Junky11 wrote:
I was just trying to get an idea with the poll. But if quality is the issue how do you measure that? But quality is definitely a big issue, I've had great trips and not so great trips.
That's a good question and naturally it all comes down to how you define "quality". But even if you defined on a completely temporal basis, as your question seemed to have done, there could be better quantitative measures of that sort of quality than the one you employed. For example, is it "better" to have taken 15 4-day trips or 8 2-week trips? The former amounts to 60 total days while the latter amounts to 112 or nearly twice as much total time. Granted there may be other factors that would cause guys to prefer to spend less total time over more total trips (e.g. diminishing marginal benefit of a trip beyond the first few days), but I'm guessing that most guys (ceteris parabus) would prefer to spend more total time if they could get away for that long a period. So, to better account for that qualitative distinction, the question "How many DAYS have you been to CR?" could be more telling.
Also, even if two guys spent 112 days each in CR the nature of the time they spent could differ radically in measurable ways. For example, as I've already suggested a guy with a more balanced approach to traveling might consider trips that included exploring other aspects of CR beyond merely its P4P opportunities to be of higher "quality" while a hard-core mongerer might consider any time spent away from those P4P opportunities to be of lesser "quality". So for the former type traveller the simple question that I laid out above "How many days have you been to COSTA RICA?" would probably suffice but for the hard-core mongerer type the question "How many days have you been spent MONGERING in SAN JOSE (or Jaco)?" would be a much more accurate measure of quality.
Of course, even 2 guys each spending 112 days in San Jose mongering would not necessarily experience the same "quality" of vacation, but there may still be other non-temporal measures of quality that one could use. I also suggested number of chicas scored as another possible measure of quality. That measure is problematic too but at least it is something that could be counted and compared. The drawback to that measure is that not all chicas are created equal. Should an indiscriminate session with a chica that most guys would consider ugly be counted the same as a session with a chica that even the guy who goes with ugly chicas would consider much more attractive? Of course, guys have long been trying to quantify looks (typically on a scale of 1-10) and I suppose if one were willing to go to the trouble of collecting the data they could weight the sessions with different chicas based upon where they rate on that scale. The problem there is that, though "the scale" is numerical, the rankings on it are completely subjective and one guys 10 might be another guys 8 and vice versa. And this just takes into account appearance whereas actual performance is a whole other attribute of quality that should be taken into account which often doesn't correlate particularly well with just appearance. Lastly, session quality can vary greatly, not just from girl to girl but also from one session to the next even with the same girl. But, even if it didn't, should a half hour MP session be counted as the same quality as a TLN back at one's hotel? Obviously not.
In summary, there are actually all sorts of ways one could measure quality that would probably do a better job than simply "how many times have you been to CR" but it is certainly true that all of them suffer from one shortcoming or another due to the subjective nature of quality.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
