More consistent ratings.

I have always said that knowing your reviewer is your best source for accuracy. Bones is the most accomplished reviewer on here and a personal friend of mine. I trust his reviews. I also trust all of the reviews by the guys that made the convention. I don't think that my favorite club is over rated but rather falls where it belongs on the Top 40.

Given their $5 lap dances. I definitely rate it a 10.

Sorry, but if a Tootsies rates an 8.5? with it $25 for 3 minutes, then I just don't see how the $5 club is anything but a 10. Not only that I really wasn't too happy with the style of Tootsies' dancers. In general they seemed too tall (for me that is a deal breaker), too many fake tits (another deal breaker--I'd rather see blubber butts), and not enough black dancers (this is a much lower priority, but a min. of 5% would be nice). Who knows if the $25 for 3 minutes was in my budget I might see the club in a very different light.

So, imo, he didn't rate the club high enough. And, I think that is a real problem that generally expensive clubs get ratings that are way too high and cheap dives get ratings that are too low. :(

Not only that I do have a hard on against the expensive clubs because here in Miami there seems to be an agenda to kill off the small dives, which imo are FAR superior to the tourist or gentlemen's clubs, and leave only this expensive garbage. Get rid of the inexpensive small dives and it doesn't make a difference in the least to me if all strip clubs are closed. Thus, inexpensive dives = 10 and gentlemen's or tourist clubs = 1.

Also, I think the average age at Tootsies is probably around 26. That is just too old for my tastes. The only older women I would be interested in are those who at least look to be between 18 and 22.

It seems like the majority on this board prefer older or age isn't too important.

Different customers like different things. Also in most clubs you can go one time and there are a lot of girls who appeal to you, next time there aren't any. And places can be very different depending on when you go. Ratings will always vary widely. It's the description that counts.

"It's the description that counts.'

EXACTLY!!! :)

Club rating is nothing more than a subjective opinion, ergo, a w i d e variance! That said, what needs to be in the reviews are facts, not just opinions.

All of the ratings on this site obviously reflect the opinions of their reviewer. That being said, I find that most TUSCLers make a genuine effort to be fair and not overly subjective. While their personal views will color the review, I think most of them are trying to paint an accurate picture for their fellow members. In the two years I have been using this site I have found it very helpful. On those occasions where I visited a club that a member recommended I have not been disappointed. In most cases where a club is inaccurately portrayed I think you can easily pick up on that. For exmaple , if club "A" has had nothing but ratings of 5 or less for two years and a "newbie" pops in with a 9 or 10 rating and a review claiming "this is the best club he has ever been to", you probably have to assume this may be the ONLY club he has ever been to. Overall I am happy with the current system and can usually see through the inaccurate reviews. Obviously some reviews (for example those by Shadowcat and Bones) are always more helpful than others, but I usually get some information out of all of them.

My broken record resp.- One must always read between the lines. When going into new city, I've often observed positive correlation between relative scores- eg club in new city rated 7(assuming meaningful no. of reviews) better than 1 rated 6. Sometimes, exceptions- like, a 7.67 club can be better than a 7.77 club.

I am always objective on my club reviews, as I know people rely on them in helping to decide whether to visit the club or not. As most of you know, I do attempt to determine, during my visits, mileage and available extras. But, if I get the extras, I don't push up the rating scale, as some people go to clubs for fun and a good time, without getting laid.

With that said, I do take in account, club attendance, decor, dancers, staff friendliness, prices, and overall experience. I don't give much influence on DJs, as they're all obnoxious, and I don't give much influeance on bathrooms or trolls, as if I gotta' go, I gotta' go!

I'm satisfied with what I am reading with few exceptions and find club reviews very helpful.

Raincoat:

If you will take an overall view of my reviews; you too, will notice that I try to be fair and objective in my reviews. I consider Jimmy's Gentleman's Club to be my "Home Club" since its the closets to my domain. I will not rate it high because I have other options in the area which may better amenities or a wider variety of talent.

I have traveled the Midwest and have been to clubs in Indy which garner high reviews and sometimes my visits were good and sometimes not so.

If I frequently visit a club; I may only post a review if something has significantly changed ( good or bad ). If I get there once or twice a year; that is all I can really judge. Sometimes a weekday visit may be very different than a late night weekend stop.

I hope that the description is helpful and, yeah, I'm not a fan of the Chain clubs and yea, I like my fair share of dives. I'm open to whatever else you guys want to know. BUTT, I will stick by my rating knowing of course that YMMV !!!

It's not surprising if reviewers tend to have a positive bias in their ratings. Seems to me that most reviewers like strip clubs, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Even some of the bad clubs can be better than staying home and watching TV. To me a club has to be really bad to get less than a 5.

it is frustrating. i just read a review of little darlings - vegas in which it was stated that the dancers were "mostly 9s and 10s." I've been to Mons in Tampa, the Rhino in Vegas, even Scores NYC in its hayday in the 90s and believe me, NO club has mostly 9s and 10s, let alone Little Darlings. Of course, maybe the reviewer has never been to a club before, or has much lower standards than I do. But I would hope all reviewers would be understated in their assessments, rather than hype a club beyond belief.

Look at banjodan's review of PussyCat Lounge in Vegas. He rates what may be the worst club in Vegas a 10 and talks about $50 nude dances where they get so close you can almost touch it. Give me a break.

As many others have said, it is the description that counts. After all the point is to help others best decide which club is the right club for them. It's not a contest. No Chicago club compares to the Tampa clubs, and you probably should not read an 8 for a Chicago club as the same as an 8 for a Tampa club. I think the numbers should help point you to the better or worse clubs in any given area, and I think they do this pretty well.

One thing that is pretty consistant are the low ratings. If a club has a low rating you pretty well know that it is a dump.

Raincoat, firstly it's an international board. That said, I think that most SCers and most board members are looking for and posting information about clubs in their own local area or in cities they plan on visiting or have just visited as tourists. In the last two decades I've been to SCs on two continents, three countries, nine provinces/states, and twelve cities but of the actual time I've spent in clubs only a tiny fraction of that has been outside of Vancouver. Given my own experience I can only reasonably rate clubs against their local competition -- if I didn't I wouldn't be able to give relative ratings for the best and worst Vancouver clubs because none of them would rate more than a 2 against the best Vegas clubs.

It's the review that really tells the objective story about a club, and that's where I'd say most fall short. A two line review -- whether of the "I had the best time ever" or "Totally lame rip off joint" veins -- is less than useless. Personally, I wouldn't complain if Founder stopped accepting them entirely. I don't expect every review to rehash the cover charge or tell me where I'll find the men's room, but I do want some info covering the various elements covered by your own rating system.

However, the problem with resorting to numbers is that it again becomes relative. Value, to use your example, has a completly different meaning to different customers depending on economic circumstances, personalities or situations. It has a very different meaning to me when I'm at home and rent's coming up versus when I'm on vacation and I'm planning on dropping a grand a day all told. I want to read the details, to get some specific feel for whether the club's mood suck's because the girls are all Wannadancers or the DJ loves telling racist jokes between songs. Do the private dances rock because a small number of the girls will suck you off for an extra $20 or because the club runs a dance school and all of the girls know the art of teasin' and pleasin' as a result. Most significantly, as imnumnutz' post kind of points out (the dancers at the Vegas LD are an entirely differnet species from the dancers at the Vegas SR, although I agree that neither are "mostly" 9s and 10s), is dancer quality a 3 or a 10 because the reviewer likes/dislikes tattooed goth spinners or Barbie dolls with bleached hair, spray on tans and big bolt-ons or because the girls back home are prettier.

What we have to be careful about is the 1 to 10 rating on dancer appearance, in the reviews. For instance... me being an old codger, might rate a dancer in at 8 when a younger man might rate that same dancer a 6. So, for me, I use the magazine, "Cosmopolitian" as a guide. Any dancer I see that could have walked out of that magazine, definately gets a 9 if not 10 rating from me!

Another confusing issue is, how many of us combine appearance and dance skills together as a rating? This could be an unfair and bias way. Therefore, I keep the appearance rating of dancers seperate. If I chose a '7' rated dancer, I could very well rate her dance skills at a 9 or 10.

So, my rating scheme, primarily on dancers is AAA: Appearance (face, hair, makeup) Alignment (body structure) Attitude (self explanatory)

If a review says a club has "mostly 9s and 10s" or "all 7s - 10s", to me that just means he thought they had a lot of good looking girls, and he probably overstates things. Numerical ratings are as subjective as words like "great" or "hot". It's futile to look for consistency in either dancer ratings or club ratings, or to expect a fraction of a point to mean anything. A difference of even a point or two is statistically insignificant, in my opinion.

I like TUSCL's reviews and ratings just fine the way they are. I don't consider the lack of consistency to be a problem. If reviews were more consistent and everybody had the same opinion, that would be a problem.

Maybe this site should have more than simply one 1-10 scale to rate clubs on? I personally like (and try to give myself) a more detailed review...the words matter more to me as well. Who knows if I'm getting my ratings "right"...lol... :)

This thread inspired me to review a club here in LA that I hadn't been to in awhile.

Just the facts, ma'am.

In some ways it can be daunting to rate a club on here, I've only done a few, and each time I question if I'm being too high or too low, I mean there aren't any real guidelines.

Does a annoying DJ count at all when compared to the beautiful girl who just gave you an amazing lap dance? Thats an example, I just mean there aren't really any standards.

Personally, I feel many of the ratings here are too high, something like the phenomenom of "grade inflation" in schools. I'm a harsh critic...I've given low ratings (2-4) to clubs and will continue to do so.

I see this from time to time: the descripion of the experience at the club is rather negative, but then the rating is a 7 or 8. (A recent review of Flashdancers is an example). I realize numerical ratings are subjective, butI would consider a "7" to be a very good score. I find it frustrating to see a score of 7 or 8, then read the detailed review and see negative comments.

I will admit, perhaps I have been somewhat unfair with my low scores because I tend to let preconceived expectations influence my score. If I go into a dive, not expecting much, but the place turns out to be better than expected, I'll might give it a 5, but yet when I went to the Flight Club in Detroit for the first time, I was utterly disappointed and only gave it a 6. Now, in retrospect, was the Flight Club only one point better than the dive....probably not, but expectations do play a role in the ratings, whether it is fair or not.

So I go into a dive, Angels, for example. I write the facts which would rightfully depress some people. It is a small dirty club that often has blubber butts. Almost all (100%) the dancers are black, most are sporting tats and piercings and or brandings. The music is too loud. The place is PACKED. Parking is in short supply. Etc.

I give the club a rating of 10 because that is the value of the club to me. If a person can read, then they shouldn't have any problem with my review.

Looking at Tootsies which is considered a very good club by most club goers---upscale, expensive, gentlemen's club and then comparing it to Angels, there is no comparision. Angels would win by a mile every single time, imo, even when the blubber butts are there. I don't care for the style of dancers at Tootsies--too many fake tits, too old (26), too much makeup, etc. The price is thru the roof, imo, at $25 for 3 minutes. So where do I go better than 97% of the time? Angels. :) If you have a lot of money and you're into clean and upscale and you don't have a problem with fake tits, then yes Tootsies probably would merit a higher rating. I think I gave Tootsies a 6 or 7---really, just as easy I could have given it a 1. I almost never go there and it is close. And, it is beautiful. If that is what strip clubs are all about, then I don't have any interest in strip clubs. Now Angels, even with the invasion of the blubber butts from time to time that is a strip club. :)

Along the same line of reasoning as jablake...

I go into a club where every single dancer and everything about it would be considered a 10 by many men, yet I rate the club a 4. I go into another club exactly like the last except for one single detail, and rate it a 10. Now am I wrong? No. Am I correct, yes, IMO. What could be the difference? The first club had all black dancers and the second, Asian. Of course I state this in my review.

So, it just depends on what we each enjoy. The rating means little compared to the commentary.

Hi clubber,

BTW, in all my years I probably had under 6 asian dancers total. Very, very, very pleased with the hot ones. :) It is funny because one of my favorite black dancers (I knew she wasn't pure black) turned out to be half Chinese. I wouldn't have guessed. Turn out she was a little self conscious about her eyes. I was telling her that she was very close to perfect for Nth time and she says what about my eyes! She is like, un DUH, you can't tell I'm half asian? Nope. :)

6 is probably overstating the number. In this area they seem fairly rare or I'm just going to the wrong clubs.

Overall I see 3 main criteria used on this site to rate clubs:

1. Attractiveness of dancers
2. Quality of dances offered (i.e. air vs. high milage)
3. Price of dances, drinks, admission,etc. To a lesser extent variables like the following are often considered:
4. Location (includes security, parking fee, proximity to other clubs,etc.)
5. Decor (e.g. cleanliness, bathroom troll, chair comfort,etc.)
6. Music (both the type played and the volume level) It seems to me that most of us concentrate ( and rightly so) on the first three and may use one of the lower three to adjust the rating. For example, Platinum Plus in Columbia gets consistently high ratings from me and others but most of us deduct a point for the loud music. Since we are all mostly on the same page the ultimate rating of a club with A LOT of reviews will accurately reflect its true status. This happens despite the fact that I may prefer thin, young dancers while others may prefer older full-figured types. If you look through the top 10 or top 40 clubs on TUSCL I think you would agree that they deserve that distinction. On the other hand, if a club is consistently at the bottom you can reasonably assume you don't want to waste your time or money on it. I guess what I am saying is that overall, we do a pretty good job when it comes to rating clubs and I feel fortunate that we have this site as a resource. Thanks Founder.

Snowtime, I agree with your breakdown of criteria with a couple of exceptions. For me, attractiveness of dancers is #1, because without that, I don't care one bit about the rest. Indeed, it's the most common reason I'm disappointed by clubs with a high rating, which leads me to conclude that looks are secondary to mileage for many reviewers. Also, I would lump your #4, 5 & 6 together with other intangibles and call it the Hassle/Comfort Factor, which could include dancer attitude, scams, annoying club practices, etc. At some clubs, none of these enter into it, but often, they can be as important as price, or even enough of a problem to cancel out #1 or #2.

I agree that TUSCL's reviews all work out pretty well cumulatively to provide about as useful a guide as we could wish for.

I really like Snowtime's assessment. I just wish everyone, especially first time posters, could read it before they post. Numbers do matter more than most of you believe, especially for clubs with fewer than 12 reviews.

I agree that the review matters more than the rating. However, reviews get buried by after while and the rating takes precedence. For example, I'm planning a trip to L.A. next month and of course I've been doing my research on TUSCL. With 50+ options and 1000+ reviews, it's tough to decide. Thank goodness for TUSCL or I could easily waste time at a rip off joint. I'm able to narrow it down, but the options vary widely. Hawaii Theater and SR in COI look exceptional but I'm thinking that the ratings are inflated by rich people. After considerable time reading reviews, I've decided to spend my limited resources at the Flamingo in Anaheim. But it took a lot of time to arrive at that decision.

I just think that consistent ratings that follow Snowtime's assessment would help make TUSCL even better.

The biggest problem I see with trying to make ratings more consistent is that ratings will always be relative, you compare a club with other clubs you've been to. So, for example, if a guy's only frame of reference is a city where most of the clubs have little contact, and then he goes to one that allows a little more, that's going to seem like high contact to him. Similarly if all his neighborhood clubs get $30 for a private dance, a place where dances cost $25 will seem like a bargain. I don't think there's any solution to that problem.

It seems like some posters don't or can't get it. If a reviewer went to Angels on its best night, stunningly hot young black women. Stunningly hot meaning good skin, good teeth, no blubber, not too tall, perky natural tits--SML, bubble butts, angel faces, etc. And, could get almost anything for $5 per dance---GFE, FS, BJ, etc. That reviewer could fairly rate Angels as a 1 or a 10. It is that subjective and it makes sense. If the reviewer thinks black women are disgusting, then the reviewer is going to be one unhappy camper most likely when visiting Angels which has better than 99% black dancers. If the reviewer is crazy about black women, but needs fancy furniture, then the reviewer may fairly rip Angels as being a nasty dump because they're aren't high priced furnishings.

Apparently many posters just find it difficult to read or don't like to read. My guess is the top 40 would have NO value to me because they're either the bigger clubs with GC prices or "dives" that charge GC prices. The real value, imo, is the $5 high contact clubs. I don't give a rat's ass about "quality" furnishings. I don't give much of a rat's ass about dancer skin color. I do care big time if the price of the dance is over $5. :) So just on those 3 points I'm probably in the minority.

I peruse the "recent reviews" on a daily basis, and almost always will find a few reviews that are of interest to me - typically these will be reviews of clubs that I frequent, or have visited in the past, or will be reviews BY TUSCLers that I know. Sure, these reviews are entertaining and can give a good glimpse into the current state of a particular club, but in the greater scheme of things, whether it's a high rating or low rating, it matters not.

When I am going on a sexpedition to an area that I am familiar with, I will already know what club(s) that I like and will know where I should go. Dallas is a good example of this; even though the ratings and reviews at BBD have been on the decline over the last few months, I know that for the area, BBD is the best option. If I show up there and have a disappointing experience, I might checkout some of the other clubs that have been getting decent reviews.

When you think about it, at least in my case, the ONLY time that the ratings mean anything to me is when I am venturing to an area in which I normally don't hit clubs. It's at that time when I will be looking at several clubs, trying to decide where I should spend my time and money in order to get the club experience that I desire.

Reading between the lines is THE most important skill when analyzing a particular club's or group of clubs ratings. When you are determining what club to visit, you have to do some research beyond looking at the ratings. You have to read the recent reviews - perhaps the last three to six months worth, taking into consideration the over inflated "homer" scores, the pissed off patron's low scores, etc. Like what was mentioned above, you also have to take into consideration the area and what the accepted quality and mileage is for that region. Of course known TUSCLers' reviews will always carry more weight when weighing the relevance of reviews and ratings.

Hey Doug,

Since you do peruse the recent reviews, you probably saw my less than fantastic review of BBF in Indy (one of your favorite clubs I believe)last week. Sorry, but I lost your e-mail address. Maybe you can e-mail sometime and explain to be what's the secret at Brad's. Two visits, once on a Friday night and once on a Monday afternoon - both times BORING....All the other TUSCL reviwers can't be wrong, so I need some enlightenment. Thanks.

I think we ALL should rate our dancers that we get LAPS from in this format: UBRS - Uncle Bones Rating Scheme

0-3 = air dances only 4-6 = mild grinding & stevies 7 = CBJ 8 = BBBJ 9 = FS 10 = FS with CIM

Well, at least it would help me damn it!!!

ALL of you have to check "chile's" rating of Erotic City in Boise, Idaho. Three sentences!! And the rating was a "10"!!!

Maybe he got FS with CIM Bones, and he didn't want to brag about it? :) I wonder if they still do the "sketching" thing in ID the guy below him describes...lol...

here we go again. Reviewer says he was in Cheetah's Vegas on Monday afternoon and the dancers were "all pretty." I am 2200 miles away and I can tell you for a fact that no club anywhere has a Monday afternoon shift on which the dancers are all pretty. This review is pretty. Pretty worthless.

wanna read an exhaustive, comprehensive review? Check out the detailed report filed by Officer for Cheetah - Atlanta.

Wow! Officer's review is the most comprehensive that I have read to date. I like the concept, especially from someone with his experience but I'm glad that I don't have to wade through that much information from less informed reviewers.

Raincoat, I have several problems with your rating system. First of all, you are weighing your 5 factors equally and I wouldn't do that, not even close. For example if dancer quality is terrible, I don't care how great the other 4 factors are, the place sucks. Similarly if it's grossly overpriced. And you've completely left out some things that others might consider important, eg. the music is too loud, or the place is in an unsafe area and there's no parking. Or it gets too crowded.

Then there's the issue of how do you rate something like dancer quality anyway - say for example half the girls are gorgeous and the rest are average or less, and you end up having a great time with one of the gorgeous ones, how do you rate that? Or some of the girls give great private dances and some don't, so it makes a huge difference which girl you end up with. Face it, the numerical rating doesn't mean much, we all have different standards of what we like and don't like. What's important is the description. Then you can make up your own mind.

I think there are also a couple other factors at work here. First impressions can have a big effect on ratings, and they in turn are often determined by when you go. For example, I remember my first visit to Filly Corral Showbar very well - I was their first customer that night, they had just opened (I didn't know their hours.) There were only two other people in sight - a bartender and a girl sitting at the bar. So I sat down and ordered something and started talking to them, asking them to explain how the place worked. They were both very friendly and the girl turned out to be everything I like in a dancer - young, cute, intelligent, friendly, not at all pushy. We ended up spending a couple hours together and she turned out to be just what I like in the VIP room. So I came away thinking the place was really great - friendly, attractive girls, good dances etc. And I probably gave it an 8 or 9. But suppose I had gone in a couple hours later when they were really busy (it's a popular place.) The bartender wouldn't have had a chance to talk. The only dancers who would come by would have been the unpopular ones. And I would have left thinking the place was unfriendly, that all the dancers were ugly, and I wouldn't have known how good the private dances were. All of which would have equalled a much lower rating. I've been back several times and think it's the best club in the state, but if that first visit had been a dud I probably wouldn't have ever returned.

A lot of small neighborhood clubs are like that - very friendly and fun once they get to know you, not much of either if they don't and it's busy. Pertner's Tavern is very much like that, all the attractive girls spend all their time with their regulars. The place where I met my ATF was also like that. Which is why I and a lot of other regulars always rated it highly (attractive girls, good dances, moderate prices) while newcomers would try it once and say it was a dump with ugly girls and a very unfriendly atmosphere and they'd give it a poor rating. And we were both right.

A newcomer's perception of a club is often very different than that of someone who goes regularly.

Hi FONDL,

That is one area where I think the small clubs again get screwed by the TUSCL rating system. A customer goes at an off hour or off day to a small club and generally I would expect him to be disappointed. This giant clubs, which I think are shit ala Tootsies and clones, have the advantage of scale. Thus, no matter the time of day there should be dancers and rigid program in place. Apparently that is what some customers expect or want. I'll take the dives everytime. Having said that it might just be my wallet talking. :) If I had gobs of money to throw away or didn't go to clubs often, then the gentlemen's type clubs might have more appeal.

BTW, it is very difficult for me to consider the Mons a dive given the prices they charge. At those rates I'd be expecting limo service and free T-bone steaks. :)

A dive, imo, is small and cheap or large and cheap. :)

It seems that all the complaints about TUSCL reviews and proposals to standardize ratings boil down to one ideal: Reviews should be idiot proof and provide instant answers that require as little reading and thinking as possible. I think that as long as reviews are collected from actual customers, some interpretation is going to be required. I actually enjoy reading reviews, including the bad ones. The more you put into using the reviews the more you get out of it, which I believe is a sign this site is a rich source of good info.

Agreed Chandler. Standardization is a pipe dream. The only way it could ever happen is if we all (1) agreed on what's more important, and (2) could somehow separate how much fun we had with what the club is really like. But we don't all look for the same things, and we probably don't go into clubs with writing the review high on our minds.

When I've visited strange cities I've often chosen to visit some of the lower rated clubs rather than ones with higher rating because the lower rated ones sounding from their descriptions as more to my liking. IMO the numerical ratings are an OK initial screening device but nothing more - they used to determine which reviews I read first but not which clubs I visited.

I like the current method. As long as there's a quick and ready link to ALL OTHER REVIEWS posted by a given reviewer, I think a blank text-box field is the best of all worlds. A dude who wants to offer numerical assessments can simply type them in if he chooses. And I, as reader, can always double-check someone's seemingly unreasonable high (or low) scores for a club, by merely following the link to the guy's name. I do this regularly: check to see if his average number rating is high or low (many men will give any ol' basement a minimum 7, for instance); check to see if he's been to a club that I personally know about, and see how he rated and described that place; check to see whether he has any other reviews at all, or is a one-hit-wonder and therefore more likely a shill for that one club's management.

The best part about TUSCL isn't so much, the reviews, as the CONSISTENCY of reviews among a certain core group. Geographical regions have their core reviewers, and there is also the core of national reviewers. I know that some of my reviews have varied in how I apply my numerical rating -- perhaps too generous here, too stingy there; often too closely do I ally my number with my sexual gratification rather than with the OVERALL clubbing experience. So people can read my preferences in the text, follow the link to my user-name, get to know ME, and hence figure out how much to credit or discredit my individual reviews. I'm fine with that.

Example: I would rank Seductions, Niagara Falls Ontario, as a 9.999 because it's, essentially, a brothel. But many men want a decent STRIP-CLUBBING experience. There aren't many amenities there (or at least, there weren't, last time I visited). Very smoky. Lots of ugly chicks trolling for victims, not even going on stage. But for me, since I can visit on an off-night, and I can guarantee taking the time to troll among the more attractive women to really find one that revvs my engine, and then I know what I can get in the private room -- I'm rating it HIGH! It offers my own personal best criteria! People can find out what my criteria are, by reading my text.

And so I think we should leave it as is. Each man has different criteria. By trying to standardize, we've elminated that variation, thus reducing rather than increasing TUSCL's utility.