Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezguy
I was concerned with individual reviewer submissions. I realize profile details may change with time.
I read a recent review. In services, it listed FS as yes. In the comment section, the reviewer mentioned that she did provide FS but he was not interested and tipped for one of her other services. Apparently in services, he attempted to us know that FS is available but in the comment section, he declined.
So, my question is should the service be checked yes because it's available or no because the service was not received. My thinking is it should be "no" because the service did not take place. Marking the service "yes" because it is available would make the actual tip given incongruous with the service listed (e.g. $50 tip and FS checked as yes).
Yes, it is best that you choose written review descriptions over the provider detail boxes but there have been some descriptions that have no mention of services listed. I guess caveat emptor.
|
For the reason of the example you gave I subscribe to the theory that the reviews are more representative and there more useful if the reviewer selects the actual services received and the detail description backs up his selections. However I have seen reviews come out for very populated providers whose former checked services are different than what I selected, but this is rare.
The problem with selecting services you did not receive but may have been offered or inferred requires an explanation in the details that may be confusing or get lost in the translation, therefore I just stick with what I received in the services section, to try to make a more accurate review.