Rick, your crew missed one.

25 comments

• DeclineToState

  •

  5 years ago

  It’d be easy to fabricate a review. I don’t see the point.
• AZFourTwenty

  •

  5 years ago

  But according to Rick the self absorbed, he and others have been trained to spot fake reviews and providing regurgitated details prevents them. My position has always been that relating one's experience is more useful than regurgitating details, and the length of a review is not important. There are many different perspectives on the subject. I can live with mine. If it keeps me from remaining a member, I am fine with that also. With the exception of the members who are obsessed with this board, I think most members are here for entertainment and are casual users.
• rickdugan

  •

  5 years ago

  So you submitted a fake review. Congratulations. Btw, you didn't prove your point. All you did was prove that you could post not one but two shit reviews. They were both equally useless. It just so happens that one was made up and the other was so generic that it also provided nothing real. The good news is that at least the current system caught one of them. Before this both of them would have made it through, so you actually proved our point, not yours. ;) I bet you worked on that for hours, didn't you? I bet you were thinking "I'll show them how wrong they are, then I'll drop the mic and walk off with a feeling of justified satisfaction." If you're reading this, I hope you now understand how badly you failed. But hey, enjoy your retirement, including the early bird specials and all that daytime clubbing!
• pistola

  •

  5 years ago

  Long time member, I like the board. I also dont vote on reviews. Ok sounds like your butthurt because a review got denied. Deal. I've had reviews denied from Yelp, Google, bonedin, Indeed, and the list goes on. Do I act like a bitch about it? No, I just repost and try to fix based on the guidelines or I dont. Anyways good luck and thank you for supporting stripperdom.
• Call.Me.Ishmael

  •

  5 years ago

  And I still maintain that you can provide both experience-level information as well as facts (layout, pricing, etc.), which makes a review even more useful. And you don't have to crack open your copy of Strunk & White to do it.
• Call.Me.Ishmael

  •

  5 years ago

  Pistola said "Ok sounds like your butthurt because a review got denied." I also made this mistake. He hasn't had a review rejected. He just feels like the standards are too strict.
• Nidan111

  •

  5 years ago

  I tend to read as many reviews of a place before I go. I do so because I realize there are wanna be folk out there who fabricate.
• rickdugan

  •

  5 years ago

  I think he missed the point when I agreed with him that faking a review with specific intel was harder, but not impossible. Anyone who takes the time to find a club with several recent reviews could cobble together something like that together. We're never going to catch them all, but making it harder is always good. Many reviewers trying to post crap don't seem to be as motivated as AZ, who was no doubt driven by his desire to make his grand point immediately followed by his swan song exit. ;)
• flagooner

  •

  5 years ago

  WTF If you get benefit from this site why undermine it? You aren't fucking with Rick, you're fucking with @founder and the integrity of his site.
• AZFourTwenty

  •

  5 years ago

  For the umpteenth time, I have not had any reviews rejected. If the current HiLiter review gets rejected that's fine. IMO the HiLiter review had more useful info for the people actually going to the club. You guys are so self absorbed you keep missing my central point and that is that becoming overly anal on reviews is going to reduce traffic and reviews in the long run. We have already seen recent examples of this. Why do we want to make reviews cumbersome to some, to appeal to those that will never visit the club? The TUSCL revenue model is based upon traffic and reviews. One common argument was that it prevents fakes. Shit, SCPandit posted over 25 fake reviews in a year. What did it harm? You can't stop fake reviews, but your new standards will stop genuine reviews. The only people butt hurt are those that after 3-4 days of posting on this topic and still don't get my point because their heads are so far up their asses. And Rick of "the system", in all my years of clubbing, I think you are the only person I have been associated with that has to completely fabricate a new persona to pick up heroin addicts in a strip club. Most of us can just be ourselves and pick up strippers. But I guess your normal persona is so undesirable you need to create a new one.
• rickdugan

  •

  5 years ago

  AZ posted: And Rick of "the system", in all my years of clubbing, I think you are the only person I have been associated with that has to completely fabricate a new persona to pick up heroin addicts in a strip club." And right there he confirmed his status as a goofy troll. Thanks for playing AZ. Aren't you heading off to "retirement" now? ;)
• AZFourTwenty

  •

  5 years ago

  Regarding Founder and the integrity of the site. SCPandit admitted to faking 25 reviews, did Founder get butthurt?
• twentyfive

  •

  5 years ago

  Az420 you’re just another arrogant shithead, it’s not like you’ve made any lasting contributions to the community at large, actually you’re just another in a long line of know it all shitheads, you won’t be missed.
• rickdugan

  •

  5 years ago

  AZ posted: "You guys are so self absorbed you keep missing my central point and that is that becoming overly anal on reviews is going to reduce traffic and reviews in the long run." No AZ, we get your points just fine. I (and apparently others) just don't agree that the review standards are getting too "anal" or that they are resulting in traffic loss. A couple of manufactured grievances posted by a couple of troll accounts are not exactly compelling evidence of a widespread problem. ;)
• rickdugan

  •

  5 years ago

  Btw, what is it with this trend around here with over-emotional, intellectually challenged trolls accusing others of being "self absorbed" when the others simply don't agree with them? Do they truly believe that they are somehow seeing things more clearly than everyone else? They sound like classic underachieving malcontents to me. People like that usually think they're smarter than their bosses at work too, never really understanding why their bosses are in charge and they are not, but instead rationalizing it as some unfairness in the system. Is this board a haven for this personality type? :)
• doctorevil

  •

  5 years ago

  “ But I guess your normal persona is so undesirable you need to create a new one.” AZ makes a good point here. Rick is such a douchebag that wearing a suit a pretending to be someone else is the only hope he has of scoring OTC. What a dipshit.
• Call.Me.Ishmael

  •

  5 years ago

  AZFourTwenty said "The only people butt hurt are those that after 3-4 days of posting on this topic and still don't get my point because their heads are so far up their asses." Or... we don't agree.
• Call.Me.Ishmael

  •

  5 years ago

  Regarding SCPandit, I offer the following... [view link]
• JohnSmith69

  •

  5 years ago

  Before we had the current system in place, the reviews tended to be crap. People could practically write gibberish and it would be published. So the point of the new system as I understand it is to improve the quality of the reviews. Eliminating fakes might be a part of improving quality that but it’s not the main point as I understand it. The main point is to require at least a minimal level of quality and usefulness to the reviews. I’m sure it’s not a perfect system because people have somewhat different views on what makes a useful review. I’m sure some reviews get rejected that I might be ok with, and some reviews get approved that I might personally reject. But even with these flaws, it’s still a lot better than not having any system.
• Hank Moody

  •

  5 years ago

  I think the original intent of the new system was to lighten the load on founder. If the reviews are better, it’s a bonus. There is certainly feedback about what reviews should contain and that input from the members is certainly a good thing. BTW, I linked this thread in the comments of the fake St. James review.
• DeclineToState

  •

  5 years ago

  Agree with JS69 and McNulty observations on the new system. When new system commenced, I was pretty liberal with review approval if reviewer put decent effort into it even if it didn't check all of founder's boxes for what a review should include. With the system now showing the 3 approvers, I'm still reading the unpublished reviews but approving far fewer of them since my use ID is posted as approver.
• flagooner

  •

  5 years ago

  Being more stringent does cut down on the volume of content. Would you rather have access to A. 1,000 reviews of which 500 are crap or B. 450 reviews of which 25 are crap? Personally, I'd choose scenario B.
• rockie

  •

  5 years ago

  Flag: Half the reviews are crap, whether there are 100 or 1000. That’s never going to change, just as is the fact that we will all never agree on what’s pertinent to an acceptable review.
• flagooner

  •

  5 years ago

  ^ I disagree. I think a more realistic comparison of what we had/have is Old 1000, 500 crap New. 800, 350 crap Some relatively good reviews are likely being axed, but most of what is being axed is crap that we don't have to wade through any more.
• twentyfive

  •

  5 years ago

  I don’t think we missed any, I think it’s more like you writing shit reviews and getting a few buddies to go along and publish them before we had a chance to see them