Over they years when a card is first released it's rating have generally started high and then trended down to reality as the newness wore off but I noticed a new trend. In the last week or so most cards have started with fairly low rating immediately upon release? It started with the Nika card but bounced back up for a few cards but Lexi, Luna, Mira, Darcie, and Selene are all rated between 4.22 and 4.32.

Has the rating system changed or are these cards really less appreciated? I'm holding off buying new cards until the new year or at least until this Advent calendar is over with but a couple of these low rated cards do interest me and will probably buy them early next year unless there really is something not right with them?

There is quite an undercurrent of concern about the rating system. In the latest Luna Corazon show, for instance, there are a few critical comments. I placed the very first show comment, starting it when there was no score showing. I applied 5 stars. As I exited a one-star score showed!!! I synched with the servers 20 TIMES! Still the score remained unchanged at one star! I noted this in the show comments - the second show comment applied. A score can be placed without comment - anonymously.

Then back for 20 more synchs with server. Eventually the score rose to a very unflattering `average'. It is the lowest scoring Luna Corazon show that I have seen.

Possibly a by-product of the Advent Calendar, with subscribers receiving all cards until 25 December. Possibly it is a `protest' vote. Many dislike XXX shows - and there seems quite a few of those they are being `*****-fed'. If you would not normally buy these, but, due to the Advent Calendar, are `stuck' with them, well ... You might want to express dissatisfaction in a quantifiable way! You have to be angry enough to wait a day - as a score cannot be added when they are an advance card! Only when they appear on the `new show' carousel.

Just some thoughts.

I know quite a few examples of strange scores. One where a model started with a 4.5. I added 4.0. Soon after the show recorded the maximum of 5! A perfect score with two less than perfect scores factored account. MAYBE the 4.5 was deleted - there is that option. My 4.0 was not! Strange at the very least! I have `screen-captured' all of this!

So, I cannot vouch for how representative those scores that you are seeing actually are! Apart from disgust at recent tallies, I now largely disregard them - as I will future Talent of the Month announcements, which, in part, draw on those scores! They are as relevant as you want to let them be!

Ktab: I think you are right about the "protest" vote. Those of us who view the istripper showroom know exactly what cards are going to be coming for the next month...we can even see the outfits, and most of the preview demos. So it should be no suprise of the type of shows and girls. But I imagine that a large portion of buyers who have no idea how many cards each girl has left, or which girls are coming. They bought the advent, to get the deal, and now find that they have xxx cards, w/o pole clips, and only 10 clips all together. The cards are my least favorite but the girls are great so I get them anyway. I imagine the low vote is due to the shortness of the card, the lack of diversity of the clips, and probably a bit to the hardcore nature.

@orclover - Thank you for your comments.

There are a few others noting scoring `anomalies'. In another thread, I opened when France came off daylight savings time, @TheEmu referred me to a comment, by Rex, on the `new' scoring system. I freely admit, that as often as I read it, I could not come close to understanding it. `Zooming' over the scores? I am not sure, if @TheEmu got a better grasp than I. At least, he seemed a little unsure!

I must admit, Luna can draw a low score - even churn out XXX shows (not a favourite of mine) which I will `unselect' scenes, shortening the show still further. But, just as you collect those you like, I do exactly the same. Sucker-though-I-be, I will collect EVERY Luna show! And high-score, knowing it is probably against the tide! I remain an ***** when it comes to certain performers!

Again, thanks for your comments.

👍

@ktab - no I have no more insight into hpw the scoring is done than you. Rex's post that I refered to seemed to indicate that it was a bit more complex than a simple average, but gave no indication as to how.

I would much rather have the almost raw data so that you could see how many people awarded each possible level so that you can tell the difference, for example, between a card for which almost everyone awarded 5 stars but a few awarded 1 star from one where almost everone awarded 4.5 stars and a few awarded 5. There is a lot of information in the distribution that gets lost when reducing it to a single value. Just knowing the total number of people who submitted any rating would be a bit of a help. Though I don't really use the ratings for anything I do find them interresting.

@TheEmu - although not my thread, I do thank you for your response. In my experience, your comments seem to be unwaveringly fair and measured! Which is why I so happily referred to our exchange in my above comments.

I would hope that a `clearly-explained' scoring system might be introduced. I would still collect may favourites. Subjectively they will, indeed, be 5-star to me!

For some time, there have been really low scores - as if the `reviewer' cannot determine `body type' by appearances. Sometimes it is just so obvious - and the internet can `flesh out' (please excuse the obvious pun) more detail.

Other than that, it is a matter of speculation - and may not even be factored into Talent of the Month deliberations - or minimally so. sigh ...

😊

without clarifiation from Totem, all your guesswork is just that ... speculation and guesswork.
I don't vote as soon as i buy a card, i prefer to watch it a little before voting.
I suspect that a zero score may be applied when a card is purchased (until a vote is cast) and that a zero score for all nonvoters diminishes the score of voters when averaging.

With a slight caveat, good @muttonjeff. On a Friday's download of three shows, I stream-watched as I downloaded. Regardless, in the case of my favourites, I subjectively and unwaveringly enter a five-star score. Carolina Abril was my third download. I am almost always the first reviewer/scorer. You beat me to that one! I remember breaking into a smile - of all people, in a Carolina card, I was not even a little surprised, that it was you!

Which is what I have said. I will subjectively assign 5 stars - immediately - to my favourites! Seeing as the cards had only JUST be accessible for download, it was pretty close to an immediate comment and score. Otherwise, I would have been first.

Furthermore, you can only assign a non-score - `zero' as you have said - if you are applying a comment. Why would you comment on a show as yet unseen? Unless the model is a sure-fire `purchase'? It would be the same as assigning a score without viewing, surely.

And, it is a little more than speculation. @TheEmu and I did read Nick's clarification about scoring. And I believe that we thought it sorely need much more clarification - for our understanding, anyway. But it was all we had. In the ***** of fact, speculation and hypothesis inevitably fill the void.

Certainly, thank you for your participation. I actually have raised the matter in a Support Ticket a couple of days ago. I hope that it will become more than speculation. Comments here can only highlight the need for such transperency.

😉

This is a little not related to topic, but since the system does not save which cards you deleted from your collection I used to mark it for myself for scoring it to zero. If the team would give a new option there "deleted" then they would also have statistics abt. cards that users deleted most or no users deleted... If you delete a card that tells much more abt. it than a score. It would also help the issue that when you hit the rebuild collection it wouldn't want to download those cards you deleted intentionally and do not wish to see again.

And the trend worsens - Penelope released today and has a 3.49 rating yet all written reviews except 1 have 5 stars. I would guess that would put the card in the bottom 5% of all existing cards. Thats crazy for a new release.

I don't rely on the rating but do find it interesting to see what others are favoring. And on cards I'm unsure of a good rating might be the push I need.

I don't rate the cards personally as I never know what my mood may dictate but years ago I do remember rating them as a tag of sorts but cannot remember what exactly I as trying to accomplish. The problem sharing deleted card info is that you may delete a card you actually like but need the space or other reasons.

I would hope that only owners of cards can rate it but I suspect this is not the case. I bet if we could look at the voters we would find a lot of voters that own 0 cards.

I would hope that only owners of cards can rate it but I suspect this is not the case.

You have to buy a card to be able to comment and vote.

About deleting cards... well, you can delete the card, but it is still in your collection. What will happen if you download that card again after some time after deletion? You will have the possibility to vote again and change your rate for that card? Or maybe the system will remember your vote and apply it to the overall rating again?

I have no idea why Peneloppe has such a low rating. After first hour from release her rate was 2.50. Only 2.50!? Maybe she isn't perfect, but nobody is. I love her and first time from few years her cards will be instant buy for me.

What if the rating system went wrong and gives an average number when you buy and as long as you don't rate it stays so ?

About deleting cards... well, you can delete the card, but it is still in your collection. What will happen if you download that card again after some time after deletion? You will have the possibility to vote again and change your rate for that card? Or maybe the system will remember your vote and apply it to the overall rating again?

yes it remembers, even when you delete the card

What if the rating system went wrong and gives an average number when you buy and as long as you don't rate it stays so ?

Hmm, I think the system shouldn't take such situations into account. If I'm not voting, the system shouldn't add any value neither zero nor average. If it adds anything it means the system is broken.

Perhaps newer members (and old members like myself) who aren't active in the community (or haven't been for some time) are rating anonymously. Like you said, it can be done without actually commenting and your rating then doesn't get shown.

Perhaps these newer users prefer strippers that can actually Strip-Dance/Tease...

In my opinion a lot of these newer girls/cards the girls are either too shy and/or can't dance around a pole or actually dance for sh**. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the premise for this app was to have girls who can actually Strip-DANCE?

You shouldn't judge a show just purely on whether or not you think the girl is cute/pretty.
Totem may as well be running a HotorNot app if that's all we're doing here as viewers...
We should be rating them based on their ability to perform, because that's what they're here for: to PERFORM for us. Part of that performance is Strip-Dance/Strip-Tease/Pole-Dancing. That's the reason they're getting paid. They're not getting paid very little money to do a menial task at a supermarket or something else boring (like myself). They are actually getting paid to perform on camera. It's in the job description for the job they're taking and getting paid for by Totem.

I, rarely, rate low unless I'm totally fooled by what I thought would be a great performance. The reason I don't rate low is because I wouldn't buy a card where the girl's looks didn't turn me on and where the preview performance didn't do the same. FYI, I've been saving a lot of money lately.

All I can say is: If I was getting paid good money to perform I would try my best to put on a good performance. I ain't though. I get sweet f*** all to work in a bakery at a supermarket. I make just above minimum wage.

The reason I don't rate low is because I wouldn't buy a card where the girl's looks didn't turn me on and where the preview performance didn't do the same. FYI, I've been saving a lot of money lately.

Back when I first joined up I think they were offering a subscription service where you automatically got one card per day over x amount of time based on x amount of $ spent. Didn't matter if you liked the card or not, you got it and were stuck with it. I think I did that 1-3 times. That's how I reached 2D status. Then I stopped using VG (now iStripper) for a long time because I was sick of getting terrible cards. There used to be a mix of ugly girl/bad shows, ugly girl good show, hot girl bad show.

I came back hoping this site had reformed a bit. But the only reform I see is that they've stopped casting ugly girls and that the community is only ever so slightly more open to tattoo'd women but I see plenty of people still whine about it.
I think they should try casting girls with experience in strip-dancing/pole-dancing and not just whoever looks pretty.

I think with advent people have been "*****" to have girls with butt plugs, tattoos, pubic hair, fake boobs, melanin in their skin, "different" type of hair. dildos and maybe some flesh on their bones, and therefore the ratings are dropping. The low rating of Luna is especially suspicious, and disturbing.