tuscl Top 10.......WTF?

I just noted that my favourite Toronto area strip club is now #23 on the tuscl list. Club Pro in Vaughan deserves this ranking and probably a much higher ranking. It is #1 on the farmerart list.

Club Pro is where I met Toronto sweetie.

Hey Art, Welcome back. The Allure ranking was brought up a short time ago. It is just another case where the local yokels over rated the club because they don't have any worldly experiences to compare it to.

To mirror what Shadow once said, rankings ain't worth the paper they're printed on.

i have been to 2 top 100 clubs in dancer quality last time i checked, diamond cabaret or sum shit and la boheme both in denver. i think the top 100 lists may hold some merit based on those experiences. what i dont get is how a massage parlor is the top rated strip club. massage parlors and lingerie clubs or w/e you call it should be exempt from the top 100 lists.

I started a discussion on this topic about a week ago but I cannot locate this discussion thread in the archives----hmmm?

I don't place much credence in the rating system and the club types are pretty clearly described. As a result, I'm not too bothered by the ratings. However, it is deceptive to have a spa rated as though it was a strip club and to also not have a more complete listing of the spas the in the area.

What I'd prefer is a separate section on TUSCL devoted to spas and AMPs-- ideally a more complete listing of spas in each area. I know that there are some other web sites devoted to AMP reviews (possibly rub maps?) but they typically require a credit card to pay for a membership and I continue to be reluctant to provide any credit card info to most web sites. Thus, I'd be interested in a a "free" web site that provided TUSCL quality reviews of spas. Anyone have any leads?

but I like to see different categories blended together. I would certainly be in favor of a spa section on TUSCL as they have

I have seen clubs on the "Top" lists that I would never frequent. Many time crappy clubs that show up on the list only have a few reviews. I'm sure the founder simply has a sort routine that uses the "ratings" from reviews. A club that has a loyal local following that gives it consistently high reviews will put it artificially high in the ranks. That is why I do not look at the reviews when finding clubs to check out. An example of a local club that is one of the best in town and ended up as a 'Top' club but does not compare well to out of town clubs is Brad's Brass Flamingo in Indy. It is an above average topless only club that has a reputation for having a lot of above average dancers and has reasonable prices. You can get a good external grind but has no private rooms, no serious extras as a general rule and is pretty dumpy inside. For Indy is does pretty well since none of the clubs has private rooms nor do any regularly have extras available. In Indy extras consist of a little kitty flashing and/or touching.

I apologize for the duplicate discussion topic. I am currently on vacation and I hit tuscl today for the first time in over two weeks.

No apologies necessary Art.

Never look at ratings here. Prefer the judgment of a few veteran mongers.

There's an easy way to avoid these spurious statistics. Limit the lists by number of reviews. Say min 50 or 75 reviews.

A while back, I advocated limiting the top clubs to only those with a minimum number of reviews, but the suggestion went nowhere. That would not solve the problem completely, and I would still place very little reliance upon the top lists, but it would at least make the site appear more accurate and useful on the homepage.. I personally would be embarrassed to run a website that listed some of these clubs as being in any type of top 10 list. For example, Aphrodite's hot lingerie party or whatever the crappy place is called should only be listed in the bottom depths of any strip club review site. Instead, here it's on the list of top 10 clubs.

There already is a minimum number of reviews. I believe that it is around 8. Also reviews by members with large numbers of reviews are weighted higher than others. These parameter probably need expanding. But since we all know that the ranking suck it's best to just ignore them until if and when Founder has the time to do anything about them.

I have visited 8 of the Top 102 (Overall) clubs. Two clubs are in the Top 10 and some visits were 10+ years ago. What strikes me is how different the various clubs are. Some classy with beautiful talent and low mileage, and others are known for high mileage and value pricing. Different strokes for different folks. All that I have visited have their good points. And probably also change over the years. I look forward to crossing off a few more from the list.

These lists are of limited usefulness. Actual ranking order [#1 vs #2 etc] is useless. At best, where the club falls -- top 3rd, middle 3rd, or lower 3rd has SOME meaning for clubs with more than 25 or 50 reviews.

Increasing the minimum # of reviews before a club is listed in Top xx lists to 25 or 50 may help prevent clubs with fewer reviews and a recent run of inaccurate spam reviews [for example, shills or derogatory to lower rating] from appearing or shifting around wildly on a list.

But many TUSCL members themselves contribute to the problem by tossing off a quick & careless review just to get or maintain VIP status. In addition, I've read many reviews where the club ratings don't match the narrative. Many members [myself included, at times] succumb to a positive bias in the ratings that doesn't match well with the review narrative.

Founder can't fix that problem.

joker makes another good point about the rating not matching the narrative. ive seen people say the dancers were ugly(or something along those lines) but gave the club a dancer rating of 7 or 8.