I swear certain yucks reading reviews for approval on this site don't go to clubs. How else to explain why they reject reviews that make clear the club is a waste? In one recent case, the reviewer told us the place was a wreck and the girls were too. Isn't that enough? If he can't recommend either the place or the girls, is anyone going? Do we really need to know the layout of a bar we won't want to see? Or the price of a dance we don't want to buy?
A good club, just like a "hot dancer"; is in the eye of the beholder - those of us that have been on this site a good while and participate on this site a lot, know that both dancer and club preferences are all over the place - just like a 90-pound dancer with fried-eggs-for-tits is a "knockout" for some, others wouldn't touch w/ a 10-foot-pole - similarly a club that "sucks" for one particular SCer, may actually be right-up-the-alley for someone else.
A reviewer has a right to his opinion but IMO a review should be written to provide information and let the readers form their own opinion - by omitting the club-details and just giving one's viewpoint one is making the decision for others about the club.
I think the Review should be approved or not approved by the basis of "did the Reviewer give me some information that helps me decide to go or not to go" . If he simply says " I didn't like it " , then he needs to tell me why. What happened or what.about the club made them feel that way. I have read Papi's reviews enough to know that he and I have a different TYPE that we like. So if he said he did't like the girls, I know not to necessarily rule the place out. But he has told me his taste over and over in his Reviews. What about the place made it a wreck.
There isn't one universal way to write reviews - not every detail needs to be given for a review to be worthwhile - if I read a review I should at least get a grasp of what the club is about vs the reviewer just saying he didn't like it.
I don't think a review should be down-voted b/c a specific piece of info is not given - i.e. if the reviewer wasn't feeling the dancer-crew and didn't wanna spend his $$$ and thus does not know or state the dance-price, that is not an unpardonable-review-sin IMO as long as he o/w describes the club and what it's about fairly well - a review that doesn't give any details and just states "it sucked" is usually of not much value.
Since founder needs something to keep him busy besides wanking, we should have likes and dislikes on reviews instead of the approval process. We'd need some kind of weighting algorithm, so newer reviews would get pushed to the bottom fast if they had a low number of net likes. I think this would be more compatible with the situation where there are hundreds of reviews for some clubs, less than 10 for others. Any review is better than no review, unless there's reason to believe it's got an ulterior motive behind it.
As for me, I appreciate the less-detailed, matter-of-fact reviews that essentially say This Place Is Not Worth The Drive To Get There.
If you are a real reviewer who goes in, looks around, and decides not to stick around to fully interview the staff on the cost of every type of drink, the full menu of prices for 1/2/3/5/8 songs and 5/10/15/20/22/28/45/75/90 minutes, I'm OK with that.
If your visit -- at least on that day or evening -- was "I'm not spending any money or any more time just to meet a Tuscl review quota, I appreciate hearing that. Even if you don't list the prices, the women's names, or the odds of likely fun in the back, then you have provided very practical intel.
A review like that gives me what I need to know personally. This place was NOT worth the visit, so I will head somewhere else until I see its other reviews that are better. If that club was that iffy, I doubt I would go, even if it turned out that dances were 5 for $20.
Reviews that say the reviewer immediately left because the club sucks aren't very useful but reviews that say the reviewer went and only stayed a short time because there were no girls in the club are useful as long as he says what day and time he was there. Dancer preferences vary but almost every strip club goer goes primarily for the girls. If I know there are no strippers at a strip club at a certain time of day I immediately cross it off my list as a club to go to at that time. You would think a strip club would always have strippers when it is open but that is not always a safe assumption to make. No restaurant would tell customers "sorry, we don't have any food today" but I've had multiple times where I've been in a strip club with no strippers.
As the OP provided a short description of an anonymous club - “The place was a wreck and the girls were too.” - as a possible deterrent to others - I began thinking my own twisted logic. I like those clubs. Those dancers can offer some services that I enjoy - at a reasonable price.
We have different tastes in clubs and dancers - so a decent amount of information will help us to make our club decisions.
Select the girl you want, with generosity and charm, soften her up and get a front room makeout session going. Then you invite her to the back room, and then take her home with you to continue.
@Cashman1234 "As the OP provided a short description of an anonymous club - “The place was a wreck and the girls were too.” - as a possible deterrent to others - I began thinking my own twisted logic. I like those clubs. Those dancers can offer some services that I enjoy - at a reasonable price..."
I get your intent, which is why I'd venture you'd approve that review, and which is my point too. When the club sucks, there is less to be said and less we need to read.
What review in specific are you referring to? If it got rejected we obviously can't see it. But I didnt see it so I cant critique it directly. I will say that, the more relevant and useful information a review has the more likely people will approve. There are short reviews with useful or relevant info, and other long, article length reviews that contain no such info.
Instead of considering the overall information in a review some guys grading reviews fixate on a singular point and only pass or fail it on that single point. Example, the aforementioned techman and his fixation on only dance prices regardless of whether the reviewer bought dances or not. The reviewer may have had valid reasons for not getting dances so that should be taken into account.
With some people, if you give them a little say or power in a situation they end up wanting to control all of it.
@chessmaster: "What review in specific are you referring to?"
Lots of reviews. Ultimately sanity prevails, and they get approved. But not before a few fanatics hit reject because it doesn't include the price of a dance. As I said, if the review says the girls all look like crackhead grandmothers and that we should stay away because of that and because the place is in shambles, why do you care how much dances cost? Because if you want to get head from a crackhead grandmother in a place that stinks, you probably don't need any more info than you just got.
ilbbaicnl posted something above that at first sounded interesting and I gave it some thought. If I understand correctly, he's saying the approval process should be abandoned in favor of a ranking system for how reviews are displayed. Well, first of all, that implies that all reviews get published, which would defeat the whole idea of free VIP membership for reviews. Second, it would give free rein to some of the batshit crazy members here to invade the review section with pointless trolling gibberish, making it virtually unreadable. Just imagine what the article section would look like if it was littered with all those bogus "articles" some asshole submits almost daily.
We've had this conversation about review content, criteria for approval, etc. quite a few times, and I don't think anyone has ever come up with a better system than what's in place right now. Minor tweaks or enhancements, sure, but no need to revamp the most basic premise of how reviews get published. As Sgrayeff just said, "Ultimately sanity prevails, and they get approved." I agree.
We can argue all day about what makes for a good review, but the fact is the current voting system seems to allow legitimate reviews to be published, while total bullshit is rejected. If rejected and the writer is sincere, he can fix it up and re-submit. On the other hand, if one gets through and someone doesn't like it, there's the comment section to ask follow-up questions. I've seen that done quite a lot and it usually gets an answer either from the guy who wrote it or another member who knows the club being reviewed. Of course if someone feels so strongly that a published review is total crap or factually inaccurate, he can state that as well.
A suggestion I would make is to find a way to reduce the amount of garbage on the DB. Perhaps non-VIPs only get a limited number of posts per day and/or are prevented from bumping old threads? Not referring to anyone in particular of course...
I disagree that a club that is a mess - with dancers who are also a mess - could lead to a short review getting published. You review the club and the dancers - and you give details - to support your view.
If you say - the club was a mess - what caused you to reach that conclusion? Was paint peeling - were ceiling tiles falling out? A mess can mean different things to different folks - so it helps to give some details.
Whether it's a club to one's liking or not, if one is gonna write a review one should always try to give as many details as possible - it doesn't mean one has to interview the staff to get every detail about the club, but give as many details as you have at your disposal.
No. It's not helpful for every review to say the bar is rectangular. This isn't junior high homework. We need the information on which decisions turn. That isn't whether this club has a fresh paint job - or if it's one of the 98% where dances are $20-$25.
When the reviewer says the girls are all worthless, there really isn't much else to say. After all, would you go there if he said the girls are worthless but the glassware is top quality? Or the bathroom is spacious?
Again - what does worthless mean to the reviewer? Is the reviewer an extras only Clubber? The reviewer is using an adjective that can imply different things to different folks.
When stating facts - that gives the reader a direct understanding of the club. When using adjectives - descriptions or supporting facts help to clarify.
A simple description - The club was crappy - and the dancers looked sloppy. The end.
A bit more elaboration. The club smelled musty and damp - and it appeared to not have been cleaned in a long time. The dancers were not beauties - and their bodies weren’t the best. However, they appeared very friendly and affectionate. I didn’t hang around - as the damp smell got to my head. Thank may return to see how affectionate the dancers are when giving dances.
Let's lay out an example here. If Papi walked in to the Body in Miami and said the girls were fantastic, without giving his usual description of what fantastic is, then I walked in to that same club I'd likely say the dancers were trash. Papi's style of women is completely different than mine. If you read both of our reviews, you'd know nothing except some people think the girls are hot and others don't.
Here's an example of a great review that doesn't mention any of the stuff you're complaining about having to include, but gives readers insight into the club: https://tuscl.net/review.php?id=379485 It's pretty funny to boot, and generated some decent conversation among fellow club goers in the area.
I usually use terms like these for physical description: petite, slim and tall, hourglass figure, top heavy, pear shaped, bubble booty, BBW, unhealthy-looking, older-looking. I'd think of trash as being more like an extreme ROB, not an appearance thing. What's pretty much useless is saying stuff like "five were a 6, one was a 7". To a lot of guys, a 10 is a woman who could pass for a high schooler, I'm not into the Jeffery Epstein thing.
The point isn't whether detail can be helpful. It can be. The point is that reviews can be helpful without all the detail. Here's what I'm taking about - an excerpt from an actual review:
"What can I say other than that this place is terrible. There were 3 dancers working. All 3 of the dancers were way past their prime. One did have a nice body and she could really dance, she looked like she had a lot of mileage on her. In general these girls look like drug addicts. Maybe she was in her 40’s but she looked like a woman in her 60’s the other two dancers are just horrific one looks like the little girl from Addams family if she had grown up and been smoking crack for the last 20 years. The bar itself is not in good shape ..."
Doesn't that deserve to be approved? Never mind that I've shown you only half of the review. It contains the information we need even if it had contained nothing else. This is just one example. If we not going to want a dance, we're not going to need to know the price! Why do some of y'all insist on treating these like they're junior high assignments? If it's not on college rule paper ... Sheesh.
^^ Agree. That's actually from a review I approved.
On the other hand, here's an example of one I just shot down. Yes, he gives cover charge, drink price, # of girls, and even ethnicity. Important "check boxes" to some people. But he says absolutely nothing to sway my opinion as to whether or not I might want to go there.
"Went to Angie's on Saturday evening and wasn't expecting much but still got disappointed. The cover was 10. Me and my friend got a rum and coke for 7.50 and gave a tip of 1.50. There was a girl dancing on the stage when I got in but in all I only saw 3 dances on the stage. There was 4 girls in total and then 1 showed up later. The bartender was the hottest of the bunch but was not a dancer. The girls were very average and not to my liking. In all there was 5 girls 3 white and 2 black."
Such a minimal effort - probably took him less than 90 seconds to write. At least if he had given some indication of why the girls were "very average" it would have been better. I've had some pretty good times with girls I consider to be average looking. It all comes down to the girls - their looks and personality. Everything else is secondary and not as important in my opinion. He says bartender was "the hottest of the bunch." What kind of bunch? An "average" bunch? Give me a few minutes on a busy street and I'll find a "bunch" where Rosie O’Donnell is hottest one.
I probably would have approved the review in question. And I feel like I'm pretty far on the stickler side of the stickler-slacker scale. At worst, I would have left it without voting either way in the hopes that someone with greater knowledge of the area would have a better opinion on the value of the content.
I agree that the reviews posted as examples are helpful. But, the initial example of saying the club was a wreck and the girls were a wreck - is useless. There is a difference in the initial review and the review snippets posted subsequently.
===> "In one recent case, the reviewer told us the place was a wreck and the girls were too. Isn't that enough? If he can't recommend either the place or the girls, is anyone going?"
No, it's not enough. Some might choose to see for themselves as different visits can yield different results. Also sometimes a bad review is a hit job conducted by another club's shill account(s). Details relating to costs, ID entry requirements, etc., are helpful for planning purposes.
===> "As I said, if the review says the girls all look like crackhead grandmothers and that we should stay away because of that and because the place is in shambles, why do you care how much dances cost?"
There's nothing I hate more than drive-by reviews and I hit reject every time I see one. Maybe the three girls you could see when you quickly popped your head in the club looked bad, but that doesn't mean the situation couldn't have improved. But we'll never know because the guy was too much of an impatient cheap ass to find out.
Now I'm not saying that someone needs to sit there for hours, but at least long enough to get an accurate handle on the state of affairs. A review that isn't backed by at least a small investment of time is useless. All it takes is one good girl to make a night.
Sgrayeff said "As I said, if the review says the girls all look like crackhead grandmothers and that we should stay away because of that and because the place is in shambles, why do you care how much dances cost?"
Because, while that may not be the right club for you, it might be the perfect club for another guy. There are guys on here who seek out dive clubs with "broken in" dancers.
Reviews are written to help all the customers here, and not just the ones who have your tastes. So, if you want the 30 days of VIP status, then try a little.
28 comments
A reviewer has a right to his opinion but IMO a review should be written to provide information and let the readers form their own opinion - by omitting the club-details and just giving one's viewpoint one is making the decision for others about the club.
I don't think a review should be down-voted b/c a specific piece of info is not given - i.e. if the reviewer wasn't feeling the dancer-crew and didn't wanna spend his $$$ and thus does not know or state the dance-price, that is not an unpardonable-review-sin IMO as long as he o/w describes the club and what it's about fairly well - a review that doesn't give any details and just states "it sucked" is usually of not much value.
If you are a real reviewer who goes in, looks around, and decides not to stick around to fully interview the staff on the cost of every type of drink, the full menu of prices for 1/2/3/5/8 songs and 5/10/15/20/22/28/45/75/90 minutes, I'm OK with that.
If your visit -- at least on that day or evening -- was "I'm not spending any money or any more time just to meet a Tuscl review quota, I appreciate hearing that. Even if you don't list the prices, the women's names, or the odds of likely fun in the back, then you have provided very practical intel.
A review like that gives me what I need to know personally. This place was NOT worth the visit, so I will head somewhere else until I see its other reviews that are better. If that club was that iffy, I doubt I would go, even if it turned out that dances were 5 for $20.
Well said docsavage.
We have different tastes in clubs and dancers - so a decent amount of information will help us to make our club decisions.
Select the girl you want, with generosity and charm, soften her up and get a front room makeout session going. Then you invite her to the back room, and then take her home with you to continue.
SJG
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt…
I get your intent, which is why I'd venture you'd approve that review, and which is my point too. When the club sucks, there is less to be said and less we need to read.
With some people, if you give them a little say or power in a situation they end up wanting to control all of it.
Lots of reviews. Ultimately sanity prevails, and they get approved. But not before a few fanatics hit reject because it doesn't include the price of a dance. As I said, if the review says the girls all look like crackhead grandmothers and that we should stay away because of that and because the place is in shambles, why do you care how much dances cost? Because if you want to get head from a crackhead grandmother in a place that stinks, you probably don't need any more info than you just got.
We've had this conversation about review content, criteria for approval, etc. quite a few times, and I don't think anyone has ever come up with a better system than what's in place right now. Minor tweaks or enhancements, sure, but no need to revamp the most basic premise of how reviews get published. As Sgrayeff just said, "Ultimately sanity prevails, and they get approved." I agree.
We can argue all day about what makes for a good review, but the fact is the current voting system seems to allow legitimate reviews to be published, while total bullshit is rejected. If rejected and the writer is sincere, he can fix it up and re-submit. On the other hand, if one gets through and someone doesn't like it, there's the comment section to ask follow-up questions. I've seen that done quite a lot and it usually gets an answer either from the guy who wrote it or another member who knows the club being reviewed. Of course if someone feels so strongly that a published review is total crap or factually inaccurate, he can state that as well.
A suggestion I would make is to find a way to reduce the amount of garbage on the DB. Perhaps non-VIPs only get a limited number of posts per day and/or are prevented from bumping old threads? Not referring to anyone in particular of course...
If you say - the club was a mess - what caused you to reach that conclusion? Was paint peeling - were ceiling tiles falling out? A mess can mean different things to different folks - so it helps to give some details.
When the reviewer says the girls are all worthless, there really isn't much else to say. After all, would you go there if he said the girls are worthless but the glassware is top quality? Or the bathroom is spacious?
When stating facts - that gives the reader a direct understanding of the club. When using adjectives - descriptions or supporting facts help to clarify.
A simple description - The club was crappy - and the dancers looked sloppy. The end.
A bit more elaboration. The club smelled musty and damp - and it appeared to not have been cleaned in a long time. The dancers were not beauties - and their bodies weren’t the best. However, they appeared very friendly and affectionate. I didn’t hang around - as the damp smell got to my head. Thank may return to see how affectionate the dancers are when giving dances.
Here's an example of a great review that doesn't mention any of the stuff you're complaining about having to include, but gives readers insight into the club: https://tuscl.net/review.php?id=379485 It's pretty funny to boot, and generated some decent conversation among fellow club goers in the area.
"What can I say other than that this place is terrible. There were 3 dancers working. All 3 of the dancers were way past their prime. One did have a nice body and she could really dance, she looked like she had a lot of mileage on her. In general these girls look like drug addicts. Maybe she was in her 40’s but she looked like a woman in her 60’s the other two dancers are just horrific one looks like the little girl from Addams family if she had grown up and been smoking crack for the last 20 years. The bar itself is not in good shape ..."
Doesn't that deserve to be approved? Never mind that I've shown you only half of the review. It contains the information we need even if it had contained nothing else. This is just one example. If we not going to want a dance, we're not going to need to know the price! Why do some of y'all insist on treating these like they're junior high assignments? If it's not on college rule paper ... Sheesh.
On the other hand, here's an example of one I just shot down. Yes, he gives cover charge, drink price, # of girls, and even ethnicity. Important "check boxes" to some people. But he says absolutely nothing to sway my opinion as to whether or not I might want to go there.
"Went to Angie's on Saturday evening and wasn't expecting much but still got disappointed. The cover was 10. Me and my friend got a rum and coke for 7.50 and gave a tip of 1.50. There was a girl dancing on the stage when I got in but in all I only saw 3 dances on the stage. There was 4 girls in total and then 1 showed up later. The bartender was the hottest of the bunch but was not a dancer. The girls were very average and not to my liking. In all there was 5 girls 3 white and 2 black."
Such a minimal effort - probably took him less than 90 seconds to write. At least if he had given some indication of why the girls were "very average" it would have been better. I've had some pretty good times with girls I consider to be average looking. It all comes down to the girls - their looks and personality. Everything else is secondary and not as important in my opinion. He says bartender was "the hottest of the bunch." What kind of bunch? An "average" bunch? Give me a few minutes on a busy street and I'll find a "bunch" where Rosie O’Donnell is hottest one.
No, it's not enough. Some might choose to see for themselves as different visits can yield different results. Also sometimes a bad review is a hit job conducted by another club's shill account(s). Details relating to costs, ID entry requirements, etc., are helpful for planning purposes.
There's nothing I hate more than drive-by reviews and I hit reject every time I see one. Maybe the three girls you could see when you quickly popped your head in the club looked bad, but that doesn't mean the situation couldn't have improved. But we'll never know because the guy was too much of an impatient cheap ass to find out.
Now I'm not saying that someone needs to sit there for hours, but at least long enough to get an accurate handle on the state of affairs. A review that isn't backed by at least a small investment of time is useless. All it takes is one good girl to make a night.
Because, while that may not be the right club for you, it might be the perfect club for another guy. There are guys on here who seek out dive clubs with "broken in" dancers.
Reviews are written to help all the customers here, and not just the ones who have your tastes. So, if you want the 30 days of VIP status, then try a little.