TUSCL Articles ?
Papi_Chulo
Miami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
Seems lately there have been more article-submittals – I get the sense this may be in part to Founder taking-away the free-daily-reviews and now it seems some PLs are writing-articles in order to get the free VIP and be able to read reviews.
A good # of recent article-submittals seem poor-quality/shitty and seem written mainly/solely for the free-VIP – some even seem to be “written”/auto-generated using that ChatGPT AI tool.
There have been some very-good-articles submitted also (e.g. Garfield84; etc) – but w/ the recent outcry from a certain # of PLs about not being able to read reviews for free anymore; many on-here suggested they could write articles instead – but it seems to me some of these PLs have moved from writing fake/shitty reviews to writing fake/shitty articles, just to get free-VIP.
Articles are helpful; but I feel TUSCL’s lifeblood are the reviews – so I wonder if Founder should stop giving free VIP for articles since it seems more and more of them are of not-much-help and written just for VIP vs sharing good-info (I assume the PLs that genuinely wanna write articles to share info would keep doing-so even if VIP wasn’t involved).
I get that there is also a voting-process for articles – but it’s evident this voting-process is far from foolproof w.r.t. letting shit articles/reviews getting approved.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
20 comments
Latest
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
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.
Currently, if someone writes a fake or plagiarized review, their account gets deleted. The same should apply to articles.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
https://app.tuscl.net/discussion/81481
====
[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.