RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - Rammyrascal - 23-01-2012 23:59
nope
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - cosmonaut - 24-01-2012 00:06
(23-01-2012 15:37 )ExtremelyCritical Wrote: Only way that can be true is BS draw a graph for upsurging calls when Lolly is on compared to other girls, still doubtful though.
Drawing graphs is not necessary. The phone system in use no doubt automatically logs the call minutes for each individual girl.
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - Robot Devil - 24-01-2012 00:59
Right, I'm throwing in the towel for the night. I cannot tolerate a single second more of Lolly. And I've not seen even one minute of Kandi tonight . Awful night for BS.
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - SteveHG - 24-01-2012 01:06
(24-01-2012 00:06 )cosmonaut Wrote: (23-01-2012 15:37 )ExtremelyCritical Wrote: Only way that can be true is BS draw a graph for upsurging calls when Lolly is on compared to other girls, still doubtful though.
Drawing graphs is not necessary. The phone system in use no doubt automatically logs the call minutes for each individual girl.
...And do we know these figures? They're actually meaningless unless they provide measures such as average no of calls for the time they are on. Just being on longer so you get more calls means nothing.
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - The Silent Majority - 24-01-2012 03:08
(24-01-2012 01:06 )SteveHG Wrote: (24-01-2012 00:06 )cosmonaut Wrote: (23-01-2012 15:37 )ExtremelyCritical Wrote: Only way that can be true is BS draw a graph for upsurging calls when Lolly is on compared to other girls, still doubtful though.
Drawing graphs is not necessary. The phone system in use no doubt automatically logs the call minutes for each individual girl.
...And do we know these figures? They're actually meaningless unless they provide measures such as average no of calls for the time they are on. Just being on longer so you get more calls means nothing.
I wonder if, to keep Lolly from going to Elite, they offered her a deal based on call rate rather than a flat fee per shift. If so she would be stupid not to insist on a minimum amount of screen time to take advantage of it. Just a wild guess.
I think the twins get more flack than they deserve for channel hogging tbh. Just seems that way because there's two of them.
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - bytor - 24-01-2012 07:35
(24-01-2012 03:08 )The Silent Majority Wrote: (24-01-2012 01:06 )SteveHG Wrote: (24-01-2012 00:06 )cosmonaut Wrote: (23-01-2012 15:37 )ExtremelyCritical Wrote: Only way that can be true is BS draw a graph for upsurging calls when Lolly is on compared to other girls, still doubtful though.
Drawing graphs is not necessary. The phone system in use no doubt automatically logs the call minutes for each individual girl.
...And do we know these figures? They're actually meaningless unless they provide measures such as average no of calls for the time they are on. Just being on longer so you get more calls means nothing.
I wonder if, to keep Lolly from going to Elite, they offered her a deal based on call rate rather than a flat fee per shift. If so she would be stupid not to insist on a minimum amount of screen time to take advantage of it. Just a wild guess.
I think the twins get more flack than they deserve for channel hogging tbh. Just seems that way because there's two of them.
You are probably right. Individually the twins are probably not on much more than any other but as they are identical it is like they are on almost every night.
To be honest though discussing the calls to girl ratio is not going to get us anywhere, not as if BS will pay attention to us. They own the channels and can what they wish. Likewise callers can do as they wish and if they don't like the 2 BS channels with Lolly and loads of inhibiting 2-4-1's then they will perhaps not call and may go elsewhere. Only thing that counts is making as much money as possible from the customer without having to spend too much doing so. (Girls not included in that).
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - mr red nose - 24-01-2012 08:15
(24-01-2012 07:35 )bytor Wrote: (24-01-2012 03:08 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [quote='SteveHG' pid='984574' dateline='1327367177']
[quote='cosmonaut' pid='984533' dateline='1327363574']
[quote='ExtremelyCritical' pid='984223' dateline='1327333026']
Only way that can be true is BS draw a graph for upsurging calls when Lolly is on compared to other girls, still doubtful though.
Drawing graphs is not necessary. The phone system in use no doubt automatically logs the call minutes for each individual girl.
...And do we know these figures? They're actually meaningless unless they provide measures such as average no of calls for the time they are on. Just being on longer so you get more calls means nothing.
I thought the girls were paid by the hour for the time they spent on screen. As Kelly Bell once told me the highest earners were paid by the hour and there call minutes monitored to see they were get high call minutes. Rather than paid by the night, but this might not be correct.
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - loveass - 24-01-2012 09:02
Lolly channel yet again,Ella was on for about five mins rest of night Lolly and the twins.I think I have seen enough of Lolly and the twins now.
I guess she must get the calls but its not attracting new customers to the channel.
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - rogerthedoger - 24-01-2012 09:03
Lolly said to me she had no interest in going to elite she is happy at bs
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion - scapaflow - 24-01-2012 09:17
(24-01-2012 09:03 )rogerthedoger Wrote: Lolly said to me she had no interest in going to elite she is happy at bs
Please keep her at babestation. I'm glad she's happy there. The channel these days is well suited for her talents. Elite is looking good these days with some real quality signings. No need for Lolly then.
|