Top 40 question.

13 comments

• Clubber

  •

  18 years ago

  Didn't intend to start anything. Was just asking a question. I don't even look at the rankings, normally. I use TUSCL when out of town or to check on local clubs
• FONDL

  •

  18 years ago

  Founder, I don't mean to be pissy about this, I think you've done an excellent overall job with this site. I just don't think the numerical scores from reviews are very meaningful, so analyzing them too closely (eg. averaging them to three significant digits and worrying about how old they are) is even less meaningful. Some clubs get a lot of reviews while others get few, for a variety of reaons, and I don't think it means very much. I'd also bet that some club owners/managers submit a bunch of phoney reviews of their own and their competitors' clubs under a lot of different names, which distorts the figures even further.
• founder

  •

  18 years ago

  this system doesn't really penalize clubs with fewer reviews. It just doesn't allow them on the top 40 lists. All clubs still have a ranking and rating regardless of the number of reviews they have. You can search for high rankings and ratings on the search page.
  
  hth
  F
  
• Clubber

  •

  18 years ago

  I agree with FONDL. There has to be a ratio applied between time and reviews. What that ratio might be...
• FONDL

  •

  18 years ago

  Founder, 7 reviews over a 3 year period means that they probably have only 2 or 3 for the past year. Which means that one review can greatly influence their ranking. I know a lot of very nice clubs out in the boonies that rarely get reviewed because just about the only people who go to them are locals who aren't aware of TUSCL. Your current system is penalizing such clubs.
• founder

  •

  18 years ago

  FONDL.. clubs that dont get a lot of reviews dont count in the top 40s. They need at least 7 reviews. hth
• Book Guy

  •

  18 years ago

  I just like the clubs that are more rank and less classy, no matter how they're rated. :)
  
• Clubber

  •

  18 years ago

  Excellent point, FONDL.
• FONDL

  •

  18 years ago

  That may be fine for a club like Tootsie's that gets lots of reviews, but I don't think it works for the ones that don't. One recent review can have too great of an impact if it's either really high or really low. Founder, if you're going to get fancy, why not use median rather than mean, than one or two outliers won't have any impact.
• Clubber

  •

  18 years ago

  Putting what founder said, to the test, I looked at Tootsie's in Miami. They have really been getting "ranked" since their relocation. Assuming (I believe they were) RANKED as a top 40 club, they are no longer in the top 40, yet they are still RATED as top 15, at 8.9. So, it all fits together nicely.
• founder

  •

  18 years ago

  It's on the FAQ... basically Rank = current Rating...
  Rank takes 12 months
  Rating takes 3 years
  
  This was added because of a member suggestion... and it makes sense. If a club has a higher rank than rating, it means the club is getting better... and conversely, if a club has a lower rank than rating, it is on a downswing.
  
  hth
  F
  
• DandyDan

  •

  18 years ago

  I had asked that question. Top 40 rated is all the reviews. Top 40 ranked is the most recent ones.
• FONDL

  •

  18 years ago

  We had this discussion not long ago and I still don't know the answer. I think one of them is the average of all reviews and the other is only the most recent ones, but I don't know which is which or what's considered recent. Personally I don't think it makes any sense to have two rankings.