one person apologized to the SP for joining in on the massacre. No one else would ever, or has for that matter, admit to doing so. Although deeply embarassed by being possibly seduced by the mob activity, though highly suspect as some things don't add up, the apologetic comes out the bigger person. Someone we all can gain to learn from.

As you say there are two sides to every story and I believe that there are omissions from both.

Then obliging to answer a few "yes or no" questions wouldn't hurt a bit, would it? Unless the poster had something to hide.
Not doing so looks a lot like guilt afterall you do believe there are ommissions from both sides there is no harm in clarifying, is there?

 

[athaire]

Omitting details IS adding fuel to the fire and if the poster had any common decency, they would not have allowed the vicious beating the SP took. But I suppose the poster doesn't want to look like an ass and instead opt to have an angry mob pick at someone for their latter day sins, if any.

And at what cost, only one person apologized to the SP for joining in on the massacre. No one else would ever, or has for that matter, admit to doing so.

Then obliging to answer a few "yes or no" questions wouldn't hurt a bit, would it? Unless the poster had something to hide.
Not doing so looks a lot like guilt afterall you do believe there are ommissions from both sides there is no harm in clarifying, is there?

You have some questions? Fire away.......I've got about 20 mins before I have to go......are we doing this here or there?

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

You have some questions? Fire away.......I've got about 20 mins before I have to go......are we doing this here or there?

It should be done in the civilized dscreet fashion the initial inquiry was made. No one needs to hear of it in public anymore than it has been, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, I forgot my password and haven't visited until yesterday.

 

[athaire]

It should be done in the civilized dscreet fashion the initial inquiry was made. No one needs to hear of it in public anymore than it has been, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, I forgot my password and haven't visited until yesterday.

I do agree........feel free to pm me any time.