The review system on ESA is one of a kind as it allows punters to know beforehand whether a punt will be worth it or not, and it gives WGs incentive to give good service knowing the word will come out attracting more punters.

What I would find a value add, above all this and I hope other punters agree, is an average rating along with the total rating we currently have.

Right now you have to go through a lot of reviews to get a general feel of a WGs level of service even if she has over 100 points.

I think an average rating, taking the total rating divided by the number of reviews with ratings, would then tell us how great the WG's service is on average.

Averages an be dangerous. Averages don't indicate the aviation in ratings I am not dismissing the idea, just pointing it our.

Granted, but in unison with the total points we have now, it may paint a clearer picture.

The total points alone don't say much other than the WG was able to accumulate points. If she has 10 points, you don't know whether it was two '5' reviews or five '2' reviews.

How about allowing negative points for a review? Ie bad experience will deduct from accumulated points balance.

Why not just add from how many reviews the rating comes from? Ie mandy +783 from 250 reviews

Also the number of different reviews. Many punters have their favorites and WGs get many points from the same guys which is also very misleading.

It will also nice to see how many "no" answers a WG gets to the "will you return" question - which I think is also a very good indication of quality.

All solid suggestions. Maybe an average wouldn't be the only solution but the goal for reviews should be a system that gives more clarity on the quality of a WGs service at face value and not just the quantity of her punts.