Recently I’ve been adjudicating a few reviews and they’re missing basics of the tuscl guidelines. Minimum: 4 paragraphs each containing 4 sentences each. PLACE (parking, outside condition, inside condition, layout of stage seating VIP, annoyances of music volume or announcers or lighting). PRICE (parking, cover, drinks, LD, VIP). DANCERS (type, number, friendliness etc). SUMMARY of these three categories along with your own take on the general experience.
Well, they're guidelines, not requirements. So you get to decide at which point they stray so far outside of the guidelines that you reject the review.
Generally, I look for reviews that provides helpful information about that *specific* club and stand on its own (meaning, someone totally new to a club doesn't need to hunt through previous reviews to get information).
As mentioned in another thread, "club details" isn't schematics-level information about the club. A few sentences about size, atmosphere, etc., are fine. Most guys will want to know more about dance/VIP areas and privacy.
But really, there are adjudicators that green light every single reviews and others that are more strict. But most reviews will not adhere strictly to the guidelines. We're PLs, not journalism students.
I also vote down any review that connects dancers by name to extras or OTC as do many others here.
Thanks for the input. I haven’t adjudicated adhering strictly to the guidelines but place (parking, outside and inside conditions, stage, LD and VIP layout), price (cover, LD, VIP), general dancer impressions are things I consider a must. I think you make a good point about rejecting a review that speaks too openly on an individual dancer’s specific extras. I’m joining that group who will reject it.
I am with Ishmael, these are guidelines and make a good review, but not requirements and not an outline. We have many good writers on this site (and also many who are not), so I think we should use some common sense and judgement as to what is a solid review and what is not.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. A review could describe every girl in the club, what she looks like, and her her dances are, but if they don't say what brand toilet paper they use, they will shoot the review down.
It’s a sliding scale for me. If a place has been reviewed a thousand times and the facilities are the same, no need to tell me how many urinals are in the bathroom. If you give me something useful I’ll usually approve and may ask that the reviewer add something in the comments they left out like the cost of a lap dance. Net net, it’s a voting system and most good reviews get through and most bad ones get rejected. It’s not perfect and that’s ok.
I'm with Jimmy. It depends on the club. One Providence club gets reviewed every two or three days. The parking lot and interior layout haven't changed in recent memory. One reviewer solves this by saying "skip down to New Information," which is helpful. But I would be fine if most of the reviews omitted the boilerplate entirely. Under the new site design, anybody reading your review has unlimited access, and probably should be reading more than one review anyway. For clubs like these, I definitely approve reviews that prioritize new information.
On the other hand, there are clubs that nobody reviews. If you're reporting on one of these, sure, tell us everything.
For clubs in either group, what I most look for is vibe and atmosphere. These are a lot harder to characterize than floor plans, and they have a subjective element, so your review is more likely to make a real contribution.
I don't care about describing how a place looks like or how much a drink costs. Just tell me about the dancers. Are they hot or not. And which ones should I get dances with. That's it. Those are reviews are a waste of time.
No matter how much someone described the condition of the parking lot, the reviewer needs to take at least one trip to vip. Description of the vip arrangement and set up is actually helpful for an out of town visitor. Describe the services you received in there. Price points as well. Yes of course every experience is ymmv but ballpark data helps.
There's no need to speak at length about cover charge, drink cost, etc because that's already listed above. Any review that says "I didn't see anything I liked and left" lacks useful content; therefore don't approve those.
I don't think someone needs to go to a VIP to get their review through. If I'm in a trash club with a bunch of fuglies I'm not burning time and cash on a VIP because somebody who posts on TUSCL thinks that's required for street cred. A lot of guys on here are frontrunners and only go to the clubs that "guarantee" quality in the reviews and back channels. If I have time I'll explore the whole scene. When I draw a dud I'll be there long enough to get the info I need if I think I'll review it then leave. And even then I rarely have time to review anything anymore.
I agree that the guidelines are just guidelines. One of the biggest things for me is I'm much more relaxed on content if the review is a place that doesn't get reviews often. I wish we got the "last review date" back on that screen to help with that.
A couple other points to raise. You don't have to adjudicate every review. I really wish some of the people who have no familiarity with the clubs near me would stop approving reviews for around here. There's a bunch that are obvious fakes, they're well written reviews, but if you're familiar with the club you can tell the reviewer has never been in there and they're either just bullshiting or regurgitating.
And if you're on the fence about a review, just leave it. Let someone else vote on it.
Also, recognize that not every reviewer or reader has the same desires. Some people want to know names and shit, others explicitly don't want that. To me, a review that says Bubbles is hot and great in the back is useless. To someone else, my generic description that most girls are Cubans who are in their mid-twenties, slim & fit, with smaller chests is useless. Similarly, others want to read about prices and shit and other don't. I always think of the one guy who wrote an article about this topic and concluded that the #1 most important thing about a club is if it requires Valet or not.
And finally, there's a shit ton of discussions on this topic here. Read em if you want, you'll find lots of opinions.
A well written review can be one paragraph long to suffice, as long as the theme is consistent with the description of his (or her) visit adequately. This 4 paragraph requirement shit is for the birds.
FYI, I skip most reviews adj. as I don’t have a definitive opinion on them. The ones I do rate, I do write feedback on accept or reject. But keep in mind many if not most views of a club review are probably not members. They probably are not going to read much except most recent review. It doesn’t take a dissertation to say parking is tight, parking and cover costs, the outside is nice or sketchy, inside is or is not nice, one long stage or two, the VIP is a curtain or open air area and costs X. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable standard for a review. Imho, also, leave out the reference to Girl (name) who does A and B and C and D and E, again imho.
I don't think it's necessary for us to wring our hands so much about this topic. PLs should write reviews, and put whatever level of effort into it that they choose and can muster. If their review gets rejected, they can copy and paste it into the club-specific forum. If a club hasn't has a review in the last couple months, I'd be inclined to upvote even a very terse review.
You really can’t go wrong following Founder’s guidelines, although some (but not me) may disagree with his take on explicit descriptions of dances.
His guidelines summary is pretty good:
“Pro Tip 1: Think about what you would like to tell your good buddy about a place he's never been to.
Pro Tip 2: Think about the business traveler that is sitting in his hotel room with only time enough to hit one club in this new town. Let him know why he should or should not visit.”
I haven’t looked at the review-guidelines in years – I think they can/should be updated and perhaps @Founder should create a thread asking for input on basic-guidelines that are simple but sufficient for an adequate review since we are the ones writing reviews and adjudicating reviews and many on here have done plenty of both for years. It would also be helpful to provide some good sample-reviews for newbies to go by.
When I first read the review-guidelines years ago I think it was too formulaic and it placed too-much emphasis on layout-details; subsequently many reviewers would repeat the layout review-after-review while leaving-out more important details – IMO the more details “usually” the better (but def not alwas) – thus IMO there should be “levels” of details w/ certain details being more of a requirement and other details more like “nice to have”:
IMO when I read a review of a club – I should be able to:
1) have a good/decent understanding of the typical mileage available
2) be able to have a reasonable understanding of the typical dancers available (looks; ages; ethnicities; etc)
3) have an understanding of the costs (this is in part helpful in not getting ripped-off/overcharged)
IMO these are the basic-parameters most SCers take into-account when looking for a club to visit – no-one needs to know where the bar-area or the bathroom is in order to make a decision on which club to visit – thus layout details are somewhat helpful but often times make reviews more cumbersome to read and write – there are some layout-details that are helpful such as if parking is an issue; or seating inside is at a premium; or more-so a description of the dance-area and/or VIP-area in terms of privacy and/or comfort – but even then I’ve never rejected a review b/c it didn’t offer any layout info (again some layout info is helpful but most of it is unnecessary yet a lot of reviews describe things like where the bar and bathroom is located but don’t describe the dancer-crew or prices but yet the reviewer thinks he’s providing details).
I *do* agree that having to repeat details such as prices/mileage/etc is somewhat overkill – I think it’d be best to have a separate way of capturing club-details for those that want/like to provide that info and let reviews be mainly about the experience (current format for capturing some club details IMO is not too practical/flexible).
“… I really wish some of the people who have no familiarity with the clubs near me would stop approving reviews for around here. There's a bunch that are obvious fakes, they're well written reviews, but if you're familiar with the club you can tell the reviewer has never been in there and they're either just bullshiting or regurgitating …”
That’s a good point – but there are two-sides to the coin.
IMO a review should be written from the POV of someone who’s never been there; and the same kinda applies to adjudicating – I’ve noticed I sometimes approve reviews of clubs that are missing some pertinent info b/c I happen to be very-familiar w/ the club and I don’t notice the review is missing important info b/c I know the club very-well – whereas if it’s a club I’m not too-familiar w/, it’s easier for me to notice important details missing (b/c IDK those details).
So there are pros and cons to only adjudicating reviews of clubs one is familiar with; and IMO more cons than pros:
1) will take longer for reviews to get approved especially for less-popular clubs
2) there are some clubs that have a “little TUSCL mafia” – e.g. these are clubs that are very popular and get reviewed a lot by the same reviewers for whom that is their home-club per se and the one they visit most if not the only club they visit (e.g. Playhouse in Burlington, NJ; etc) – for some of these clubs the bulk of the reviews are from club-regulars – they know the club like the back-of-their-hand and many hate having to give club details b/c in their minds “everyone knows the club details”
^ You make a decent point, but I'll take a few reviews that might be missing a couple basic details about the club over a few that have details that are made up and factually incorrect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not gonna get my panties all in a wad over it. But I stand by my preference that I'd rather not see the same 3-4 people that have no familiarity with the local clubs and basically no standards approving every review for south Florida. Or maybe a limit of 2 votes/day/member or something would also solve it.
Pro Tip 2: Think about the business traveler that is sitting in his hotel room with only time enough to hit one club in this new town. Let him know why he should or should not visit.”
This is my most common use of this site and the lens I tend to use.
Clubs in my area? I know them for the most part. And know when I smell BS.
Just as every club is different, the reviews of those clubs serve different purposes depending on a lot of factors including how often they’ve been reviewed, whether there’s anything unique, anything has changed or if other clubs i the area offer a better or different experience. The voting process mostly approved reviews that provide value and rejects the ones that don’t. No need to overthink it.
Write useful reviews and approve useful reviews. Let the community work it out natually
Last thing I need is to have to spend more time writing a fucking strip club review because some review Nazi tried to convince others that all reviews must adhere to some standard on a strip club site
I see PoundKing has met desertscrub lol. That's a lot of world weariness coming from a dude in month number one on TUSCL who just posted his first review.
24 comments
Latest
Generally, I look for reviews that provides helpful information about that *specific* club and stand on its own (meaning, someone totally new to a club doesn't need to hunt through previous reviews to get information).
As mentioned in another thread, "club details" isn't schematics-level information about the club. A few sentences about size, atmosphere, etc., are fine. Most guys will want to know more about dance/VIP areas and privacy.
But really, there are adjudicators that green light every single reviews and others that are more strict. But most reviews will not adhere strictly to the guidelines. We're PLs, not journalism students.
I also vote down any review that connects dancers by name to extras or OTC as do many others here.
I think you make a good point about rejecting a review that speaks too openly on an individual dancer’s specific extras. I’m joining that group who will reject it.
On the other hand, there are clubs that nobody reviews. If you're reporting on one of these, sure, tell us everything.
For clubs in either group, what I most look for is vibe and atmosphere. These are a lot harder to characterize than floor plans, and they have a subjective element, so your review is more likely to make a real contribution.
There's no need to speak at length about cover charge, drink cost, etc because that's already listed above. Any review that says "I didn't see anything I liked and left" lacks useful content; therefore don't approve those.
A couple other points to raise. You don't have to adjudicate every review. I really wish some of the people who have no familiarity with the clubs near me would stop approving reviews for around here. There's a bunch that are obvious fakes, they're well written reviews, but if you're familiar with the club you can tell the reviewer has never been in there and they're either just bullshiting or regurgitating.
And if you're on the fence about a review, just leave it. Let someone else vote on it.
Also, recognize that not every reviewer or reader has the same desires. Some people want to know names and shit, others explicitly don't want that. To me, a review that says Bubbles is hot and great in the back is useless. To someone else, my generic description that most girls are Cubans who are in their mid-twenties, slim & fit, with smaller chests is useless. Similarly, others want to read about prices and shit and other don't. I always think of the one guy who wrote an article about this topic and concluded that the #1 most important thing about a club is if it requires Valet or not.
And finally, there's a shit ton of discussions on this topic here. Read em if you want, you'll find lots of opinions.
There you go.
Bacon!!
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable standard for a review. Imho, also, leave out the reference to Girl (name) who does A and B and C and D and E, again imho.
His guidelines summary is pretty good:
“Pro Tip 1: Think about what you would like to tell your good buddy about a place he's never been to.
Pro Tip 2: Think about the business traveler that is sitting in his hotel room with only time enough to hit one club in this new town. Let him know why he should or should not visit.”
When I first read the review-guidelines years ago I think it was too formulaic and it placed too-much emphasis on layout-details; subsequently many reviewers would repeat the layout review-after-review while leaving-out more important details – IMO the more details “usually” the better (but def not alwas) – thus IMO there should be “levels” of details w/ certain details being more of a requirement and other details more like “nice to have”:
IMO when I read a review of a club – I should be able to:
1) have a good/decent understanding of the typical mileage available
2) be able to have a reasonable understanding of the typical dancers available (looks; ages; ethnicities; etc)
3) have an understanding of the costs (this is in part helpful in not getting ripped-off/overcharged)
IMO these are the basic-parameters most SCers take into-account when looking for a club to visit – no-one needs to know where the bar-area or the bathroom is in order to make a decision on which club to visit – thus layout details are somewhat helpful but often times make reviews more cumbersome to read and write – there are some layout-details that are helpful such as if parking is an issue; or seating inside is at a premium; or more-so a description of the dance-area and/or VIP-area in terms of privacy and/or comfort – but even then I’ve never rejected a review b/c it didn’t offer any layout info (again some layout info is helpful but most of it is unnecessary yet a lot of reviews describe things like where the bar and bathroom is located but don’t describe the dancer-crew or prices but yet the reviewer thinks he’s providing details).
I *do* agree that having to repeat details such as prices/mileage/etc is somewhat overkill – I think it’d be best to have a separate way of capturing club-details for those that want/like to provide that info and let reviews be mainly about the experience (current format for capturing some club details IMO is not too practical/flexible).
That’s a good point – but there are two-sides to the coin.
IMO a review should be written from the POV of someone who’s never been there; and the same kinda applies to adjudicating – I’ve noticed I sometimes approve reviews of clubs that are missing some pertinent info b/c I happen to be very-familiar w/ the club and I don’t notice the review is missing important info b/c I know the club very-well – whereas if it’s a club I’m not too-familiar w/, it’s easier for me to notice important details missing (b/c IDK those details).
So there are pros and cons to only adjudicating reviews of clubs one is familiar with; and IMO more cons than pros:
1) will take longer for reviews to get approved especially for less-popular clubs
2) there are some clubs that have a “little TUSCL mafia” – e.g. these are clubs that are very popular and get reviewed a lot by the same reviewers for whom that is their home-club per se and the one they visit most if not the only club they visit (e.g. Playhouse in Burlington, NJ; etc) – for some of these clubs the bulk of the reviews are from club-regulars – they know the club like the back-of-their-hand and many hate having to give club details b/c in their minds “everyone knows the club details”
Don't get me wrong, I'm not gonna get my panties all in a wad over it. But I stand by my preference that I'd rather not see the same 3-4 people that have no familiarity with the local clubs and basically no standards approving every review for south Florida. Or maybe a limit of 2 votes/day/member or something would also solve it.
This is my most common use of this site and the lens I tend to use.
Clubs in my area? I know them for the most part. And know when I smell BS.
Write useful reviews and approve useful reviews. Let the community work it out natually
Last thing I need is to have to spend more time writing a fucking strip club review because some review Nazi tried to convince others that all reviews must adhere to some standard on a strip club site
Welcome to the boards.