From my experience, most punts can be average and fulfil the purpose. The more cash you part with, expectations on service levels go up. Sometimes you connect with the WG and get a very good one and sometimes you don't really connect, but still get a good one. I'm understanding of those willing to please even if the whole experience does not work out as envisaged. I don't usually rate ok punts because that should be the norm, but those that stand out for good or bad reasons need to be noted.

My point is that 'Wack or Kak Punts' should not be rewarded with 'Top 10' ratings. If a WG gets a service rating of 1 or 2 out of 5, why reward with a similar Top 10 rating (which is separate from the other ratings). By assigning a Top 10 rating equal to the service rating, a WG that delivers regular 'Wack Punts' can slowly climb up the Top 10 (or even Top 100) list unlike other WG's with a decent service but no Top 10 rating.

I'm just saying, I would like to trust the Top 10 list and expect that if I make a booking with most, if not all, then I'm in for a treat. Obviously this does not apply to Valentina et al.

The top ten rating now has a +0 as well . Which is for those wack or kak punts . So where is the trouble ?

I know the Top 10 rating has a +0; so, why do we punters reward a service rating of 1 or 2 out of 5 with a similar Top 10 rating?

Well one gets the drift when somebody is rated as 1 in service . In fact anything that is under 3 is automatically taken as a warning in not visiting them , corroborated by other reviews .