TUSCL Articles ?

Too many shorty reviews submitted and passed along and approved.

Shitty review^^ not shorty

I think a well written article should be worth a VIP reward, perhaps the criteria could be strengthened, like some minimum length, and maybe like 5 votes out of 7 to publish. Agree some subpar junk has gotten through

^^^ The articles are already up for a 7 person vote. If they are passing muster, let it go.

Every article isn't going to vibe with each individual.

If the article passes muster, that is a contribution, just like a review is. If VIP is awarded for one, it should also be for the other. Alternatively, Founder could just not give free VIP for any reason.

Rather it be all or none - not VIP for reviews but not for articles.

I actually just used intel from several articles recently in a trip to the northeast this past month, which was much more valuable than what I could get from reviews.

Bottom line - some folks perception of poor quality could be someone elses perception of valuble information, comedy relief, or some other form of entertainment.

Even with the slight uptick in articles, it's still not of such a volume to warrant any drastic change in process.

On a lark, I fed a few recent articles through GPTzero. Two came up 100% AI generated. One was partially AI generated.

Currently, if someone writes a fake or plagiarized review, their account gets deleted. The same should apply to articles.

Articles and reviews don't have to be perfect to be approved - the problem is too-many people milk the system and write crap just for the free VIP (instead of wanting to contribute helpful info) - the more crap there is the harder it is to find good-data when one is researching/looking for it.

In the FDA drug approval process you have Type I and Type II errors. Type I is approving a drug that should have been rejected. Type II is rejecting a drug that should have been approved.

This applies in other areas, including approving or rejecting reviews and articles here. You might approve worthless articles, but you also might reject worthwhile articles. The voting process is supposed to let through reviews and articles of interest to the majority of members. What it actually does is let through reviews and articles that are of interest to the small subset of members who actually take the time to vote. When I vote, I tend to only reject something if it involves nasty racial or ethnic slurs about the other customers or involves making extremely derogatory remarks about the dancers. If someone is trying to make a living and support themselves, I may not want to buy what they are selling but I admire the effort.

I agree. Although not everyone is a fan of my articles all the time but still. Yeah maybe more votes needed for an article. Reviews I wouldn't want to do that because there would be a log jam of reviews but articles don't have that issue, there's really no rush.

"In the FDA drug approval process you have Type I and Type II errors. Type I is approving a drug that should have been rejected. Type II is rejecting a drug that should have been approved."

If somebody is so bored they want to try and calculate the false acceptance rates for shitty articles and reviews over the past year vs the time since the site update then I'll give it more than a shrug.

I wouldn't object to 5 out of 7 votes for a review or article. I don't think anyway. Right now, I don't think I've seen any good reviews/articles with 3 dissenting votes, but I have seen quite a few with 2. I'd like to see a "rejected" reviews/articles section where they hung around for a while first though, to see if there's a lot of decent stuff that's rejected.

The ChatGPT stuff is interesting, not the articles themselves, but the fact that people approve them and that founder doesn't seem inclined to delete/ban people for using it anymore. I can't 100% blame people for approving those AI ones, I might have even approved one before it even dawned on me that's what people were doing. At this point, its popular enough where most should be able to spot it and reject it though.

Here's an interesting idea. Give people 4 days of VIP for each positive vote they get. 7 positives gets 28 days like now, 1 positive gets 4 days. The "I want a free review" crowd gets something if they put in enough effort to get at least 1 positive vote, maybe enough to see what a "good" review looks like and do better next time. But the low quality content doesn't pollute the site. Might be a dumb idea, but its interesting.

I no longer read the articles because there is too much shit. Too much of the same shit getting approved by the same dumbasses who do nothing but approve every piece of shit they see all day long. We need to tighten up the review processes.

As long as we allow access based on submissions, we will get what they paid for. Skipping bs is easy, the forums teach nothing else if not that.

There's always going to be people trying to cheat the system. It's people who vote up anything longer than 10 words who cause the problem, but I don't see that fixing itself soon either.

My most recent VIP (that just ran out) came from an article I wrote. I'd write another if I had a good topic, but I'm not coming up with anything. I'm also fine with going to a club without a Gantt chart and project plan mapping out my visit. I wrote the article because I thought it would be helpful, and not because I was having VIP withdrawals.

I sort of wish that ChatGPT could be used to rewrite the reviews from guys who refuse to use paragraphs, punctuation, or basic coherence, but between the TUSCL slang and ChatGPT's boundaries I'm not sure it would help.

I tried using chatGPT to write copy for marketing materials and elevator pitches. I could not get anything I was impressed with before I exceeded my free submission allotment.

Reviews are already set so that you need 5 positive votes. 4-3 reviews are now rejected. I requested this change. Founder made the change on the site on the site conversion. Not sure if it’s the same for articles, but no reason it couldn’t be.

ChatGPT has a learning curve, though it's not incredibly steep. You need to know how to construct the prompts in order to get copy that is closest to what you want. It takes practice but there's lots of good tutorials out there.

It's also not really intended to generate final copy. It'll get you perhaps 80% there and then requires some polishing thereafter.

I used it to refine some marketing copy I wrote and it reorganized it in a way that I liked better than my original draft. It also added a couple of points that I liked. So, my final draft included those changes.

I know someone who has a YouTube side gig that makes them a nice bit of change. The problem is that their written English is not perfect. They use GPT to rewrite their video titles and descriptions and it has made an impact on their traffic and earnings.

I know a woman who has been putting off getting a living will because she was intimidated and didn't know where to start. She fed everything through GPT, which gave her a coherent draft that she took to a lawyer. Bonus... she spent less on the lawyer because she had a good working draft when she walked through the door.

So, it is useful and not evil. It's a tool, and like any tool it requires some skill and practice. But, in the context of TUSCL, it's people just being lazy and trying to cheat the system.

I've noticed when you write dancers name's in reviews they don't approve them. I'm not sure why because they use too and that's why I would use this site to get info on a club. Not just generic reviews which serve no purpose

^ Don't connect dancers by name to extras or OTC in reviews, even if it's a club where "everyone knows" what's going on (which might be true for the club, but not for individual dancers). TUSCL members with access to these reviews can include club managers, staff, and other dancers, who can use that information against a dancer. It's also not impossible for local reporters to access these reviews to find incriminating quotes for their expose piece [1].

Also, what a dancer does for you might not match what she does for other guys (and that's her choice). Think about this from the dancer's POV. Better yet, try this... get some extras from a dancer and then tell her that you're going to write an online review where you name her and everything she just did. Report back to us regarding her reaction and how many stitches you needed as a result.

Just be happy with what you got, but don't spell it out in granular detail in the review, and definitely don't use names. If you want to get more details, then approach the reviewer via PM and let them decide if they want to share more.

Also, I posted a discussion debating the use of any names in reviews (regardless of extras). You can read the surprisingly civil discussion here:

app.tuscl.net

====

[1] This actually happened in Providence, RI, when Cheaters got busted for the last time. We got to watch incredibly explicit reviews (with blacked out bits) for several of the clubs scroll across the screen on the evening news. It wasn't great.

Tipping, is this just an observation from reading approved reviews that had a few down votes or is this something you experienced from submitting a review?

If you sent a review, did you say something in a review about extras or was it vanilla as "I met jasmine tonight. She's attractive, personable, and I had a nice time with her" and that was grounds for rejection? Just curious because you didn't say anything about connecting a dancer to specific acts.

I noticed your comment was followed up with an extended lecture from that fool Ishmael who desperately tries to lecture other members with dissertation length responses. What a loser.

^ not to give anyone a lecture but unless you have discussed this subject with a dancer it’s probably best not to name anyone in your articles or reviews unless you’re specifically calling out a ROB behavior and even then you need to be certain that the behavior isn’t just a misunderstanding or a personal dispute.