Rating system for clubs

I agree with chitown. The only way to make the reviews more valuable is to be explicit in what you saw going on at the particular venue. (Details of everything -- Alcohol, prices for drinks, cover, types of dances available, prices for them, private or open dance areas, stage side seating, what goes on at the tip rail, is the place clean, what about parking, are the bathrooms clean, decor, type of crowd, ect. Also don't forget to give some detail on the dancers themselves and the milage potential.)

I agree that the numerical system, in its present form, lacks precision. However, I think the best way to add precision is simply to use the words that you suggest. In reviewing a club, it is well to make a few comments on those issues that other posters on this board put some stress on, even if they aren't important to you...for example, even if you don't care whether the dancers do extras, you might note whether they are available (though you may have turned them down when offered).

One area that I think defies quantification is atmosphere...some guys like showclubs, with glitzy surroundings and "glamour girl" types; others like places that are less pretentious (the phrase "Cheers with naked girls" comes to mind). Probably the only effective way to communicate which of the two paradigms a particular club fits into is to type it out, and damn the carpal tunnel syndrome!

Your system sounds as good as any, regardless, you still have to read between the lines. I've been to clubs on Sa. nite, plenty of gourgeous babes hopping ard, but too damn crowded to have fun. Then again, go to hitw club on slow afternoon, but get only hot babe in the place to yourself- great in that case, but not so great for other fellas fending off the dogs.

I don't think there's a solution. As I said the last time this came up, the use of numbers in ratings falsely suggests that there could be precision in their application. But opinions aren't like that. The Olympics should make that much clear.

However, when you accumulate enough ratings from different people, each applying their own standards, they tend to arrive at something roughly accurate. There's a current school of thought in statistical analysis on that phenonemon, and I think TUSCL bears it out. The key is not to focus too much on any individual rating, but to look at the overall pattern.