tuscl

Unpublished Reviews

TheeOSU
FUCK IT!
It seems apparent to me that either the ability for TUSCL members to approve or deny reviews before publishing is either not working as it should or is still a work in progress.

Case in point, this review..

https://www.tuscl.net/rev.php?id=329953&…

I voted against it being published and called it as a shill review yet it was still published.

Opinions?

43 comments

  • skwalker
    •
    6 years ago
    Off topic: how can I become a reviewer?
  • TheeOSU
    •
    6 years ago
    ^
    You have 2 current reviews, it seems to me that you should have the ability. There's an unpublished review link at the top of the daily review link. Click on it and you should be there.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    I would have voted no also - it does sound like a club ad - my main-gripe is that it's all generalities and no concrete info about the club, dancers, and the dances - this review is like telling me the club has 4-walls and a roof and expecting that to be worthwhile info
  • eyeofodin
    •
    6 years ago
    I voted no as well, reasoning was club ad. I did vote yes on yours and concurred with your assesment.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    @sk

    If one has VIP one gets to vote yes/no on the reviews - there is a "Unpublished Reviews" link under the "Daily Reviews" menu-option that is only visible if one has VIP.
  • flagooner
    •
    6 years ago
    If one has VIP one gets to vote yes/no on the reviews - there is a "Unpublished Reviews" link under the "Daily Reviews" menu-option that is only visible if one has VIP.
  • skwalker
    •
    6 years ago
    Got it Papi and OSU^^^ I meant peer review.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    ^ what do you mean by peer-review in the context of TUSCL?
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    ^ this ain't the New England Journal of Strip Clubs
  • skwalker
    •
    6 years ago
    review the unpublished reviews^, just like reviewing the scientific papers written by the peer scientists. LOL
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    Papi you blew your troll alias we now know you are flagooner.
  • skwalker
    •
    6 years ago
    LMAO
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    @sk

    The unpublished reviews *are* reviewing the reviews b/f they get published in the main-list that non-VIPs read - it also means if a review gets turned-down then the chump does not get free-VIP for just writing any ole shit - the voting on unpublished reviews is recent, a couple of weeks old- it was implemented b/c TUSCL is pretty-much a one-man operation and Founder (site-owner) could-not read all reviews, or even most of them - members got fed-up w/ all the terrible reviews written to just get free VIP and thus we have the system we have now - the voting/reviewing helps discourage the free-loaders that write shit-reviews to just get free-VIP; it's not perfect but at least there is more vetting going-on now.
  • minnow
    •
    6 years ago
    @OSU- I pm'ed Founder. He explained that unpublished review must get 5 votes, with at least 3 of them being yes. What I now question is once 5 votes are in, is review automatically removed from the queue ? Or lets say that 3 flakes in a row vote yes, it apparently wouldn't matter if 10 VIP's in quick succession vote (or would have voted) thumbs down, the review got 3/5.
  • flagooner
    •
    6 years ago
    Next you'll be asking for the algorithm that determines the contribution score. Don't sweat the small stuff.
  • skwalker
    •
    6 years ago
    ^@Papi, got it. thanks pal.
  • skwalker
    •
    6 years ago
    What's the founder's alias?
  • chessmaster
    •
    6 years ago
    ^Founder
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    @minnow:

    What happens if a review does not get 5-votes; or any votes?
  • minnow
    •
    6 years ago
    Papi- Idk, guess it stays in the queue until it gets 5 votes. I'd be curious to know how many VIP members actually "grade" the unpublished reviews. A very small percentage of Tuscl members are regular DB posters. It didn't take too long for my last submitted review to get published. Founder did tell me that if a review gets rejected, the reviewer would see the comments, and who made the comments.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    I assumed if the review does not get enough reviews that it would default to the old style of publishing (either gets automatically posted or maybe Founder reads-it) - i.e. a reviewer should not get punished b/c not enough people voted on it
  • shadowcat
    •
    6 years ago
    Another question. The Cheetah in Wilmington NC got 2 identical reviews published by the same guy. Did he get 2 months of VIP? Who is watching for this?
  • racejeff
    •
    6 years ago
    I thought a member could only get credit for 1 review for same club in each 28 or 30 day period. I really don’t remember if it’s 28 or 30 days between reviews.
  • founder
    •
    6 years ago
    Right now a review's fate is based on a best of 3 out of 5 approach.

    Should I change it to 4 out of 7?
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    b/f the latest round of site-updates one would get a warning when submitting a review of the same club within 30-days, I don't think one still gets that warning but not 100%-sure so not sure if the 30-day rule still applies
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    What happens if it doesn't get to 5 votes?
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    ^ or doesn't get any votes?
  • founder
    •
    6 years ago
    Even if a review gets published twice, the reviewer only gets credit for one.

    As for not getting any votes, that really hasn't happened yet.

  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    So does the 30-day rule still apply - if a reviewer writes 2 separate reviews within 2-weeks for the same club, he does not get extra-VIP?
  • founder
    •
    6 years ago
    it's actually 4 weeks.
  • Liwet
    •
    6 years ago
    The system shouldn't be 3 out of 5. It should be 60% positive after X amount of hours, like 12 or 24.
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    @OP just curious are you saying that the only reviews that should be approved, are those that you approve of ?
  • Dolfan
    •
    6 years ago
    I'm okay with best of 5. Is it possible to have the notes entered when reviewing published entered as comments on the review though? Maybe prefixed with a little note "Voted (not) to Publish - %commenthere%" kinda thing. Maybe knowing they'll be seen will make people think a little more? Also, we'd see the negative comments for people who thought the review shouldn't have been published, eg "this is a shill review"
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^^^Yeah I’m okay with 3 out of 5 as well and I agree that the comments should be published as well
    @founder why does the voting require a comment for an up vote, it makes sense for the down vote to have a short explanatio, but for an up vote commentary should be elective.
  • TheeOSU
    •
    6 years ago
    "@OP just curious are you saying that the only reviews that should be approved, are those that you approve of ?"

    Not at all, just shill reviews.
    It's obvious to me and should be to anyone else with experience and knowledge of the area and just the way the review is written that it's fake, written by a shill.
    I'm saying shill reviews should not be approved as all they do is mislead. After all isn't the true purpose of having reviews here to help each other out with accurate information?

  • georgmicrodong
    •
    6 years ago
    @founder, I personally think that the more votes you can get, the better. 4 out of 7 is better than 3 out of 5, and 5 out of 9 is better than both. If the “insufficient votes” situation hasn’t happened yet, it sounds like it wouldn’t be a hardship to get more votes.
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^^^sometimes it’s better to call out the shill reviews after they get published. Perfect example of that is Key West, Florida ! If there were no reviews they might get more tourists than they do just because folks were warned off those clubs the ones who read the reviews and the comments will at least recieve a fair warning.
  • twentyfive
    •
    6 years ago
    ^^^ that was for theeOSU
  • shadowcat
    •
    6 years ago
    Too many editors now. Too many disagreements. Return to the old system. Let the computer automatically reject any review that is too short. Publish all others. If a published review gets X number of complaints it gets removed. Reasons for removal would include shill, dancer liability. wrong club, etc.
  • minnow
    •
    6 years ago
    In a way, 4/7 or 5/9 is lowering the bar. Original 3/5= 60%, the 2 suggestions= 57% and 55%, respectively. If you're going to increase exposure to "evaluators", make it 2/3 majority like 4/6 or 6/9, like a presidential veto override.

    @shadowcat- I still saw short reviews under the old system. I think if a short review of less than a certain length gets published, the names of the evaluators and their comments should be published to monitor if certain VIP evaluators are being too flaky.
  • Dominic77
    •
    6 years ago
    Minnow + 1
    I make it a point to only upvote reviews that are AMAZE-BALLS. I have high standards.
  • osogrande
    •
    6 years ago
    Dominic77 + 1. I've got a fever, and the only cure is more AMAZE-BALLS!
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    shadowcat's idea is good - i.e. instead of having two separate review lists (unpublished, published) just publish the reviews that way everything (including comments) is out in the open but still implement the voting-system and have reviews w/ a certain # of no-votes be removed and no-VIP given (VIP should be withheld till the review gets enough yes votes) - and probably still make-it only VIPs can vote o/w someone may actually go thru the trouble of creating a few false-aliases to have his reviews published.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion