Bogus Reviews

[TampaYankee]

We don't always have a new review to post each day as you may have noticed. That is partly due to being the new kid on the block and partly due to being the new kid on the block in the shadow of the 500 pound gorilla. Both of those are to be expected. It is also partly due to our delay in getting our software suitable for the processing and display of multiple reviews for escorts. We have several of those in the queue, all by trusted reviewers. We hope that is remedied soon.

We seek honest reviews from members with verified email addresses. We state clearly in the submission form that at least minimal information content must be provided and that escorts may not review themselves

What you don't see are the reviews that we have declined -- a higher percentage than I ever would have anticipated. A couple have been declined for insufficient information. Several more have been declined on the very strong suspicion that they were submitted by the escorts themselves or by a 'friend' that is not an actual client. I won't go into the details about how we vett each review. I cannot promise that some will not get through. There is only so much we can do. Not every review submitted by an escort has an admission of that fact -- though that has occurred too. Nevertheless, we strive to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Bogus reviews have been discussed before in other venues. Specifically the escort business announcement review. Some escorts are looking to advertise their services through a 'fictional review' that touches all of his bases. Of course, one problem is to differeniate this 'informational' review from the deceptive review.

We provide escort profiles for the escort to put forth his services in his own words with his own stats. We cross reference a review with a profile and vice versa. However, this doesn't provide a 'satisified customer' word-of-mouth flavor. I guess that is why these bogus reviews persist. That and an infusion of publicity as they appear periodically in Latest Reviews.

In previous discussions some took the position that the business announcement review is not objectionable as long as it is not abused. Others strongly disagreed and take the position that is should never be allowed. I thought I would open the topic for discussion here with one twist.

What if the probable escort-supplied review was identified prominently as such in the review by the Admin. Would you want to read such reviews? Would you vote yea or nay? Factor in the possibility of wrongly tarnishing a review on occasion -- a strong negative for this proposition. If this was implemented would it cause a decrease in the bogus submissions or an increase in the response to reviews?

FWIW, I don't forsee our policy changing but it is always good to take the sense of the membership on issues like this.

What do you think?

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>We are in the business of providing information and a venue for >discussion. We hope the information is accurate but we have no way >of knowing how accurate the vast majority of it is. We strive to verify >what we can verify. That is very limited by the nature of the online >world -- an anonymous world for the most part.

>Who knows where truth lies? The fact of the matter is that, in this >world, truth for each of us lies with our experience.

TY, these above quotes by you from another thread, were two within an explanation of why truthful information can't be guaranteed on this website.

Frankly, I’m befuddled here. I suspect that “bogus” reviews are probably part of the reality of running a website of this persuasion. I don’t know what mechanisms are in place to identify bogus reviews (nor should anyone- imo) but why all the fuss here suddenly, trying to identify when an escort is being untruthful and deceptive in their presentation of themselves to the membership? When undisputed, untruthful and deceptive information has been identified here in the past, in an escorts profile, it has simply been coughed up to the realities of the internet and the anonymous world we all live in. Nothing was corrected in regard to the untruth to present a truthful overview of the escort to the reader. So why doesn’t the same standard of thinking apply to reviews? What’s the difference with reviews? I’m perplexed AND befuddled.

[marcanthony]

My two cents:

It's not going to be easy to cull out all the fiction from the fact... but it is a desirable and honorable thing that you are trying.

Even more kudos that you do so in the setting that you are a newbie site, and that quantity of reviews would likely draw more traffic, something you are striving for right now. I have always believed that if you do things right, down the road you get rewarded.

The point of this site, best it was explained to me, was to be a resource... not just a source of entertainment.

Of course, when I read reviews, I will use my own bullshit meter to gauge credibility, but its good to know that there is a first line of defense out there. A line of defense that has access to IP addresses and has realtime internet conversations with the contributor.

I even feel you are doing the occaional offending escort a service. Sometimes, in the desperation of lack of income, an otherwise decent person might try to skate the system by posting a self review hoping to get some free advertising mileage. Those not so polished are often caught and publically lynched for such an act... probably a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. It's definitely to to their benefit that the slap on the wrist is privately delivered.

Bottom line... please keep doing what you are doing. I, for one, appreciate it.

[Guest straycat]

I would not be in favor of posting escort self-reviews. This site offers an escort profile section, other sites both free and paid offer advertising space for escorts; all can be used to advance their career.

For me it's important to know the review process is as pure as possible. Obviously there will be times when various types of bogus reviews will slip through the process. But that doesn't mean one needs to enable escorts self promotion by providing them a platform in what is basically a space for clients to post reviews.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>>For me it's important to know the review process is as pure as possible.

I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m really not. But how can purity in the escort review process be important to you, while at the same time, you reject and ignore the importance of, (based on your other recent posts here,) the impurity of escort profile information that is known to be untrue and deceptive by management on this site? Why is it important to reject bogus reviews, yet, known to be bogus information contained within escort profiles is met with no concern, interest to correct, or, action to remove by this sites management?

Bogus information is bogus information. Who decides what known to be bogus information is unacceptable and should be rejected, and what known to be bogus information is not really all that important and should be overlooked? If you’re rejecting a bogus review, which many would agree, is untruthful and deceptive, why not at least make the same effort to correct “known to be” untruthful and deceptive escort profile information from escort profiles? After all, an escorts profile is where most clients begin their process of determining if the escort is the right escort and choice for them.

Perhaps the escort has changed his approach or unwillingness to entertain behaviors he once made known to the public in his escort profile as unacceptable or never done. Well, that’s fine; we all change and grow in different directions. And, when that occurs, shouldn’t that be as much of an interest and concern to this sites management, when that “known to be fact” profile information changes? Couldn’t a simple request by management be communicated to the escort, indicating that his current escort profile information calls into challenge and question by his current reviews of activities, as at least conflictive, and would he please update his information on this site, so as to accurately portray his revised views on these certain activities for the well being of this sites readership? What would be wrong with that? Isn’t that just as important as an escort trying to deceive the reader by submitting an untruthful and fake review of himself? I suspect that a rejected or bounced review, at the very least, receives a response from this management, to the submitter, that the site deems such review as not acceptable or credible. Why should a lie or change of safer sex behavior carry any less weight or conern to this sites management?

You can’t be a little infected with HIV and you can’t be a little short of 6 inches when you claim to be 8. If you only dry kiss and advertise wet, deep, french kissing as your preference, that's important, I suspect, for people to know about. It’s all about truth. When it comes to truth and credibility, the cafeteria style of selecting integrity and credibility falls short of the full meal most individuals are looking for in the information which they are seeking and relying upon this site to deliver to them. Whenever the truth is available, shouldn’t it be treated with the same respect and importance that you would expect in the truth and credibility of a review that this site deems as credible?

Is that too much to expect from a gay owned and gay operated website that caters to gay men?

"Those with the power to influence and affect other lives, which power, they hold in their hands, also comes the responsibility to educate and speak the truth to those of which they influence and affect." ChgoBoy-22 March 2006.

[Guest straycat]

If what you write is so important (i.e. your recent BN thread) that you posted on two message boards then why be ashamed to post your bashing Tampa Yankee thread here too?

Let me assist people in getting to know your real motives by re-posting this important piece of information you shared with the 3 members of escortspeak.

-------

from ChgoBoy AKA NotSooofast.

Why does Tampa Yankee support spreading STD’s And HIV?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea. But his support of untruthful, deceptive escort profiles, which lie about safer sex activities of escorts listed on his site, which he knows are untrue, is a question many should be questioning themselves about.

Tampa Yankee is concerned about the truthfulness of “reviews” of escorts on his MER site. Yet, he could care less, if the escorts in question lie about their activities, when it comes to the truthfulness of their safer sex activities in their escort profiles. The only thing Tampa Yankee cares about, is the “bogus” review, which he believes the escort is submitting on his own behalf. How can anyone be so blind to what one is ignoring when it comes to credibility?

See "Male Escort Review Site Comments and Suggestions forum" and the thread “Bogus reviews." at www.maleescortreview.com/index.php

Is anything more self serving than his blatant concern for the management of MER as apposed to the safety and well being of the membership of this site? As a gay man, I'm appaled at Tampa Yankee's disregard for the well being of me and his fellow gay man. How dare he define what I should know to protect me, as appsoed to what he wants me to know about how he chooses to conduct his business, which with his credibility, puts my health in jeopardy by just relying on his site to be truthful in its facts and reporting.

-------

BTW, I stand by my original response to TY question. And I think the message in your bashing Tampa Yankee thread is way off base. I much rather have him watching my back than you any day, any time.

[Guest BostonGuy]

>I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m really not.

Yes, you are.

With all due respect, I think the only way you will be satisfied with the policies of any escort review site will be if you run one yourself. So I kindly suggest that you start your own site.

Perhaps once you have experienced the many practical challenges involved in getting such a venture off the ground and keeping it running, you will have a little more respect and tolerance for those who are in the trenches, dealing with those very challenges every day.

BG

[Guest straycat]

>>I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m really not.

>

>

>Yes, you are.

>

>With all due respect, I think the only way you will be

>satisfied with the policies of any escort review site will be

>if you run one yourself. So I kindly suggest that you start

>your own site.

>

>Perhaps once you have experienced the many practical

>challenges involved in getting such a venture off the ground

>and keeping it running, you will have a little more respect

>and tolerance for those who are in the trenches, dealing with

>those very challenges every day.

>

Well worded BostonGuy. I couldn't agree more.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>>I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m really not.

>

>

>Yes, you are.

>

>With all due respect, I think the only way you will be

>satisfied with the policies of any escort review site will be

>if you run one yourself. So I kindly suggest that you start

>your own site.

>

>Perhaps once you have experienced the many practical

>challenges involved in getting such a venture off the ground

>and keeping it running, you will have a little more respect

>and tolerance for those who are in the trenches, dealing with

>those very challenges every day.

>

>BG

Well BG, once again, your pompus ass attitude is dripping from every word you write. Do I really need to own a male escort website to subscribe to moral beliefs that support values larger than what have been portrayed here esp by Tampa Yankee? I think not. Since you, BG, support the deception of escort profiles and their dishonesty from being the righteous reflection of what most would want and expect them to be, I suspect you have no concern for the harm that might come from such lies to any of the readers of this site. BG, whenever you decide to pull that oversized head of yours out from your ass, please look around and make sure that no one is looking. I'd hate for honesty here to start with you looking like such a smuck.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>If what you write is so important (i.e. your recent BN

>thread) that you posted on two message boards then why be

>ashamed to post your bashing Tampa Yankee thread here too?

Straycat...Let me remind you of one thing. You sucker punched me last week when I was attempting to express a viewpoint that was important to me. I never mentioned your name, nor did I even know who you were at the time. But you chose to reveal your alley type claws and attempt to discredit me for your own self need. If you think that I'm now going to give you the civility of a response to your question; you might as well shove a dildo up your ass and think its connected to someone who really cares about you. By the way, the next time you want to attack me, as Barry (whom I adore) suggests....ask me outside. I'll be more than ready to recieve your pussy claws.

[Guest BostonGuy]

Precisely the kind of ad hominem response I expected.

The real pity, of course, isn't that you seem so completely unaware of the flaws in logic that litter your writings (please do yourself a favor and look up non sequitur). It isn't that you seem willing to attack virtually anyone for reasons that most people would deem trivial and not worth a second thought. It isn't even that, having once made your point, you seem unwilling to let your words stand, choosing instead to essentially turn every point into either a tirade or an argument.

No, the real pity is that you seem to think that those who disagree with you -- or even take a somewhat different stand than you on any given issue -- must somehow be morally corrupt and, therefore, should be subjected to pillory. One would think that someone so seemingly concerned with moral issues would have more interest in issues of moral sublety and different points of view. Pity.

BG

[Guest mbarz]

>>I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m really not.

>

>

>Yes, you are.

>

>With all due respect, I think the only way you will be

>satisfied with the policies of any escort review site will be

>if you run one yourself. So I kindly suggest that you start

>your own site.

>

>Perhaps once you have experienced the many practical

>challenges involved in getting such a venture off the ground

>and keeping it running, you will have a little more respect

>and tolerance for those who are in the trenches, dealing with

>those very challenges every day.

>

>BG

What do you know about the challenges of running a review site? Besides being the resident ass kisser and hypocrite, wasn't your biggest contribution the rules for the "gentleman's club" over at M4M? The same rules that drove away the majority of the posters.

ChgoBoy has a right to his opinion, just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to try brow beating him into silence. He has a legitimate point, if he had used another escort as his example would you be jumping on him?

He has given reasons for his opinion. Do you think he is wrong? Do you think escorts should be truthful on their profiles or do you think only some of them should be truthful? What do you think is acceptable to omit or lie about? Would you feel comfortable hiring an escort that said they practiced safe sex always, but whose reviews suggested otherwise? You're very good at telling people what to do and how to behave, but what do you honestly believe should be in an escort's profile?

[Guest BostonGuy]

>He has given reasons for his opinion. Do you think he is

>wrong? Do you think escorts should be truthful on their

>profiles or do you think only some of them should be truthful?

> What do you think is acceptable to omit or lie about? Would

>you feel comfortable hiring an escort that said they practiced

>safe sex always, but whose reviews suggested otherwise? You're

>very good at telling people what to do and how to behave, but

>what do you honestly believe should be in an escort's

>profile?

I think that TY and the others involved in creating this fledgling site have made their policies pretty clear: profiles are written by the escorts, in their own words. Reviews are written by others, at least up to now, when the issue is open for consideration, and they will attempt to verify the accuracy of a review.

I think that any site that says "We have reviews we attempt to verify and we allow escorts to write their own profiles" is being extremely upfront about what the readers can find on the site and where. I do not believe that the site's operators should be castigated for moral failings, as CBoy has done, because he doesn't like the fact that escorts can put whatever they want in their own profiles.

If this site allowed escorts to write their own profiles and then claimed that the information was completely accurate, that would seem to me to be a bad policy. Instead, the policies they have here seem clear and fully consistent with their stated desire to provide good information to readers, in a clear, easy-to-understand format.

CBoy seems unable to comprehend the idea that it's okay to allow escorts to write their own profiles, so long as it's clear to everyone that those words are solely those of the escort and that no verification has been attempted on the information provided there.

What do I think should be in the profile? Exactly what the escort wants to put there. Frankly, I think you can tell a lot about someone from what they write about themself in a profile. Anyone who takes the claims in a profile as gospel truth needs to remove their rose-colored glasses before proceeding.

Oh, and by the way, it seems to me that M4M is doing just fine. Seems pretty busy over, these days, especially for a site with no posters left.

BG

[Guest mbarz]

>I think that any site that says "We have reviews we

>attempt to verify and we allow escorts to write their own

>profiles" is being extremely upfront about what the

>readers can find on the site and where. I do not believe that

>the site's operators should be castigated for moral failings,

>as CBoy has done, because he doesn't like the fact that

>escorts can put whatever they want in their own profiles.

When they lie about their sex practices, I can't say I blame him for being upset. An escort that claims to practice safe sex only, but doesn't, should be ask to change his profile.

>

>If this site allowed escorts to write their own profiles and

>then claimed that the information was completely accurate,

>that would seem to me to be a bad policy. Instead, the

>policies they have here seem clear and fully consistent with

>their stated desire to provide good information to readers, in

>a clear, easy-to-understand format.

>

>CBoy seems unable to comprehend the idea that it's okay to

>allow escorts to write their own profiles, so long as it's

>clear to everyone that those words are solely those of the

>escort and that no verification has been attempted on the

>information provided there.

How is that "clear to everyone"? You really think that a casual reader of this site would know this policy? I don't and I don't think ChgoBOy does either, that's the point of his argument.

>Oh, and by the way, it seems to me that M4M is doing just

>fine. Seems pretty busy over, these days, especially for a

>site with no posters left.

>

>BG

I wouldn't know, I quit reading that site months ago, but I'm glad it's doing well. I wouldn't want deej to be homeless.

[Guest straycat]

>

>Well BG, once again, your pompus ass attitude is dripping from

>every word you write.

You seem like a real fun guy to be around, about as fun as a ball of string.

Don't you think it's time to start acting a little bit like an adult. It's time to move forward from all of your apparent hate toward anyone who has a different. more civilized, opinion than you.

After reading your single thought posts I now can understand the rumors I've heard and read about you.

[TampaYankee]

>>We are in the business of providing information and a

>>venue for >discussion. We hope the information is accurate

>>but we have no way >of knowing how accurate the vast

>>majority of it is. We strive to verify >what we can verify.

>>That is very limited by the nature of the online >world --

>>an anonymous world for the most part.

>

>>Who knows where truth lies? The fact of the matter is

>>that, in this >world, truth for each of us lies with our

>>experience.

>

>TY, these above quotes by you from another thread, were two

>within an explanation of why truthful information can't be

>guaranteed on this website.

>

> I suspect that “bogus” reviews

>are probably part of the reality of running a website of this

>persuasion. I don’t know what mechanisms are in place to

>identify bogus reviews (nor should anyone- imo) but why all

>the fuss here suddenly...

Threre is no sudden fuss. It has been our concern since day one. It took some time to accumulate a large enough sample on which to remark. I chose to discuss today the suprising (to me) number of bogus reviews. Simple explanation.

> ... trying to identify when an escort is

>being untruthful and deceptive in their presentation of

>themselves to the membership?

I stand by my statments that you referenced above regarding he difficulty in assessing the veracity of the statement of others. In the end each of us has to make that assessment for ourself.

The site has is an obligation to the readers to try our best to see that our process is not corrupted. Specifically, that reviews submitted by reviewers are actually submitted by real reviewers, and that profiles posted by escorts are actually registered by that escort. It is only through legitimate reviews and profiles submitted by actual escorts in their own words that we can make assessments of the veracity of each. The reviewer through his track record and the escort through his presence and performance which is vetted by feedback from actual reviewers. Legitimate reviewers build credibility with a track record. Escorts gain credibility from feedback by legitimate reviewers.

>When undisputed, untruthful and

>deceptive information has been identified here in the past, in

>an escorts profile, it has simply been coughed up to the

>realities of the internet and the anonymous world we all live

>in. Nothing was corrected in regard to the untruth to present

>a truthful overview of the escort to the reader. So why

>doesn’t the same standard of thinking apply to reviews? What’s

>the difference with reviews? I’m perplexed AND befuddled.

>

I have not yet achieved the level of omniscience that grounds your above statements. I'm not sure when I will. In the mean time I rely on my own experience and when I cannot I give credence to some authorities on some topics some of the time. As to whether my experience or their views represent truth, well... I have to make that assessment for myself -- which is my point from the very beginning.

I am reminded of a sign my third of fourth grade teacher has posted in her classroom: [em]Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. [/em] It seems especially appropriate the cyberspace.

[TampaYankee]

... and entitled to post it respectfully.

Also, every poster is entitled to a reasoned respectful reply from all wishing to reply.

Some posts in this thread have crossed the line of respect & reason.

Posters that wish to contribute with respect and reason are encouraged. Those finding it difficult to post respectfully are encouraged to call it a night and come back another day when ires have cooled.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Management operates under the premise that everyone is familiar with the Message Center Policy.

[Guest ArVaGuy]

Besides being the resident ass kisser and hypocrite,

>wasn't your biggest contribution the rules for the

>"gentleman's club" over at M4M? The same rules that

>drove away the majority of the posters.

I was going to stay out of this exchange but this statement has necessitated me to make a response. Let's be clear, some of those very posters had to be barred from the site due to behavior that was not acceptable.

Also, it appears to me that the very same rules apply here on this site regarding what is acceptable behavior when posting. If anything the rules are more strickly monitored here than at M4M. I would assert that one can measure the success of "no holds barred" posting in the dead zone called escortspeak.

And for M4M to have had the "majority of posters" driven away it sure as heck is a lot more active than around here. However, this site is still getting off the ground and still needs to develop a sense of community.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

So that I’m clear.

It’s very bad when an escort deceives the readership of this board with untruths in a review, which is reserved for the client and will be censored when identified.

But, it’s perfectly acceptable for an escort to deceive the readership of this board with “known” untruths when it takes place in the correct forum, which would be the escort profile. No action against the escort will take place if he lies and deceives within these given guidelines.

So in other words, it’s ok for an escort to lie and deceive the readership of this board about his unsafe sex practices or anything else for that matter, as long as the escort does it in the proper forum and within the appropriate format.

With values and standards like these, I’m sure the readership of this site will find great comfort and trust in the decisions they make based upon the information they find here.

And finally, allow me to publicly apologize to BG for publicly calling him a pompous ass. Even though I may find this to be fact, it was inappropriate for me to share it here, where values and high standards are the cornerstone of trust and integrity.

[TotallyOz]

>Bogus information is bogus information.

I do agree with you.

>I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m really not.

I think this is a prime example of bogus information. You are not only beating a dead horse, you are kicking it, stomping on it and mutilating it. My god man, horses are people too! What would PETA say about this poor horse?