How long is too long to post a review?

Fat bastard that can afford to fuck hot strippers

7/20/2018 10:47:53 PM

To me the whole point of reading reviews is to get current up to date info about a club. That's why I rarely read reviews older than 6 months when I am looking into clubs I am considering visiting. However, I just read and rejected a review that started like this:

"This review is from a visit quite a while ago - though I am not sure of the exact date, it was sometime in the 1980’s."

You may ask yourself how this is relevant over 30 years later - the answer is simple - from what I have heard from those gullible enough to go to the Dream Palace as well as what I have read in reviews on this and other sites, not much has changed."

I think we can all agree that a review written 3 DECADES after the author last visited the club is useless.

The question is how long is too long to wait to post a review?

I find that if I don't find the time to write the review within a week I don't bother writing it at all. However, I have approved reviews that were written a month or so after the visit as long as they still provide enough detail.

In my opinion anything written more than a month after the most recent visit it useless with as fast as some strip clubs change.

14 comments

Latest

whodey

•

6 years ago

I guess some people disagree since enough people voted to approve this review.

Papi_Chulo

•

6 years ago

It's not a wasted review if you have a DeLorean

Papi_Chulo

•

6 years ago

I guess sometimes a reviewer like that thinks it would actually be an interesting review - most times I assume they're writing anything they can think of to get VIP

londonguy

•

6 years ago

I think reviews should be posted within three to six months. Older than a year is ridiculous.

shadowcat

•

6 years ago

You have to give some consideration of how often the club has been reviewed and when was the last one. A week old review for Follies may be useless whereas a 6 moth old review for a Guam club may be of use.

DandyDan

•

6 years ago

It depends on the club and how often it gets reviews. I don't always review one of the clubs I go to, because usually someone has wrote one recently. I myself always try to write one within a week if I think it needs one, or if I need it to keep VIP status.

s275ironman

•

6 years ago

I would think the longer a person waits to write a review, the more likely they are to forget important details. IMHO, if the review is from over a month ago, it would be best to go visit that club again and then write a review, or just choose not to write a review. The only exceptions perhaps being clubs that aren’t reviewed all that often.

For me personally, if I’m going to write a review, I usually have it submitted within a few days after visiting. There are occasions where I will get busy and not submit a review until a week later. If the visit was more than a week ago, and I haven’t submitted a review, then I am just not going to submit a review for that visit, as it usually means the last visit was very much similar to the last review I wrote for that club.

Cashman1234

•

6 years ago

Writing a review of a club from an experience over 30 years ago is going to be immediately impertinent.

The details of the (30 year old) experience might be entertaining, but the details could be posted in a discussion.

I think a month is probably as long as I’d wait. Some folks have better retention of details, so they might have all the detail needed (after a longer time).

I’d rather just get the details out - so I can move on to write of other experiences.

rane1234

•

6 years ago

Lol...

flagooner

•

6 years ago

Papi's reviews are almost too long but not quite. Use that at a litmus test.

Papi_Chulo

•

6 years ago

^ my reviews are not the only long thing about me, chump

minnow

•

6 years ago

W-e-LLLL, it looks like a 30 year interval is OK for some critics. I know because I submitted a review last night based on my visit 30 years ago. (Archibalds- Washington DC). The review was accepted !!

My intention is not to brag or gloat, but to highlight some flaws in present review approval system. I realize that no system is perfect, but like Whodey, Papi, etal, I've seen too many reviews slip through the cracks that were a no brainer rejection by me. Perhaps it's time to evaluate and refine present system.

My first idea would be to require more sets of eyes, and a higher acceptance percentage than is the case now. (3/5 or 60%). Instead, require 6 - 8 looks, with 4 - 6 approvals required for acceptance. (2/3 to 3/4 majority.) Secondly, require a minimum number of reviews submitted and length of Tuscl membership (say 10 to 20 reviews, 1 to 2 years Tuscl membership combined.) Maybe add on the requirement that at least 1 "senior" member (say 7 years or more member, 75 or more reviews.)

Prior to latest submission, I generally posted reviews within 1 to 30 days of club visit.

minnow

•

6 years ago

Edit-- Second sentence should have ended in "to be able to vote on submitted reviews. Third sentence, require approval by at least one "senior member".

Jascoi

•

6 years ago

I'm sill a newbie by those standards.
actually... that may be accurate.

You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now

Got something to say?

Start your own discussion