Do we need a means of flagging/removing reviews?

Founder doesn't want censorship.

Whatcha gonna do when it is the membership that approves such reviews?

That first "review" (cr0nkr) was horrible. I agree with liwet. I dont think founder will do anything. But personally i think revoking the approve/reject privilege of the people that approve garbage would do more than simply removing the review.

I agree. Perhaps it should be made public knowledge who approved a review when it gets published. At least then we can all flame the dumbasses that approve this garbage

You still have the option to send Founder a message asking to remove a review that you fell is inappropriate but I'm sure he does not wanted to get flooded with that type of message.

@founder-I have a suggestion on a different thing about the reviews. I tend to write my reviews a bit late in the evening and it’s usually about 9-10 PM eastern when I post them, even though the reviews are usually posted fairly quickly now that we actually up or down vote them, I wonder is there a way to tweak the algorithm so that a review like the one I posted last night and was approved by about 10:30 pm would remain up for 24 hours, rather than get swept clear after midnight, the reason I ask is that I often get comments on reviews and if I don’t think to go back and look the previous date I often reply to comments that ask a question not really a major problem but I’m sure if I feel this way there are others that have similar feelings

^ miss a reply

Seems like founder has stuck tuscl on autopilot

If you see a bogus Review, just put a comment on it. I think most people read the comments along with the Review.

I do like 25's comment though. I tend to write my Reviews early in the morning for that very reason.

^ Warrior +1

But it would be nice to be able to flag as bogus too, say if 5 people give it a BS rating the review stays with comments and BS ratings shown, but VIP perk for the review gets withdrawn.

To 25's comment about the review being swept under, perhaps its easier to just change the view on the default page. Instead of showing reviews from the current date show reviews from the past 24 hours. You can keep the daily links below it, just swap out hat first page to avoid that issue.

I usually check the prior day when I look at dailies, but not always.

@25

I usually submit my review the day after I write it so I can submit it early in the day - but perhaps having reviews up for 24-hours instead of a midnight cutoff is a good idea

No, not a good idea.

^ why where’s the downside? Or are you just being your usual contrarian self!

There's always been issues with POS reviews and IMO the new review system has improved things but its obviously not perfect - unfortunately just like there are people that don't know how to write proper reviews, these same people are not gonna know how to properly approve reviews - I like S275's idea of showing who approves reviews

^I agree with that too showing who approved the reviews would help, there could be an issue with flaming though, but it’s not like we don’t already have that problem.

I’m not sure how to best handle this issue. If a review is shit - and offers no insight - and makes it questionable whether the reviewer has been in the club - I reject it.

I’ve gotten responses from lazy dudes who try to justify their crappy reviews by saying guys who have been to the club already know all the details. I don’t care about that type of bullshit. If that was the case - then you’d simply need to say you went to a club to get vip status.

We have our choice to reject a review that might seem shitty or uninformed. That’s a good thing that we shouldn’t take for granted. If a review is shit - don’t approve it!

^Liwet: I'm not suggesting censorship but I am suggesting a means of flagging (or at least discouraging) reviews that are plagiarized or that contain incoherent nonsense that have nothing to do with the club being reviewed.

I see three possible solutions, all of which have pros and cons:
1) If a review gets flagged by X number (3? 5?) of members, that review is eliminated (or better yet, stamped as bogus) and it does not count towards the requirement for VIP status.
2) List the screen names of each member who voted to approve each published review-- there is a level of accountability there.
3) Appoint a moderator to review posts that get flagged (via the process described in #1). The moderator would not approve all reviews but would focus only on the reviews that were flagged.

I really like Flagooner's suggestion. That guy is a fucking genius.

we already have a voting system, we don't need an extra voting system on top of that - perhaps tweaking the current system is the way to go (list names of approvers, etc)

Nope. Not a good idea.

^ homo

^^ fruitcup
^potato
;)

^gay stalkercoward

I read a review the other day that had the wrong prices in the review. It did not even sound like the right club was being reviewed.

I do also like the idea of scoring reviews and showing those with higher scores first. And there being some sort of minimum score to maintain credit.

The new user-review system I think has helped as Papi said, but it ain't perfect. Nothing ever will be.

I think anyone that submits a review that gets declined be forced to read a month of SJG posts and pass a test on the content before they are allowed to submit another review.

Bad idea. There is too much potential for abuse of a function like that, including from people trying to protect a club for one reason or another. We have a voting system that should weed out some of it and a comment function that allows anyone who wishes to dispute a review. While nothing is perfect, this process has definitely made things better.

In addition to the ID of the person who posted a bogus or terrible review, include his stats, such as the number of reviews he has posted. That will give us some clue as to the quality of the post. If they have been a member for two years and posted one review, chances are you can skip it.

Founder should also post his home-address