How long is too long to post a review?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lol...

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

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

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.

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".

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