It used to be that tusclers with more clubs reviewed were accorded a bit more influence on club ratings, which I think is both fair and appropriate. Fair because heavy contributors to the site should have some influence and appropriate because tusclers with a lot of clubs under their belt are likely to provide better comparative intel than those who do not.
But lately my reviews haven't been moving the needle, even on thinly reviewed clubs. Has something changed?
The world doesn't revolve around "The System"
:)
I would really like to know the details of the rating system, as i’ve done quite a bit of statistical analysis using these numbers.
Well Papi and Random, I really wasn't taking it all that personally until you two posted, but now...sheesh. ;)
Would be nice to understand the change though.
It would make sense for ratings to weigh more heavily based on some formula of the poster's credibility and longevity... And to reduce the value of reviews as they age.
I can't wait until Douchester/txtittyasswipe chokes on his own shit. LMAO Founder tinkles with stuff here, it might be one of his modifications, rick.
Try using multiple accounts that will move that needle LMFAO !!!!!!!
Let me elaborate on why this bothers me so much. When Founder originally made the move to a weighted system, these ratings have become much more useful, especially when I am visiting larger cities with lots of club choices. In those cities, I often use the club ratings to help sift through my options, but if every fucking 1/1 shill posting a 3 10s rating can have the same influence as guys like sinclair or wallanon, to name a couple, or ratings from 5 years ago are still factoring into a current rating, then the value of those ratings is going to turn to shit in a hurry.
Miami is a perfect example. While I ultimately ended up at Tootsie's, my next stop was going to be Diamond Dolls further north, which I found through this very type of sifting. I WANT guys like Papi, jacklash and others to have more influence because it make the ratings far more meaningful than they will be otherwise.
I seriously hope Founder will give this some thought. Otherwise I guess we're going to lose the only convenient tool we have to easily sift through 30 or 40 clubs in a club rich area.
Founder has some splaining to do :)
It would be good for him to describe the ratings and get some feedback from the vets on here.
^^Perhaps that is the ultimate purpose of the recently added "Trusts" count on each user's profile. Perhaps Founder will eventually weight reviews according to the reviewer's "Trusts" count.
RickDugan is a Gay Cocksucker!
LOL!
Unfortunately, some guys trust themselves or create alias' who then trust themselves to up their total.
Nothing changed. I just am having an issue generating the stats automatically.
When I give a review shit happens
I used to be involved in corporate communications. When we advised companies with large groups of engineers, we used an entirely different strategy. There is literally no limit to how much detail engineers want. They always asked for the details, calculations, and even code anytime a fact was stated.
Thanks Founder.
Thanks Founder for the follow-up.
Founder, thanks for this wonderful site. If you are cutting off the date range to limit to current reviews in some way, keep doing that. I don’t look at the rating numbers anymore as with the accumulation of reviews all of the big clubs get to somewhere between 3-4 stars. The overall rating isn’t helpful as much as the number of reviews and the narrative of the reviews themselves. When I travel, ive taken to sorting the reviews by number, then doing some reading. If I’m still unsure and have time, I’ll pm a local member (who I may not previously know) and ask for intel. The members have been great about responding with good info. The site is great and there are many ways to find what you need.
Don't take it personally; he just doesn't like you.