@bonerhope: I have never used PD. But I expect some common standard of beauty to be followed in reviews. Age is not a subjective number, body fat is not a subjective concept. If the poster likes obese women, that is fine with me, but he could mention that in the reviews. To the administrators of this site, I ain't paying money for reading totally subjective reviews where anyone is beautiful, I don't know why anyone would.
I agree with you but it's not how the human brain works on good sex. I've analysed the recurring distortion patterns in korg reviews, because there are more reviews and comments on kgirls, many who I've also seen.
After, really good sex experience with new provider, I have difficult time remembering what her body looks like except for her tits since I'm a boob man. In fact, I have seen positive reviews from credible mongers where I think this same thing happens, and reviewer then assumes she looked like her pics, since usually this is what attracted them to her.
Ironically, imo if a monger has poor overall experience, he is more likely to remember what is wrong with both her body and service. I don't fully understand it, but usually negative attributes are easier to remember. But if all the pieces, tits, booty, curve, sufficient absence of stomach fat, etc. and the service is good together, we remember the whole as a great experience. Good sex is a peak experience which distorts our memory of it. In fact, we have expressions of "stunner" or "ddg" for really good lookers which prevents us from being aware of the reasons why.
The other thing that seems to happen is a strong selection bias towards good reviews. Newer mongers write reviews about good experiences which is driven by them reliving the great parts of it, which they also intertangle with their own fantasies, which also make the reviews entertaining which draws readers, monger wanabees and also is a legal defense of the site against promoting prostitution. The reviews are the only legal advertising and are very important to drive traffic to good providers. For that reason, very positive reviews of the first few reviews of a new provider are suspect as shills which you can confirm if you look at reviewer history.
Opposite to positive experiences, negative experiences except outright rip offs, are typically not reviewed, I think mostly because it's unpleasant to relive the bad experience in order to write about it. And, mongers don't like dissing providers and offending mongers who do like the provider. I don't known what the good versus bad ratio, but it's many fold (org POs know). If a monger got conned by a hit picture, and discovers it's 20 years old, it's too painful to think about his mistake.
The clearest evidence of this review writing bias is the number of reviews about a truly hot experience provider. She will have a very large number of reviews in the first month after being discovered. This is the most reliable way to determine a quality provider.
One of the key advantages of ampreviews is it's comments after reviews and in discussion. This isn't a available on TER. Sex141 I think has it, but is burdened by access system. If monger doesn't want to write a negative review which is a lot of work and a struggle, he will write a quick specific negative comment like "Despite amazing squirting, nympho service, I can't get her stomach fat tire out of my mind. " I know of one guy who never writes reviews, but has really useful comments.
Many longer time mongers will write negative reviews, striving to accurately identify specific body problems and behaviors as a give back to the community. I always write a review for every new provider I see. I try to look at the provider over stuff I'm not that into, like her booty, because I know most guys want to know what her booty looks like.
My biggest complaint is no one describes what tits look like, other than saying things like "she has great natural looking D. tits.". Well, natural D tits if young can stand up and be firm, while older milf Ds can be soft, and round and very droopy. I actually prefer firm, pointy MM tits.
My other tits complaint is the presumption that soft tits which you can get from saline tits are more natural which isn't true. The latest silicone tits are designed to have the same feel as young natural tits.
Finally, how fat a provider, is very culturally incorrect. Some guys can't do it. I have a hot button about stomach fat. For me ideally, the provider would have ab definition. However, most guys are ok with up to an inch of stomach fat. It depends on how firm her skin, the younger the firmer, and is ok as long as it doesn't pooch or ripple or hang, doesn't make waist too thick relative to waist. You actually have to pinch the stomach skin to see how much under the skin fat there is which is impossible to do surreptitiously. I once started to do this, and the provider immediately knew what I was doing. Thick is different - muscles, organs, hip and rib cage. A lot of guys like thick, non fat.
You might know a lot of this, I appologise, being a nerd.
This should go in a topic, but I'm a bit self conscious about saying it all.
