What to do with unpublished reviews that you disagree with?

Nobody else can see your rejection, so I’m not sure that would be effective. It seems like the right thing to do, though. The reasons being “silly, made up nonsense.”

I think rejecting it with the comments written in the rejection would be the best/first choice, assuming you have a high confidence in the facts at issue.

Not everyone scrolls down to get the review comments so trying to get the review rejected (or ideally corrected by the reviewer) is ideal.

If you rejected it but it still gets published (lotta garbage reviews out there lately...), commenting on the published review seems to be the only option (assuming Founder never reinstates a "flag review" function).

If I know a club, and I read a review, and realize it’s bullshit, I’ll reject it. However, it’s rare due to the number of clubs reviewed.

The thing that I was thinking of relates to reviews that seem reasonable, and well written, that fall apart when examining the facts/specifics. Those are reviews that only a pl who knows the club could reject.

That’s where things can be misleading.

This brings us back to the question of trusted reviewers, I don’t read all of the reviews, I do read all of the reviews for clubs I’m familiar with, I tend to be harsher on my passing of those clubs, of the reviews that I read that I’m unfamiliar with the specific club I tend to just look for the basic information to be there before thumbs up or down. If founder were to make an adjustment on the passing of reviews I would suggest that one of the three reviews needed to allow that particular review should be from someone who has actually reviewed that club.

It depends on the specific issue. If he is pposting objective factual information that is just wrong, then by all means reject. If, OTOH, you don't like his characterization of the talent or what was going on during the visit, then unless you were there when he was you should publish.

If the facts are wrong, that’s different than a simple disagreement about the characterization of the club as good or bad, exciting or boring, etc.

If the reviewer captures the spirit/vibe of the club but gets some facts wrong like saying he paid $20 for dances when they're actually $25, I won't reject it for getting some facts wrong bc it may have been his first time and his recollection may be off a bit.

But if he's way off like saying he got dances from a tanned-blonde and also a pale-redhead, and it's a black club, then I reject it.

But I can see what shadowcat says in that perhaps I haven't been to that club in a while and perhaps things have changed, if it's plausible the club has changed somewhat and I haven't been there in a bit, I'll probably give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt then just comment once it's published.

If you know, tell it to fuck off. If you don't know, let it wait for someone who knows.

Papi_Chulo is there. And yes, dry foot.