Reviews ?

I think 2-3. They were all about 3-4 sentences long with zero details.

I have rejected a few for the same reason. I just rejected one which looked like a club ad. Now I have seen a couple that I rejected still were ultimately approved which is fine, if other can glean Intel from it that's fine by me.

I have tried to be constructive when I reject a review, maybe it might help them to write a better one next time.

Yep, I've rejected a few and its too the point I even created a canned response: "This review is too vague and focuses solely on your own experience from too narrow a viewpoint. In order for your review to be more helpful to other readers, consider adding some more information about the club's layout, the atmosphere, the girls and costs."

^^^I have turned down a few, that looked to me like just a bunch of words strung together with no relevance to the club. One in particular was some female that wrote a review about Vixens that wasn't a review at all. Actually in keeping with what I see as founders vision I look for a reason to yes vote most,If I am not sure about any particular one I look for some nugget anything that might be informative, only down vote if there is nothing about the club in the words written.

@a21

That's a well thought-out constructive response

I have. Most were minimal effort "free vip" reviews.

I dont think any that i voted no actually got posted. I think im pretty forgiving. I either dont vote at all or pick yes for most of them.

i vote no on indian packers and movers. btw a21985... how do you fit all of that canned response in that little box?

@justme62 - the box is visually small, but doesn't seem to have a character limit from what I found.

I’ve voted no a few times. Like 25 said, I look for a reason to vote yes. But I voted no about 4 times so far because there was no information on the club at all. I don’t think I’m tough about that sort of thing and don’t want to be but there has to be something minimally useful in the review.

I've turned down a few, though one obvious shill review made it through anyway. Not sure how others didn't identify it as such, but it is what it is. Overall still happy with this new setup.

Reminiscing about a visit is okay. With enough reviews you do know the prices and number of dancers, and sometimes the stories in 'reminisce' style reviews are still informative. It's a way to experience a club, right? What gets a no from me is spam, shills, and bullshit which is obviously just trying to get VIP status like 'I haven't visited this club in two years but if i remember it was fun'

Have voted no on several that really didn't really have any club specific info. Also voted no on one that named a dancer doing extras.

I like the ability to vote on reviews before they are published, but don't like the requirement to enter a narrative reason. Takes too long. I would prefer a set up where you could just click some buttons for a yes or no on basic review criteria, like sufficient club detail, price info, dancer info, with a narrative entry optional.

San Jose Guy rejected... oh wait!!!! Lol

I think the only thing we should reject is an obvious shill ad or a review so short so as to provide nothing.

I enjoy reading other's detailed experiences even if the review reads like a diary entry focusing on their experience only from their point of view. In that case, I get to live vicariously through their recollection. In doing so, I get a sense of their club experience -- which I either will or will not endeavor to replicate someday.

I've rejected a couple due to having very little actual content and/or being a review that could basically describe any other SC

Other than one short review that was obviously a lazy attempt to get VIP, all the reviews I’ve rejected were duplicates.

"Reminiscing" is ok - but a reader unfamiliar w/ a club should not have to read thru multiple reviews to get pertinent club info like cover and dance-price - reminisce away, but also be cognizant of the potential readers and also include pertinent club info.

Those that just reminisce seem to be writing the reviews for their own benefit instead of the potential readers.

The opposite of a reminiscing review - reads like a technical datasheet.

From a recent review of Sabel's Philly:

"... Club (4/10) Type: lowscale Parking: public lot, medium-sized Club Setup: LD room on right as soon as you enter building where; bouncer’s area with chair is right outside LD room; pole is in corner on the right and another is in the middle on the left; tables and chairs are facing the left-hand pole; bar area right next to chairs; DJ booth is in corner on left; bathroom right next to DJ booth Dance Setup: sofas all around the area; no windows or door; curtains are used in place of door; bouncer sits right outside the LD room Atmosphere: non-smoking; good visibility Location: urban; 3 universities within 10 minutes; mom-and-pop restaurants within 5 minutes Music: rap/trap; volume is too loud Televisions: 4 small ones around bar; SD feed Bartenders: somewhat unfriendly Bouncers: unfriendly; task-oriented Bathroom: no attendant available; dirty; soap dispenser unavailable; paper towel dispenser unavailable; hand dryer unavailable Misc. staff: somewhat friendly

Dancers (5/10) Pole skill: none have talent Physical looks: mid 6 to mid 8 with most around a 7 Personality: somewhat friendly or somewhat unfriendly; low or medium hustle Age: early to late 20s with most around early 20s looking Ethnicity: AA Body tattoos: good amount Intangibles: many sitting by stools or barside throughout their shift on their phones or just relaxing; dancers do a good job of coming around to most customers; most dancers act like they are far more attractive than they actually are and it can be very off-putting; deny a LD and you will be treated poorly; dancers come to their shift late and sometimes leave early Tip parade: none; dancers will ask for a barstool LD

Dollar Value (7/10) Cover: $0 cover this visit ($10 after 10 pm on Friday) Dance price/quality: $20 Wednesday-Sunday ($10 on Monday/Tuesday); mileage is either low or high (one dancer gives air dances) General mileage: high Beer: decent selection; decent pricing this visit Water: complimentary if you ask Food: none Specials: Happy Hour (everyday 6-8 pm); $10 LD (Monday/Tuesday)

Verdict (low 5/10) I made my visit in March (4th week, weekday evening). If you're looking for a place to just relax, drink some beer, watch some sports, and see some boobs every now and then, this might be a mediocre spot ..."

tuscl.net

I recently just had the same review to one SC published twice. Perhaps we are starting to see some flaws with the new system

I have voted no on 2 unpublished reviews, both due to brevity and lack of any specific details. I wondered when the new system started how it would effect club ads that while overly positive still had relevant details or reviewers like badnews53. He has done like 30 reviews for Tootsie's. Some were detailed accounts of hookups that had nothing to do with the club, but I still found them to be entertaining. I will vote yes if it is at least a couple of fairly well written paragraphs that doesn't make me feel like I just wasted my time reading them.

@lol: I saw the duplicate too. I said yes to the first and no to the second.

Only one so far. Very short two sentences that was so generic it could be about any club.

I have not voted no on a review yet because I am being very selective on which reviews to vote on. I am only reading the reviews on clubs that I am interested in or because I personally know the reviewer. So there haven't been many yet.

I've voted no on a few, and gave suggestions for things to include to get me to vote yes. Most of the one ones I voted no to had so little detail it was impossible to tell if the person had been to a club.

I’ve voted no on a few reviews. I must have found a batch of bad ones. The ones I voted down were basic rants about not enjoying the club - or a particular dancer. They didn’t mention the prices of drinks, if there was a cover, or anything about the club in general.

I may be too picky.

It would be interesting to know the actual path a review takes and if our reviewing the review actually makes any difference at all.

Kind of like the “close door button”on the elevator, it’s sometimes there to make you feel good and give you something to do, but it’s not actually hooked up to anything.

I have noticed that the day the review gets included in seems to be messed up now. Read all the 4/13 reviews on 4/14 then today noticed that there are a number of new ones interspersed, apparently back dated in so how?

@shadow

I don't think the name of the reviewer appears in the unpublished list - which is probably the way to go as to not be biased either way

My general criteria involves a few pieces of information: Location - ease of parking Cover charge (it could be Y/N or actual price) Drink prices Dance prices Number of dancers Mileage General club layout Dance area info

I know many reviews focus on the quality - beauty/hotness of dancers. That’s fine. That’s highly subjective. It’s the items listed above that are most useful.

For me a review does not have to have every piece of pertinent info, but if it doesn't have any pertinent info then he needs to try again

Papi - you are correct. I should have worded that differently.

I agree. I’m hoping to see a bit more insight.

Some of the reviews are crap. “It was very dark. The music was loud. The drinks might be watered down. Some hot dancers. Lots of claims of great VIP action.” I could apply that to about 90% of the clubs I’ve been to.

I'm not looking for "the best reviews", just looking to weed-out the crappy little-info ones - even very-poor grammar I would not reject if it has enough pertinent info

I agree. I’m looking for enough info so I could decide if I’d go to the club.

Papi posted: ---> "I'm not looking for "the best reviews", just looking to weed-out the crappy little-info ones - even very-poor grammar I would not reject if it has enough pertinent info"

Agreed. Some people are poor writers and some value different things than we might. With that in mind, I've kept the bar pretty low. But I say no to the generic reviews that give us nothing in terms of specific intel. I guess i'd call it the "Did You Actually Walk in the Door At All" standard.

Cash posted: "I’m looking for enough info so I could decide if I’d go to the club."

Cash, idk, but that seems like a high bar to apply to a single review. I'm generally going to approve a review if it adds something relevant and specific to the knowledge base. I would expect someone to read multiple reviews in order to collect enough intel to make a go/no go determination. Just my perspective fwiw.

Rick, I agree. I must be reading too much into this. A single review wouldn’t be my sole reason for deciding whether to go to a club.

In my view, a reviewer should attempt to provide enough info so that the reader will know if the club is worth attending or not. The reviewer should avoid focusing on a single dancer or a single aspect of their experience. Maybe that’s expecting too much?

Cash, like you, I am a purist when it comes to my own reviews and try to write reviews that are complete and as accurate as I can make them. I hate reviews that are full of fluff and light on specifics or are just a product of laziness, which I guess puts me in the high expectations crowd.

But looking at it from a broader perspective, if too many VIPs set the bar that high, we will collectively shit can easily 2/3 of the reviews posted. Then, after a while, nobody will want to post reviews. Not everyone posting a review is going to be Wordsworth. Some people are also too lazy to make a comprehensive effort. Others may have been too drunk during the visit to remember all the details or may just have poor memories. Or etc.,etc.

So I try to force my purism down and apply a lower standard, which more or less translates to "at least give me something fucking useful and convince me that you were actually a customer in the club" - lol.

"I have noticed that the day the review gets included in seems to be messed up now. Read all the 4/13 reviews on 4/14 then today noticed that there are a number of new ones interspersed, apparently back dated in so how"

Are you saying the reviews get published on the day it was posted for review? For instance are there any "new" reviews for yesterday or the before, that got published today?

^^^maybe they didn’t receive enough votes for acceptance or rejection.

I’m sort of agreeing with rickdugan here in that I’ve got to swallow my frustration and apply pretty low standards or I will be voting no on every other review. It gets frustrating to keep reading these almost zero information reviews but this is a review site and it needs content beyond our jabbering on the discussion board. So I mutter under my breath and approve the reviews if I can ascertain anything about the club itself in them. If it is pure narrative about the reviewer’s personal feelings and I can’t tell if they even set foot in the place, it’s still a no.

I mostly want to hear about the state of the reviewer's penis during the various stages of his visit. Especially if it inadvertently brushed against another customer. I really crave the ones about smearing dude goo into his boxers because he just couldn't anymore

^^^Why don’t you check some of Dugan earlier reviews I know he thinks he’s the man but you’ll see that anyone can get better, but you need to give them a chance. I don’t think I write such good reviews but they have gotten better over the years. For the record I didn’t plan to write reviews to achieve VIP but I found it to be good excessive mentally, and as I have gotten a lot from this community I appreciate being able to contribute. Bear in mind if just one out of every 20-30 reviewers join our discussion group that is quite a few over a years time and the knowledge gained is to the benefit of the entire community.

^^^That was to @Huntsman

Yes, I have. The no club information ones, the “I got a really good blow job” ones, and a couple of the uninformative bullshit rant ones.

@RickDougan - that’s good advice. I will change my criteria so that I don’t expect too much from the reviews.

@Huntsman - I agree with your point too. Some reviews are just shit. Complaints about a snooty bartender - or other bs - takes up the full review.