I wonder what some are thinking when they submit a "review". All they do is mention a personal experience. She looked like, she did, I drank a beer, and so on. In my book, that is not a review by today's standards. DETAILS matter, especially costs, in my book. If I go to an unknown club, I sure would like to know what I might expect, and not what the reviewer did. As for the cost aspect, that often can equate to the quality of the club.
Back in the late 90's I had one rejected by the editor/s for that very reason. There wasn't any guide lines and I was a newbie. I rewrote it and it was accepted. at least today there are printed guidelines. They just don't read them. I reject them with a note to read the guide lines.
How many times is it necessary to describe the interior, parking, ID check, et al? It it has changed, that is one thing, but should every review contain a description of the club? Also, as I recall, going to a club is primarily about interaction with the er ah staff (or their interaction with mine). The personal experience is helpful.
Maybe there should be some selections regarding issues such as Pat Down/No Pat Down. ID Check/No ID Check. Free Parking/Pay Parking. Much the same way there are selections for the number of dancers and money spent. And a description of the club could be persistent and a reviewer would accept or edit the description.
The "let me review me instead of the club" is probably my biggest pet-peeve w.r.t. reviews.
e.g.
"... I came to see Bambi - she's awesome - I love spending time with her - I like how she comes running to me when she first sees me in the club and doesn't pay attention to anyone else - we really have a connection - can't way to go back to see Bambi - the end ...."
No mention of anything else (cover; drinks; dance-mileage; dance-cost; vibe; etc)
Too many PLs write reviews for themselves instead of the reading-public.
^ when researching a club, why have to read thru a whole bunch of shitty reviews in ordet to learn what the club is actually about - IMO kinda defeats the main purpose of reviews which is for folks to gain info about the clubs - I've stated b/f that I'd prefer for there not to be any VIP and that would probably result in less shitty reviews bc people would write them bc they wanted to vs just tilo get VIP.
I understand your point, but IMO better to wade through a few extra than to have some points of view not available because they get rejected. Not everyone is looking for the same thing from a review just as not everyone looks for the same SC experience.
I will say that without getting VIP I wouldn't write as many because I'm not going to put a charge for this site on my CC. I find it hard to believe many married guys do. Why write them if I can't read them?
^ hey while we’re rejecting reviews how about those times that are longer than War and Peace by Tolstoy. Not pointing to any one in particular but those are written just to patronize us ;)
A detailed description of the interactions the author may have had with dancers does give me a sense of whether or not to visit a given club over another. If that comes across as a Penthouse Forum letter, so be it. I enjoy the read.
Succinctly, what did you get for what you paid is very useful in a review -- more than telling me whether the bathroom is left or right of the stage, the cost of a beer, etc.
As long as the author is not describing a one-off experience with a longtime regular ATF, I can extrapolate their experience to one I might have for myself.
21 comments
Maybe there should be some selections regarding issues such as Pat Down/No Pat Down. ID Check/No ID Check. Free Parking/Pay Parking. Much the same way there are selections for the number of dancers and money spent. And a description of the club could be persistent and a reviewer would accept or edit the description.
e.g.
"... I came to see Bambi - she's awesome - I love spending time with her - I like how she comes running to me when she first sees me in the club and doesn't pay attention to anyone else - we really have a connection - can't way to go back to see Bambi - the end ...."
No mention of anything else (cover; drinks; dance-mileage; dance-cost; vibe; etc)
Too many PLs write reviews for themselves instead of the reading-public.
Some clubs have many reviews and for those you would be correct, but rarely reviewed clubs, not so much.
All reviews should be posted.
If it receives enough (maybe 3) "This review was helpful" votes it gives the author VIP
If it receives enough (maybe 5) "This review is complete shit" votes in the first week it gets removed.
That way personal experiences and minimal info reviews get shared instead of rejected but don't earn VIP status.
I know many of you don't agree with me, but you are fucking retarded.
;-)
I understand your point, but IMO better to wade through a few extra than to have some points of view not available because they get rejected.
Not everyone is looking for the same thing from a review just as not everyone looks for the same SC experience.
I will say that without getting VIP I wouldn't write as many because I'm not going to put a charge for this site on my CC. I find it hard to believe many married guys do. Why write them if I can't read them?
^ "...why have to read thru a whole bunch of shitty reviews in ordet to learn what the club is actually about ..."
why have to read thru a whole bunch of shitty VERBAGE in ordet to learn what the club is actually about
I'll pass on your offer. Personally, I stick with the opposite sex.
The personal experience.”
me too. (and i’m 69.)
Succinctly, what did you get for what you paid is very useful in a review -- more than telling me whether the bathroom is left or right of the stage, the cost of a beer, etc.
As long as the author is not describing a one-off experience with a longtime regular ATF, I can extrapolate their experience to one I might have for myself.