Reviewers
ellocohombre
Pennsylvania
What the fuck is up with you guys. I have been a member for 6 or 7 years. My reviews are truthful and accurate, but yet my last two reviews were rejected.
I call it the way I see it. The last two places were rundown dive bars. Howuch detail is needed to determine these places sucked. And one of the reviewers is listed as being a member for less then 3 months???
I have seen some total crap get through . So I guess I should write some BS and fluff for the Hustler Forum editors.
I call it the way I see it. The last two places were rundown dive bars. Howuch detail is needed to determine these places sucked. And one of the reviewers is listed as being a member for less then 3 months???
I have seen some total crap get through . So I guess I should write some BS and fluff for the Hustler Forum editors.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
59 comments
I do wonder..... why do you review the same club multiple times in under a year? I mean, unless there's new info - why review again?
If only the family_man troll hadn’t gotten deleted. I feel like whoever was behind it would have had a field day with that statement.
——
Awwww did Stanky lose track of her troll passwords? Of course she is always bringing up trolling. Must suck that Beta Cuck is grounded and Juice is MIA and her troll posse can’t come out to play.
If you are writing a review just to bitch the club sucked and leave it at that, that's not a review - that's just a rant and at best a comment, not a review.
Hey if I actually enjoyed myself the review may have been slightly longer. Isn't that what a review is for, to say if it was good or bad. It wasn't a bitch session. And I don't need a fucking tissue. But you can take that tissue and wipe your ass with it if you like.
I have always been cordial and respectful on this board. Then I get you guys jumping on my shit. So yea I will throw it back at ya. Even though it is out of character for me.
PM me if you prefer
Lighten up Francis - ragging on each other is part of the TUSCL M.O. - and flagooner is giving you shit on purpose to get you to react.
What was the club(s) you reviewed?
"... Stopped by on way home from road trip. I had all terrier motives for this trip but was cordially declined. Oh well her loss. That all took place within 10 minutes of arrival,but I hung around to see what was going on.
First the highlight of the night. Fine babe liked her stage partner so much she decided to give her a few kisses and licks. So I followed them to the shower stage where the affection got a little more intense. That was worth the price of admission alone..
We will move on to my next observation,the bachelor bashing. Yea total beating and humiliation of this dude. These girls really need to tone it down a bit. This guy is there to have fun. You could see by the look on his face it was not fun,he was FUCKIN PISSED. The one dancer felt the need to put welts on him with a belt so hard that he wanted to slap that bitch. To management, tell these girls to tone it down a bit. To the dancers, it is supposed to be a fun night. Quit beating these fuckin guys up.
So I said hi to a few of the house girls and didn't see much that interested me. So I decided to gamble on Cassie. Should have known better but was trying to salvage the visit. "Ole Queen Cassie" thought she was worth an hour and half of overtime pay to just take her top off,and that is union rate pay. Wrong,wish the BITCH luck and exited stage right even before the song came on. Tried to tell me she doesn't get any of the $20 I paid for the LD. Liar,liar,pants on fire. This seasoned veteran knows better. Been banging bitches in the CR before she was born.
Well this place is always good to me. Tonight was just an off night. To make up for it I hit the club up the pike to do a quick few laps with my ATF. Polite and cordial as usual and always a fine time ..."
This is basically an opinion-piece or comment, not a review IMO - this does nothing to let someone unfamiliar w/ the club know what the club is about which IMO is the purpose of the review - I don't see what valuable info this adds other than you just wanting to comment what's on your mind - it's ok to personalize/editorialize a review, but not let that be the whole review w/o describing the club as best you can - in this particular review you did not state:
- prices (cover, dances, VIP (if you know it)
- did not describe the dancer-crew
- did not describe what kinda mileage to expect
There are a couple of other things that would help in letting the reader(s) know what to expect from the club, but the ones above are the most-basic IMO.
I think it's good to personalize the visit/review but again not let that be the only thing you do and not describe the club and not describe the most important things a review should have (prices, dancers, mileage) - it's like writing a restaurant review and just talking about how you got into it w/ the valet at the restaurant and not mentioning anything else.
In the past 99% of reviews would get published no-matter the content b/c there was really pretty-much zero-vetting - there is now vetting involved and reviews need to provide at least some basic info describing the basics of the club (vs just describing your state of mind during the visit or just making a comment about something you observed and having that be the review).
"... I had all terrier motives for this trip but ..."
I read his reviews and was able to get a fair idea of the type of experience to expect. I think most members have the ability to be infer a clubs atmosphere without being told specifics. I know the Nazi's are upset because he doesn't say if a drink costs $5 or $6 or whatever. But then again, they probably don't have the ability to use intuition and experience to expect that drink prices in a small town strip club with infrequent visits/reviews would probably would be in the $5-6 range. Prices are so important, even though they are listed on the club summary, they still have to be told.
Cookie cutter reviews are boring and worthless IMO. I guess you can't please everyone.
OK eloc, so you don't drink and don't know the drink prices. Did you pay a cover? Buy a dance? Did you get thirsty and buy a bottled water or soda? Can you tell us anything about what it cost to be in the place? Did you interact with any of the girls? What was the composition of the crew? Fucking A dude, give us something that let's us know that you actually visited the place. Some of your reviews at least give something, but that last one was pure crap, though I also agree that there was at least one other bubble review.
As papi laid out, it's all about specific intel. The review doesn't have to be long, just informative. I've approved plenty of short reviews that contained specific information about pricing and the quality of the dancer crew for that specific visit. Your problem is that you're writing fluffy comparisons to other clubs, taking trips down memory lane and posting other editorial content that lacks specificity about the current state of affairs. Now that stuff is certainly ok to include too and some may find it interesting, but without specific visit intel the review is useless.
With the exception of a small handful of clubs in the U.S., the overwhelming majority of clubs see a review posted no more than once a month on average and some far fewer. So if you are going to review a club for 4 weeks of VIP access to the site, IMHO it's not asking a lot for you to throw in a couple of lines to update us on things like prices and the crew that was working on shift.
It's amazing how much noise can be made by a couple of whiners who don't want to be held to any standard whatsover, however low. It's not like the reviews currently being approved are winning any Pulitzer prizes, lol.
A club has details "ad nauseum" only if a reader has been on TUSCL for years, or at least months, and constantly reading the reviews of that club - if one goes to a new city and looks for a club he is not gonna know these ad nauseum details and he shouldn't have to read 10 reviews to get to one that finally covers the details of the club, instead of just reading one or two well-enough written reviews with club details - if club details are not enforced then less and less reviews will have that info meaning more and more reading to get that info - I think a few on here suffer from familiarity-bias and think everyone will know the details of a club that they themselves have been visiting or reading for months if not years, just bc it's intimately familiar to you does not mean it's intimately familiar to most - IMO a review should be written from the POV of someone who's never been to that club, vs from the POV of someone that intimately knows the club and thus club details are not needed.
I don't think it's either or - i.e. club info or experience/TR, they are both important and a good review should have both IMO - having said that, a well-written TR review I'll likely approve even if missing club details, but too many reviews are generic TRs with no club details on top - I think a reviewer should review the *club* and that should include club details, not just reminisce as if he was writing a personal journal entry for himself.
You can put both data (costs, layout, etc.) and ambiance / experience in a review.
Also please define the average strip club customer, because when I go into a club I see a pretty wide variety of guys with wildly varying ideas of a great night at a strip club. I see the exact same thing on this board, in the reviews, and in the review comments.
Honestly, it seems like you don't want to write the sort of review that the community finds most useful. And that's fine. But if that stops you from reviewing, then you also have the option to pay for VIP.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandi…
Over the years, we've seen the review sections of clubs in many areas get stuffed full of obviously fake and/or shill reviews, posted with the intentions of promoting clubs and earning VIP. The adoption of the current system was designed to curb this. Before this system went into place, it was turning into a shit show as founder simply did not have the capacity to police reviews, so reviews beyond a certain length were automatically approved. Something needed to be done to weed out the worst of it.
But with that said, it's a balancing act as neither do we want to reject reviews out of hand. This is why 3 different people must reject a review before three others approve it. Overall the new system has dramatically improved the quality of reviews and, thus far, there has been no evidence presented to this board that legitimately good reviews are getting rejected in any numbers, if at all.
So there it is. You are essentially advocating going back to the approach that created the fake/shill review mess in the first place, which frankly I don't think anyone else here wants to go back to.
Now that was funny. I would have likely have stopped reading the review at "I had all terrier motives..." :)
Maybe he was way ahead of us all and it was his way of saying the place was for the dogs or maybe just the dancers.
I have strong opinions w.r.t. the reviews but when approving a review I try to look for reasons to approve a review vs reasons to reject-it - so even if it doesn't hit most of the bullets I think a review should have, I still approve it if there was some worthwhile info.
The problem as has been stated b/f is the free-lunch - seems a good # of reviewers put little-effort into the review and their sole-purpose is getting the free-VIP and they feel entitled to it for just writing something/anything with minimal-effort; and this is exasperated by the fact that for years pretty-much anything that was written got free-VIP (which led to the current vetting process) - not saying one should not be motivated to write a review to get VIP, just that they should also be motivated to put in some effort and write a decent review also.
- those that think a review should be written for the benefit of other TUSCLers/readers to pass on info
- those that think the review should be about them and w/e they wanna say (while getting free VIP to boot)
I'm in the former camp.
And I am not talking about shill and obviously fake reviews. As I have always positioned, I am talking about rejecting reviews because they don't have pricing or irrelevant to most detail. I guess that since you have changed direction you know you have been overzealous.
Again, as of this posting, the OP has not resubmitted.
And nobody gives a fuck whether he re-posted or not if all he was going to post is generic crap.
I bet Founder would give a fuck if he begins losing reviews/reviewers since they drive his revenue stream.
If you read the OP's reviews, they seem pretty informative for a place in a small town in Pa that had 11 reviews last year, and he was 4 of them. I really don't think rejecting them for not listing prices is pretty dumb.
I try to read all your reviews - they are entertaining - IMO nothing wrong w/ personalizing it and being detailed about one's experience which helps to further get a feel for the vibe - but not all "journal type" reviews are the same, some just provide zilch info and it's just a few generic sentences.
Let's get busy throwing some god dam baloney then...
Rick, let me get this straight. You are adamant about details like pricing and layout because those details can help you spot fake reviews. Are you that unaware of the multitude of sources out there to get the details? It's not that much of a secret.
Members are approving reviews of clubs they have never been in, and I am sure you are one of them. How do you spot fake details? You could be approving fake reviews because they provided details you like to see.
It's probably a safe bet that the majority of fake reviews are for high traffic clubs. If a shill review gets though, so be it. It benefits Founder and harms no one.
I see that now. I tend to not pay much attention to the TUSCL flag.
If your reviews routinely get rejected, guess what? You’re bad at writing reviews. Step up your game. If you don’t like the reviews being published, provide constructive criticism when you reject the reviews. Step up your game.