A "Detailed" review

If it’s got enough TP it’s for me

What an idiot

When certain TUSCLers say details should be included it is meant details such as costs, describing the dancers (vs talking about just one girl), describing the mileage available/allowed at the club

I don't recall anyone stating a review should not be published bc it didn't have layout details - details are not about the damn layout.

That was a waste of a review and a temper tantrum from someone that doesn't get a review is to pass info on to the readers vs just bragging and basking about what you did with Bambi and you just have to tell somebody.

Papi, we'll just have to be quicker on the stick than some members who will approve anything that walks and talks. Said individuals wouldn't recognize a temper tantrum if it smacked them with a 2 by 4.

^ This happens often, it’s just a reaction and an attempt to be relevant, don’t sweat it.

I get that it can be frustrating to take the time to write a review and then get it rejected - but too many reviewers feel the review should be about them instead of the club and feel club info is irrelevant "bc if they know it everyone else does/should also"

Amusing, kinda, but how much is a lap dance?
I did get the idea that this club is not a 'must see'.

I found his middle stall theory quite ingenious, and do intend to incorporate it into my own restroom practices

I laughed

I agree, Papi. The guy throws a temper tantrum because his original review got rejected. Just a loser that wants "access" to everyone elses info.

Given that we all agree that there is a special situation where no detail is required -- that is, to confirm an SC has closed -- you guys don't think there are other situations? Whenever I put myself in the place of a local who is wondering whether his fave club, that just got busted, is back up to speed, I feel that even his one-paragraph experience confirming things have gone to shit, is amazingly useful. I don't understand why he should re-confirm the drink prices, the dance prices, the entrance fee, where the stage sits vis-a-vis the bar, is really required. The one fucking thing I'm interested in knowing is there: the club has gone to shit since the bust.

The original was useful information, even if it didn't conform to the guidelines -- guidelines that were written for normal operating procedures, not other types of incredibly useful information like "club is closed" or "Here's what the club is like post-bust". These are useful.

I realize I'm a contrarian practically across the board on reviews, but my main touchstone is "did I learn some useful information".

No one is saying that info is not useful, just that it mainly only serves those already familiar w/ the club - he doesn't get into details about what mileage *is* available, just mainly that it wasn't like b/f but that mainly is useful to those already intimately familiar w/ the club.

Tell me about the current state of the club and allow me to make my own decision as to whether it may be worth it to me; just saying it's not worth it to you is not the end-all be-all for every custy snce we all have different ways of clubbing (e.g. perhaps I'm not a guy interested in extras just good two-way dances and perhaps these are still available at the club? Etc).

@Subraman, I think what everyone is saying, is simply if you want to get cred, be credible, just because you know the score, doesn't mean that everyone see's it the same way. Let's have a few touchstones that we all agree on, one of those are reviews need to contain information usable by everyone, in a way that serves the greatest good, not just those folk, in your personal group, or circle.

25 and Papi, again, I know you disagree, just giving my perspective, but ... to me -- and I admit, I haven't checked -- there's probably a year's worth of reviews that give all those details. No sane person makes a decision to go to a club based on a single review, so the fact is, you'll be looking at the recent 5+ reviews anyway, probably. To me, the salient info is that the club has completely changed and gone to shit, and every other review that reports hot strippers may no longer be accurate.

To me, that review basically says, "the club has changed for the much worse since the bust", and that's useful to anyone and everyone reading the older reviews that make it sound awesome. I'm assuming this is new info -- that there aren't 10 previous reviews all saying this same th ing

And the "hey read the other reviews of the club if you want the club info", as far as I'm concerned doesn't hold water b/c it's not as if the next review is gonna be an awesome review w/ all the info someone unfamilar w/ the club would need to know - reality is reviews can roughly be broken up into 3 categories - shitty reviews, alright reviews that are ok but still missing pertinent data; and good reviews that do a good job of describing most if not all aspects of the clubs -

in the past when I've taken SC trips it was a PITA trying to get pertinent info on many clubs and often one had to read multiple reviews just to get a good grasp of the club - someone shouldn't have to 5 reivews to find out the dance cost or VIP house-cost; especially if one is trying to research multiple clubs or may just be in town for a short time and can't dedicate multiple hours to getting that info - good reviews that inform the reader well are not necessarily the norm on TUSC,L and the more reviews w/o good club info that are published means good chance more reviewers will follow that example of "hey club info is in other reviews" and basically kick the can down the road to where finding informed reviews becomes harder.

Not taking an extra 10-minutes and a couple of sentences to describe the club (cost, dancers, mileage; etc) is leaving a good chunk of the readers in the dark and only serving a smaller % of those that are already familiar w/ the club - I argue that informing those not familiar w/ the club is a much better use of reviews than informing those already familiar w/ the club.

^ So what you are saying Subra, that the club has changed for the worse since the bust last week isn't giving me any information at all since I have no idea what the club was like prior, sorry buddy you are just excusing laziness.
I mean it's not like we all write reviews as good as Papi, but that's a piss poor excuse to not even put in a legitimate effort.

On one hand the 'review' referenced by the OP is a worthless POS that doesn't deserve 4 weeks of cred. On the other hand, IMHO, the "not enough details" police are in many cases going too far. Each and every single review doesn't need to be a 100% full coverage of every single relevant detail. No one should be making decisions based solely on the most recent review. So, I don't see the necessity of each new review needing to be a fully self contained review of everything.

Funny stuff. I was left wondering, though, what was the ambient temperature? Seems like an important detail in order to know what to wear.

"On the other hand, IMHO, the "not enough details" police are in many cases going too far. Each and every single review doesn't need to be a 100% full coverage of every single relevant detail. No one should be making decisions based solely on the most recent review. So, I don't see the necessity of each new review needing to be a fully self contained review of everything."


^ This! And I still think the review was entertaining.

Anyone offended by it should ease up a little, you're taking your privilege to approve reviews a little too seriously. There's no reason to rehash the same details over and over again in every review. Sure we want and should expect accurate intel on the clubs but we're all different and expecting everyone to write a review exactly like you want is unreasonable.
Founder laid out some guidelines, they're guidelines not commandments that have to be followed verbatim.

Newbies with no reviews and no history asking for intel in their first post in discussions get a bigger pass than someone that actually took the time to write a review. If you want to crack down on somebody they're more suitable candidates IMO.

Yes the reviewer was a wiseass in some respects but I understand his frustration in being denied over how he originally wrote his review since the "missing details" that some are demanding are available in many previous reviews of that club.
At least I'm glad that others saw the humor in his response.

The review approval system is pretty good. It’s not perfect but it’s pretty good. Some clubs have a thousand reviews. Some only have a few in the past 12 months. Really, the layout and other details is not very important for the former and very important for the latter but the review approvers can’t be expected to check the last few reviews when deciding whether to approve or reject. It’s not perfect but I’ll live with reviews that don’t go into every single detail every time.

I get the reviewers frustratration. I can adequately describe a place in a few sentences, but some of the whack job approvers need penthouse style stories.

@TheeOSU, well said and I agree 100%. Counting how many lines appear on your monitor to approve/disapprove a review is probably one of the the least valid ways to judge a review. IMO, one or two sentences saying Suzy is an over-counting ROB is more valuable than six sentences describing parking, layout, and bathrooms. My criteria is simple: Does the review add value to the site?

I agree with Justin. Grand1511 or whatever his name is just rejected a review local to me because it didn’t have dance prices. The review was otherwise in the top 10% of quality reviews we see here. The reviewer plainly said he didn’t get a dance... And that info is on the club page regardless.

Review doesn’t get rejected by me just because all the boxes aren’t ticked off, as long as it appears that an effort was made to provide reasonable information I try to find a reason to approve it.

"At least I'm glad that others saw the humor in his response."



Correction, I should have said, "At least I'm glad that others saw the "sarcastic" humor in his response."