Description of the Club Layout in the Reviews

Size shape or stage isn't very important, but I do believe it is useful to know location of restrooms and LD areas, to avoid looking like a newbie at a new club. I typically sit at the bar, casually scoping out my surroundings, so that I don't wander aimlessly when I need to use the restroom. It's also helpful to know LD room location, to avoid looking unfamiliar when you agree to a dance.

What I like to see in reviews differs from the majority here, so it may be a bad sign that I completely agree with you. This is one of the most useless parts of reviews, but pads the review and may make it more likely to be approved. Others have pointed out to me that with so many people writing ambiguous and downright fictional reviews just to get VIP members, things like club layout can help prove that customer was actually there rather than manufacturing a generic review, which is a point I concede. To me that's the only reason to have club layout descriptions at all, unless there's something special about the layout

I think description of the public vs private areas is a good use of review words. For example, a club with only open lap dance areas is very different from a club with three different VIP areas.

To a certain extent, a detailed description helps filter out fake reviews. If you don't know any unique details of the layout, then you weren't there. Obviously not a total fail-safe because someone could theoretically read other reviews and then give the same description. But assuming some asshole wants to write a fake review just for VIP access, then presumably he doesn't have the ability to read the other reviews. Like I said, not a fail-safe, but just a small hurdle for someone trying to game the system.

I don't mind taking an extra minute to say something about the place. And it doesn't hurt to at least try and give some useful information. Nobody cares if the men's room is on the left or right, but you might say something about the barstools being really comfortable or they gave you a fucking splinter in your ass. Or the real granite bar added some class to an otherwise run down dive joint.

Plot twist: that wasn't a splinter

Some good points here. I didn't think of deterring fake reviews, and help not looking new in a club. As I always say - the intel in this forum is great!

I don't care either way. It takes me about 90 seconds to type it up if I'm writing a review and about 0.9 seconds to skim over it if I'm not interested.

I do agree that club description helps filter out fake reviews and reviews submitted for the wrong club. There's 3 Cheetahs in south Florida, many times the description is the first thing that alerts you to the fact the review is submitted for the wrong club. There's a bunch of fake reviews for other clubs around here too, when you read them trying to describe the layout it's quite obvious.

There's probably some descriptions of the club that are more useful than others. I probably suck at making that determination because I don't really thing about it. So while I'd agree that knowing the shitter is on the left or the right is probably not very useful, knowing that lap dances are done in an open area at one end of the club, vs a communal area with partial dividers, vs shared cubicles with a curtain, vs a private area without a curtain, vs a completely private area with a curtain or door, etc. is probably quite useful. The same idea about stages, knowing that the stage is approximatly 4 ft wide, 23ft long, and raised 28in isn't so important. But knowing that there's 1 stage that sometimes has a girl on it vs knowing there's 5 stages that are in constant rotation is good to know.

Ultimately though, they'll never be any universal agreement on the matter. I say as long as a review has some useful content and doesn't have multiple factual errors, post it/approve it. If someone wants to take 5 minutes to articulate the exact number of chairs at the bar, its exact angle relative to the stage, and the number of paces to the bathroom, it doesn't bother me at all. I can skip over that part of the review. I'll put some layout info in my reviews, but I try to focus on things I find useful. # of stages & if they have a rotation, if they have lots of bar or table seating, lots of sections for bottle service, shit like that.

You can't please everybody. Just learn to skip over stuff that doesn't interest you.

Plain old descriptions aren't all that interesting if the club is already well described. I am interested in what customers think are the best spots to watch the show or if there are trouble areas in the club. I can usually figure them out for myself, but there have been times where the regulars putting their thoughts down did help me get a better experience.

It’s alway interesting to see what regulars find important to inform the rest of us, about, and I agree with those that reminded us that a reasonable description of the club goes a long way, towards providing us with proof that they actually visited the club rather than trying to get free VIP credits

I wrote an article about what makes a useful review. I totally agree, much of the descriptions in reviews is not important. I read unpublished reviews and approve or reject them. I've never been to the state of washington, so I have no idea if the club description is accurate.

I can't go to a club like flight club in inkster michigan because I pack, and I can't take my piece in the club and I can't leave it in my ride and then hand my keys to the valet troll, so the fact that a club has mandatory valet parking (meaning you can't walk to the club, you MUST give them your keys), so this is important information. I'll absolutely never let a club scany id, so this is important. Costs are important, some people don't want to pay $50 cover charge, and perhaps others like a high cover charge as that keeps the riff-raff out. Some clubs are making pre-pay for dances the policy. I'd avoid such clubs if possible, so that's important.

Endless ramblings about where the atm is located just make it harder to find the important information. One thing I especially hate is reviewers who say crap like "for the nazis who insist on details, the stage is 38 inches high". If I think a review provides useful information and is readable I'll approve it even though I think the reviewer is a dick.

I meant to say "scan my id"

Having to re-write and re-read basic club layout descriptions of a club that is already well-reviewed is largely a waste of time. I will sometimes start a review with "This place has been described many times before." and skip a detailed description, and that works.

I pretty much agree with everything that’s been said here. In writing reviews, I will generally skip a description unless there’s something unusual or noteworthy, like “If you sit at the bar, you can’t see the stage at all,” or “There’s another barroom down a somewhat hidden flight of stairs, with a small stage and two private VIP rooms,” or “The stage is five feet high, so when tipping, making contact with anything other than the dancers’ ankles is unlikely.” Club regulars will know things like this, but I try to write reviews that will be helpful to first-time visitors.

I’m not a big fan of someone writing “This place has been described many times, so I won’t bother.” The problem is that if a whole string of reviewers say that, I might have to scroll back through 10 or 15 reviews to find something useful. That said, I’m not saying I want bullshit descriptions or the wall decor or whether the men’s room is on the right or the left, just anything unusual or noteworthy that would help someone who’s never been to the club.

No one is asking for schematics of the interior, but the review should include basic size, look, and atmosphere without much fuss. It's also useful to describe the size / privacy of the dancing areas.

Also, each review should try to stand on its own and not require that a reader flip through a bunch of reviews to get information. I mean, I think we're talking about 3 to 5 sentences here. It's not a heavy lift.

If everyone skips describing the basic feel of the the club, then nobody is describing the basic feel of the club.

The "describe the space" section is laughably irrelevant, especially in spaces like Playground Seattle where it hasn't changed in decades. However, as other point out it is a mild indicator that the PL actually visited the place. It's also helpful to new PLs looking for intel last minute. Nobody wants to troll through a dozen reviews to get an idea of what they're in for, it's helpful for us to take a minute to write a concise interior description.

"Also, each review should try to stand on its own and not require that a reader flip through a bunch of reviews to get information."

Ish, this is where I definitely part ways with many of you. Having each review re-hash the same things, over and over, makes the reviews more ponderous and makes it slower to get info, not faster. There's no such thing as a guy going into the reviews, reading a single review, and saying "ah, this is the club for me". Everyone reads a bunch of reviews, and then skims a whole bunch more, so it's never necessary any review stand on its own. In short, not only is it not true that "no one wants to read a bunch of reviews", in fact everyone DOES want to read a bunch of reviews before committing to a club, that's humans read reviews, we all know one reviewer could be biased a certain way. And as a practical matter, we're not going to get a dozen reviews without a single one that describes the interior (as if most of us can't figure out the interior when we get there anyway -- only thing actually useful is anything special about the layout "the booths in the back are where you can get extras" etc).

In short, if you want to make things most efficient for the VIPs who are reading reviews to make a decision, reviews don't need to stand on their own since they'll always read a bunch. By-rote interior layout is about as useless info as you can get, except to verify that you were actually there, but there's other ways to verify that too.