Rejecting reviews

No. But I think the rejection should not include the rejector's name.

Racism!

When reading unpublished reviews, we do not know who submitted them. I suppose Founder did not want us to kick reviews out simply b/c we have a bias against a specific writer.

I think anonymity both ways does sound appropriate.

I agree with the anonymity both ways. I don't reject that many reviews, but I have received two very nasty responses about my rejections. Since I did not know who wrote the reviews, I was not even sure what review the person was talking about.

I’ve received messages from folks who’s reviews I rejected. The messages were angry, but I don’t care.

The guy didn’t include any details in his review. He said that other reviews had the detailed information - so folks should read those reviews to get a better idea.

Hiding behind anonymity is chicken shit. If your going to reject it, man up and own it.

There is no anonymity in a published review but there has to be at the voting stage or some of you would reject for reasons other than merit.

Hey 623 what’s your home address?

That’s right man up and own it.

If you ever reject one of my reviews you will fucking regret it...

I would be willing to approve SJG's first review if it sounded believable. But since he is on ignore, maybe I would never get to vote anyway! >:-)

I utterly disagree that people who reject a review should be anonymous. For that matter, I'd like to see the names of those who approve reviews as well. There should be some accountability for those of us who choose to do this.

Funny though, I've rejected easily 100+ reviews over time and never once have I received a PM about it. That includes rejections where I gave the reviewer real shit in the comment box for posting crap.

As far as anonymity for reviewers, there are good and compelling reasons for that, so I am fine with it.

@Rick Dugan your statement appears to be self contradictory

I only get PMs from people who I get along with. My last PM was November 2017.

I need to clarify one thing I have no problem attaching my screen name to any reviews I reject and IDGAF that these persons sent me a nasty PM, my point was how do you know who wrote any of the reviews until they are published, unless of course it’s one or two posters that have an unmistakable style, and of the two or three that are very recognizable, I can’t imagine any of those ever getting a rejection.

Not sure how that person knows it was you that are rejecting them? I’ve never approved or rejected, until after the fact in the comments section.

^I think that the rejection email from founder includes that information along with the comments you make

Do the reviewers get a rejection by you even if the review gets approved by others? I've rejected a few that still got approved. I don't ever recall getting a PM from anyone for rejecting their review. I even rejected a Papi_Chulo review for being too short. How did I know it was a Papi_Chulo review? :)

^I don’t think so but you should ask founder I’m not sure I only had a review rejected for being a double post and it was published before I received the email telling me I had double posted.

I’ve also rejected more reviews than I can count, mostly for the same reason the OP gives, i.e. that it contains little to no information about the club, just how good one girl was.

I’ve also never received any messages from reviewers, though I have no clue whether or not the reviews I rejected were ever publish; I’ve never gone back to look.

But I also agree that the reviewer should remain anonymous until the review is published, *and* that the names of those who approved a review be published with the review itself. Maybe even the names of those who rejected it.

I don’t like the concept of review by committee. It results in inconsistency and the occasional approver on a power trip. I was angry when a review I’d spent a lot of time on was rejected. I didn’t contact the people who rejected me, but I can understand why someone would want to.

Maybe a little more transparency, like keeping a count of how many approvals and rejections each member grants. Prevent the outliers from voting for a period of time.

^ I don’t agree with you Mark the quality of the published reviews is probably as high as it ever was, and I see a lot less shill reviews slipping through.

@mark94, I like the current system much better than the almost automatic approval process that preceded it. Collectively, we all have a *lot* more time to properly adjudicate the worthiness of reviews than founder alone does.

The fact that a few shit reviews still make it through is certainly no worse than before, and really only reflects on the people approving those reviews than it does on the system in place.

I think there might be a few things founder could do to decrease the rate at which shit reviews are approved, but he hasn’t asked me. And probably shouldn’t. :)

^maybe a lot of good ones that you would like to see are not getting thru. How would you know?

One thing that could improve the review process would be to limit approvers to only those members that have been around for a few years and have a produced at least 50 reviews themselves. That would stop someone from setting up a fake account or two and approving there own reviews.

^ Are their really people on this board who have no life and create multiple accounts?

Didn't know one can see who approves/rejects. Awesome. Never got a DM about it but if it ever happens eff em! Keep it like it is

I've rejected a few reviews and I will add comments as to why it was rejected but I have not received a PM.

I have noticed those rejected reviews were eventually approved with the suggestiins added.

I would welcome a PM from a rejected reviewer because they need to contribute to the site not just write a lame ass review.

623+1 couldn't agree more.... some basic standard should apply to any reviewer...maybe not 50...maybe 25...but some track record of writing reviews... the lack of any minimum seems to be a gap in this process that is exploited.

I’ve never received any nasty PMs from a member whose review I’ve rejected. The only time I did receive a PM was one time I rejected a duplicate submission and once the user got the email stating why it was rejected, he sent me a PM saying it wasn’t a duplicate, and that he had a great time at the club and recommends visiting. I interpreted his PM more as a misunderstanding than anything nasty. If anything this guy didn’t seem to understand his review got submitted twice since his review did get published on the first submission.

However, I once did get called out (along with 2 other members) for rejecting a review in a re-submission. The very next day, this guy re-submitted his review and at the very beginning, he named me and the other 2 members who rejected his first submission so that everyone who reads reviews for that club would know what I did. It doesn’t bother me that I was called out. If anything, it gives off the impression that this guy is a just a whiny little bitch.

I rejected a number of reviews, some of them I've noticed were published in the end and some were not. I've never received a PM about rejecting them. I used to put much more commentary into the rejections but I've stopped that now. I'm curious how the rejection works, I half tempted to churn out a really shitty review to just see one, but I'm afraid some idiot will publish it. For example, 3 people have to reject it. Does it just show the Name/comment from the last one or all 3? In 25's case, if it showed all three I'd have to wonder if this guy cried to all three people or not. Or does it just show the last one?

I don't really care if the review is anonymous when its being reviewed or not, I can see both sides of the argument. I would like to see who approved reviews though, I think that would be interesting. I'd also like to see the dissenting names.

I also agree that the barrier to reviewing reviews could be higher than or different from VIP status. Maybe someone who has had 5 reviews published in the last 12 months or > 10 total or something. Could be two tiers, one to read unpublished reviews & one to vote on them.

Lmao flagooner.

The new system definitely upped my review game. I’m always thinking, I do not want to have write this shit again. It makes you sort of be way more deliberate in your writing. That being said I’m still not winning any awards for my review writing anytime soon.

@Dolfan, when a submission gets rejected, the writer will see the username of all 3 members who rejected it along with the reasons and comments. Just take a look at the example below, which is re-submission of a review that was rejected the previous day.

https://www.tuscl.net/rev.php?id=338737&…

Have have trouble sometimes deciding between Approve or Reject. These tend to be very short reviews - and I feel like the submitter is being lazy, just wants to keep his free VIP going. (But I realize that there may not not be much to say about a club that is going stale.)

These usually sit in the queue for an afternoon, until enough slow Approvals pile up from more generous VIP moderators.

@s275ironman, I would have rejected *that* version of the review as well, had I seen it.

The guidelines state the review should be 4 paragraphs. One about the club, one about the dancers, one about the costs, and an overall summary. I will approve a review if it seems like the reviewer actually was in that club and provides any useful info. I usually only approve reviews for clubs I have been in unless they are extremely well written. It would probably a good thing if new members were forced to read the guidelines and had a well written review provided as an example.

rickdugan +1. I haven't received any nasty pm's , yet. It's possible that some of the reviews I rejected had at least 3 sets of eyes approve them. I don't follow the unpublished reviews that closely, so I really don't know how many of the reviews I've voted on ended up having enough sets of eyes to agree with my vote.

That said, I've seen some real doozies that I seriously question how 3 or more sets of eyes could have approved them, but there it is.

Because you need three rejections before you get three approvals for a review to be rejected, it seems a little silly to get angry at one person who rejected a review. In most cases anyway. Maybe if they made dickish comments but not for rejecting, since there was some sort of consensus.

On the flip side, for clubs like Flight Club, Follies, HiLiter and others with 1000 reviews, I’m a little lenient with details like club layout, where the bathroom is, etc.

It’s a sliding scale about what needs to be said. The quality and efficiency of the review process isn’t perfect but it’s def improved.

Simple solution. If you can't deal with rejection, follow the review guidelines and don't submit BS!

Yeah, I haven't received any messages w.r.t. my review-rejections although I initially assumed I'd get a fair # - I usually try to be helpful in my rejection by offering some advice in the comments; although as others, it gets to be a pain writing the same rejection comments over and over again; about 35% of the time I just choose a reject-option and don't write a comment; most of the time I try to write a comment as to what I think is wrong with the review (it's not too-much effort to write rejection-comments when using the laptop, but kinda a PITA for me to do it on the phone and that is when I may omit a comment but many times still write one even when on the ph).

I try to give constructive criticism but sometimes a particular review will just piss me off too-much and then I'm not as constructive - but it's better to be constructive b/c many people just don't know what they should be putting in a review for it to be a good-review thus it's better to help them out than get on their case and turn them off from TUSCL.

when i see a duplicate review i reject the second (and third) duplicate reviews.

i have rejected a few really graphic xxx reviews that names a specific full stage name of a girl in a usa club.

overall i don’t reject many reviews. i tend to let really weak reviews remain unpublished until you other guys rejects it. (maybe i should get more involved.)

I have rejected several. Have approved several. Have never received a PM regarding either. I keep it simple in my mind. What was the club layout? How was the internal environment? How safe does it appear? Cost for drinks, dances, VIP, Extras, etc.? Bouncer etiquette? Quality of dancers ? If all they talk about is how pretty a dancer is or that there “were dancers” ... well, shit, I can guess that much on my own. REJECT. I am also starting to look at the reviews that are getting published on clubs that I am personally familiar; in some cases I wonder how it got approved because it CERTAINLY IS NOT the club that I know. One in particular mentioned how they got a good dance in the VIP ROOM that was private behind locked door. That club has NO VIP ROOM and the LD area is basically covered only by beads and the damn pool players can watch you if they choose too; not exactly what I would call private.

Nidan, that sounds like someone who confused on club with another... Or is just making shit up.

You bring up a good point though. The best approvers are guys who cover many clubs and can sniff out the BS immediately.

Ive rejected some because they are so vague and read like a quick yelp review on the club and not about an actual visit. Also reject them when they are a reviewers trip down memory lane with one particular dancer and no other details offered. Havent had someone send me any nasty PM based on my rejections.

what’s wrong with a good review that is only about the girl?

MW- such a review may be a dancer pretending to be a customer engaging in some self promotion, or else talking trash about a competing dancer in club. Engaging in such deception doesn't warrant 4 wks VIP membership. If a dancer wants to promote herself here, become a verified member.

Because of the layout on my phone I have accidentally accepted a lot of reviews I intended to reject.

"... what’s wrong with a good review that is only about the girl ..."

What if that girl is not most reader's type, the reader then does not know what the club has to offer - it's ok to mention one's obsession w/ a particular dancer but not make that the whole damn review.

I’ve rejected many reviews since this system started but I’ve approved many, many more, I responded to this latest PM by asking if he also sent nasty letters to the two other rejectors, he hasn’t responded neither did either of the others, I attribute his PM to frustration and I’m sorry if he’s all butthurt, but if he doesn’t want to write a review that I can pass than it’s on him.
Just to give a heads up to anyone that wants a review published give me something about the club, tell me what I can expect to spend, or at least what you know of the costs, I’d rather you don’t name dancers that showed you a good time if I feel I need that I can PM you and you can provide that privately if you trust me, and one last point I am most active in the early AM and more likely to read a review of a club that is in my general area, although I read some of the out of area reviews and only pass well written ones that are most likely in my opinion to be genuine, if I’m on the fence over an out of area review I’ll defer to another and not approve or deny leaving it to others to vet.

If it’s a review of a Texas club and used the word “desploogination” I approve it.

Can’t say I remember any reviews using that term, but if I see one I’ll be sure to approve it for you;)

Can’t say I remember any reviews using that term, but if I see one I’ll be sure to approve it for you;)

25 - you’re missing out. Read the reviews of reverendhornibastard. Fantastic

FWIW, earlier I rejected 2 reviews. They were by TheAdvisor, (although at the time they were anonymous). One was for HiLiter and the other for Christies. They sounded like ads to me. It appears he reviews clubs throughout his travels and appears legit. Anonymously they sound like an ad. Not everyone interprets reviews the same way.

i really don't understand the concept of why writing a review = vip status. i feel like it just motivates people to write stupid BS reviews. i actually know a dude who asked if i still had a membership here bc he's going on vacation and wants to read up on some clubs to visit. i lied and said i don't anymore lol so a few days later he tells me he wrote a fake review to get VIP. i went to go reject it and it's already been approved. i think if you have half a brain it's pretty easy to fake and the promise of vip just gives people incentive to do so.

^ you’re saying we’re stupid;)

April -

It’s nkt perfect but it’s better. Fake reviews got through before too and there’s always been the VIP incentive, it’s just a bit different with the VIP board now. We just all need to be a bit better using the comments to call out fake reviews.

I don't reject reviews because the member should be encouraged and rewarded for their efforts.

^ ; )

Kick them in the nuts for making stuoid reviews

^ I use the services of @blahblah, she's better than Luca Braggi, and she disposes of the bodies at the same time.