yeah very strange. Hard to understand the top 100. I also made a thread about how kahoots in columbus was ranked so high in the top 100 and listed as #1 in best dancer quality.
Also christies cabaret in cleveland was listed in top 10 dancer quality and physical club. It motivated me to take a trip there and check it out twice. Great club so thanks to TUSCL for the discovery just too bad the rankings fluctuate so easily.
I have given up trying to make any sense out of the statistics on TUSCL and take the reviews with a grain of salt unless I personally know the reviewer.
I started a T100 thread a short while ago. I acknowledged that it was an imperfect system. The flaws stem from: 1) Reviewer input. 2) Alogorithms/factors input by founder. I'm sure many of us can see reviewer flaws- e.g. newbie to scene, only familiar with clubs in their local area, etc. Myself- I'd never make a visit decision based solely on club being in T100. Often, club is simply the best available option in the area. If I'm on a business trip, or vacation halfway between 2 cities (lets say, Indy and Chicago, Orlando & Tampa, Boston & Providence), I'm not going to roll to either city without looking deeper. I suspect that most of us KNOW which city WE'D go to in those examples- (Only Orlando area doesn't have any T100 clubs- other 5 do/did). That said, I've still found that going to the top scoring 3-5 clubs in particular metro area- can't go too wrong there.
I am tweaking the rating algorithms. I don't want to give away the exact formula, but it is something like this:
The formula is based on the number of clubs a reviewer has reviewed and the number of reviews a reviewer has submitted.
Further, to be "ranked" a club must have a certain number of REVIEWERS (not reviews) over the past "n" months.
Also to be ranked, those reviewers must have a certain credibility which is also calculated (another secret formula)
I would like to know your opinion of the number of reviewers a club should have, and how far back should we go (6 months, 1 year, etc) when Ranking a club in the top 100
thanks
F
You might want to add a little question box at the end of each review like: "Was this reveiew helpful?(y/n)" or "Is this an accurate depiction of the club?(y/n)". People with helpful and accurate reviews according to other members should gain more credibility in your statistical formula.
founder,
I would think that you are the only one that has access to all the counts of reviews and reviewers. That said, I think it is you that should decide.
jaypee- So, if a reviewer gave a rave review of a club on Sa. night- saying it had over 50 centerfold quality young thing dancers, but you visited on an early week afternoon at 2pm with maybe 5 dancers, most over 30 but ok looking, would you say reviewer was "FOS"? There can be variances between day and night shifts insofar as dancer attractiveness, mileage, "enforcement", etc. Even nights can be different, depending on mgr. on duty.
Helpful review checkbox is good idea EXCEPT that TUSCL has repeatedly been hit with new "reviewers" who only post to hype or denigrate a club compared to others in the same area. Without an effective way to screen out those reviewers the checkbox all to easily becomes a source of bias and distortion.
Top 100 should reflect international rankings. But how a club ranks among other "local" clubs is important, too. If you're visiting KCMO on business, etc, it's nice to know how local clubs compare with those in FL & TX. But for going clubbing tonight [unless you've found a way to teleport to TX / FL and back] you most want to know how local clubs compare with each other and which ones best meet your preferences. Do you want to stay within city, go upscale, down and dirtier, venture farther into nearby KS, & how do new SC limitations affect club experience.
So reviewers who have national experience help rate the club against other states, but local reviewers may have had more visits and provide better reviews of how club ranks locally while spotting recent declines or improvements.
When Consumers Reports ranks products such as digital cameras they score them overall but rank them against each other in subgroups that different consumers favor -- point & shoot subcompacts, p&S zooms, digital SLRs, etc.
TUSCL needs to capture both overall national rank AND within local geo area rank. Both national AND local only reviewers contribute differeing but valuable info. And the scammer / hype problem must somehow be solved or mitigated to make rankings less subject to intentional distortion. An algorithm that's open to easy distortion is entertaining but not effective or helpful.
No system will please everyone. Leave it the way it is. If someone gets worked up over a club that is ranked x when it should be y in their opinion, then that is their opinion, not the consensus derived from your formula. Consistency in methodology is what is best.
F, where to start. I have to wonder what my own ranking in credibility is. I know that the minimum number of reviewers at one time was 8. I think it should be at least 25 given the number of TUSCL members that there are now. More is better for more input. Reviews over two years old should not be considered. Clubs can change drastically over time. I know of 2 clubs that were totally nude, are now bikini.
As I suggested before, I would like to see a top 10 for the clubs with the most reviews in the last 30 days. This would show which clubs are on a roll and really hot, right now.
founder,
I can somewhat agree with sc. Even though I think you see all the reviews and reviewers more than the rest of us, those of us that have been here years and years and posted thousands of times on TUSCL, might have a better reliability quotient.
"As I suggested before, I would like to see a top 10 for the clubs with the most reviews in the last 30 days. This would show which clubs are on a roll and really hot, right now."
I like ShadowCat's idea. Maybe, besides the "TUSCL Top 100" (which could be long-term), have a separate section for "Trending Now" which is based off reviews submitted in the last 30 days and written only by 10&5 folks (10 reviews total with at least 5 different clubs reviewed.) This can eliminate the shill problem.
They need to have another category for extras. Right now it's just "value", which can mean a lot of things. The best club I've ever been for extras I rated as a 4-5 for value because the extras weren't cheap and the drinks were outrageous. But I think the vast majority of guys on this site want to know when they are headed to a certain area and want a BJ or straight sex, which club to aim for where that stuff goes on.
On the negative side of that...I guess if the cops wanted to crack down on "extras", they could use the site rankings to target those clubs...so I guess maybe it's not the greatest idea.
Agree with ttfan.
Thoughts on his last statement: "Consistency in methodology is what is best"
True, but NO measurement methodology can make up for poor input date -- garbage in, garbage out.
If enough reviewers, usually not TUSCL vets, give lukewarm or negative reviews but end up giving high numerical ratings it will defeat any refined methodology that can't "correct" for that bias.
I've seen a lot of reviews [no, not obvious shills] where the numerical ratings do not match what is written in review and the overall tone of the review.
Some reviewers insist on factoring in past club performance to justify higher numbers for otherwise poor visit. I think each visit or set of visits that are being reviewed stands on its own. Rate it like it was for you regardless of your or others past posted experiences or the high ranking of club overall.
Maybe just an off nite, but could be sign of decline.
Founder,
To be ranked, a club must have at least 2 reviews in the last 2 months AND 10 reviews in the last 6 months.
I totally pulled that out of my ass and cannot justify it at all.
Founder, I am a big fan of the changes that you have made in the review system. I recently went back to clubs that I reviewed in the past and, while I am always a little skeptical about composite ratings, think that the ratings for some of these clubs are much more accurate than they were before.
Take as a case in point Club Perfection in Queens. Putting aside my ratings, everyone who is a regular in the Queens NY circuit knows the deal with this club: it is a glitzy looking ghetto joint with very high prices, but little talent. Hell, a recent link to a video posted by samsung, which shows a few of the girls dancing for some rapper, paints the picture as well as anything I could post. Yet until recently this club was highly rated in every category.
Thanks for the changes, which are motivating me even further to continue to add to the database of reviews.
RD
I submitted the reviews from my recent Eastern stopover after this thread was started. My reviews come in clusters of a dozen or so at a time - a function of my SC travels. I live in a SC dead zone so the reviews of the different clubs I visit near home are all pretty much the same. I make a point of visiting different clubs when I travel and always submit reviews of each new club (for me) that I visit. I use tuscl to guide me to clubs when I travel, particularly if the club has been reviewed by a tuscler whom I have come to respect.
A visit to Subi's in the Detroit area was prompted by reviews from a tuscler whose opinion I respect (vincemichaels). Subi's now figures prominently in the Top 100 list (as it should IMO); but it does not have 100s of reviews in its portfolio as many of the other Top 100 clubs do.
So, Founder, this tweaking of the rating system is bringing worthwhile changes to the tuscl Top 100 list. I can see how this can be a fascinating (and frustrating) task for you. Some suggestions for you:
1. Do not use reviews from reviewers with fewer than 10 different clubs reviewed.
2. Keep all old reviews in play from active credible reviewers; but turf the reviews of posters who go silent (1 year since most recent review).
3. Throw a club in the mix when it receives reviews from 10 or more of your credible reviewers.
22 comments