Top 40 Ratings

Thanks for the explanation, Founder.

Now just waiting for Papi Chulo to explain why your approach is all wrong, and how he would do it differently.

It might be helpful to pin some explanations like this. Last night I found an old post of yours from 2012 explaining what was expected in a good review, but it was closed, so I couldn’t bump it.

Founder: A club near me has a rating of 0, even though it has 54 reviews. Last review was October 9, 2017. If a club's last rating is from several months ago, does the rating automatically go to zero?

There may still be bugs in it. What club?

Your approach is all wrong, and I would do it differently.

Actually - the only part I don't like about-it is using the Contri-level which I think it can often be misleading as to a contributor's worth - just my 2-cents but hey like realDougster would tell you I'm not really one to have an opinion.

That was fucking hillarious realDougster.

FWIW (since this is relevant to reviews,) I don't like the star ratings without a guide of some sort. A 9 star experience for me is likely to be significantly different than a 9 star experience for someone else who is looking for different things. Unfortunately I don't really have the experience with a wide range of clubs that would let me -make- those guidelines... I'll bet you could crowdsource something though.

@Founder, the one I mentioned is fixed, maybe you got to it already. But there is another with a rating of zero and a last review from 2014. Called Bottom's Up, in Philadelphia. Although I don't really care if this one get's changed, apparently it's barely even a strip club. Just figured I would mention it for completeness.

If a club hasn't been reviewed in a year it loses its rating.

Papi- one benefit of using the contribution level is that it makes the obvious one and done club ads of the day less imo

Important.

^^^^Good point

My contribution level dropped from a 10 to a 6. I guess my review input has been cut in half. Oh well. No big loss.

^^^^ Blasphemy. You're contributions should be permanently lock at 100 :)

Founder can you fix it

Fuck shadow LMFAO

Papi thanks he is above founder LMFAO

If trust rating was used, instead of contribution level, then the community here would be determining how much weight a member’s reviews should have, rather than the quantity of their reviews and posts. Would kinda give a more clear reason for trusts too, as in, “do you trust this member (to give accurate reviews/ valuable input)?”

How can I trust a member who is constantly running out of gas? He even runs out of gas when he’s on a Greyhound bus.

Trust Juice? I can’t trust him with a bucket of chicken fingers - or a bag of funyons - but he knows quite a bit about SA girls and Waffle Houses!

I liked the old system where you could prop someone and make a short comment why you did.

I also liked the old system where you could log in or out at the top of whatever page you were on. Now you have to click around to get to the log in and out page.

LMFAO

@bj99, "If trust rating was used, instead of contribution level, then the community here would be determining how much weight a member’s reviews should have, ".

I, for one, would not like that. It seems to me that the trust rating is directly correlated to discussion board participation. It doesn't seem to reflect the volume or quality of club reviews. I have been on this site for 5 years, contributed what I can when I can, and tried to write meaningful reviews. The result is a contribution level of 8 and a single isolated trust (I did have 2 until the site revamp.) I personally like the idea of a review prop for a well written review that describes a club visit accurately. All too often a hastily written vague review is submitted only to get a free month.

^ I kinda disagree. Before the comments were taken away on trusts, I’d read other members’, and they were often given for good reviews. I also think that if trusts had a more focused purpose, people would be more likely to use them properly. Do you give trusts to ppl when you like their reviews?

^^ I kinda disagree with that. The more trusted folk on this board generally give pretty good intel on the clubs they don’t all write as well as Papi Chiulo, but their intel is usually reliable and corresponds with what we need to know.

My comment was @justinrolook you ninja’d me Bj

Yes, my trusts have been pretty much based on an accurate well written review of a club I had personally been to. I probably would have propped a far greater number of reviews because the word "trust" just seems to carry more weight.

If some factor is going to be used to weight users’ ratings in order to make the ratings more reliable, then that factor (call it contrib level, trusts, props, w/e) should reflect that users knowledge and experience of strip clubs. If a man goes to his first strip club ever, and then reviews it as 10,10,10, we should not give that review as much weight. Whereas, if a user has been a participating member for 10 years, has reviewed clubs from different regions of the country, different regions of the world, and clubs of various rankings, then that user’s ratings should be more heavily weighted, because he has “seen it all”, so to speak.

So, let’s not call it trusts or props or contribution. Let’s make it like a video game and call it experience points.

Plus, the trust rating that founder was developing would mean that a trust from a higher contributing member, would have more weight. So if Papi, gave you a trust, your trust rating would increase, and so would the weight of your reviews. That way contribution level still factors in.

I actually liked that trust rating bc it meant that ppl who have been here a long time, prolly have a higher trust rating bc of their interactions w other long time members.