"Not Enough Details" in Unpublished Review voting

Aug 23, 2018, 5:51 PM

I write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.

Am I nuts, or are about 75% of the new reviews simple two-liners that offer literally nothing beneficial to the review database? I figure I'm an experienced reader (and writer!) of reviews here, I should do my part to help out, so I often go look at the Unpublished Reviews link. And I'm surprised at just HOW MANY of those reviews I choose to "Reject" on the basis of "Not Enough Details"! Am I being too picky? Should I let some of these two-liners through the screen? Generally I won't down-vote a review that seems to have a new detail, or specific information (I will approve, for example, if there are only two lines but they are taken up with information such as "all the past reviews say that there's a VIP but they just closed the VIP section and are adding a ping-pong table") and I hesitate to reject any review of a club where I've never been. But generally these two-liners that I'm rejecting are such pointless drivel I don't feel too bad about voting to "Reject" them.

(Ooops! Sometimes I click "Not Enough Details" as my "reason for rejection" but then accidentally click "Publish" instead of "Reject". Doh. That's a different issue. My spastic fingers.)

comments (7)

Jump to latest

shailynn7 years ago

Those are called “sausage” fingers round here buddy!

doctorevil7 years ago

No, you’re not nuts.

Papi_Chulo7 years ago

Yeah - it's a continuous problem - some days are worse than others - and why we now have a vote system - part of the problem IMO is the free VIP offer - there will always be people that try to milk the system thus a fair % of the shitty reviews is people just wanting free VIP (the other % is people that are just lazy or just born stupid)

grand15117 years ago

One of my approval criteria is that the writer has to provide some information that shows he actually was there and had a unique experience. What I'm also really tired of are reviews from a visit on a low-traffic time (Sundays or Mondays) and the writer is surprised there isn't much to choose from, doesn't like what he sees and leaves without any dances, I've had experiences like this and just don't write about them. If nothing happened, there's nothing to share and no insights to gain.

Supremeruler7 years ago

I thought it might have been a troll who thought it would be funny. Still, less of those "pointless drivel" reviews are being published(vs the old criteria of only needing to meet a character minimum) so thats a positive.

Lloyd_Gross7 years ago

@grand1511 - I beg to differ on the value of reviews for a "dud" visit. Yes, any experienced clubber will already know to expect limited selection on slower days/shifts, but there's still some value in hearing precisely how limited/poor that selection is.

If all of the reviews written for a club focused on the "primetime" shifts, you wouldn't have any information to guide whether or not it's worth visiting on, say, a Tuesday afternoon.

I do agree wholeheartedly with the OP's point that there are too many reviews being published that are completely lacking in substance (to some extent regardless of length).

lotsoffun2017 years ago

I’ll generally approve a review so long as there is SOME substance, and not something along the lines of “you should go there at a certain time to see someone”. Those are pretty obvious shill reviews. Sometimes I see those 2 or 3 sentence reviews which are obviously worthless so I reject them.

Maybe it’s just when I log on, but I really haven’t seen too many overly detailed explicit reviews but I’d reject them if I noted one. Naming names and specific gory detailed sex acts is poor taste and only going to get people in trouble.