Anyone else notice a lot more super short reviews?

I used to write reviews for the 4 week pass to
Vip, but I’m less incentives to write one knowing that so many reviews getting through has the sense of diluting the quality, so I don’t need the Intel that’s being written if there is less value for n them. No thanks. I’ll keep my reviews to myself.

That's been going on for a long time Jimmy McNulty you fuckin' fag. You're probably one of the homosexual dickbags who's doing it.

Yes. I assume it's because in the old days you could see 3 reviews per day without contributing anything. Since the site revisions, you get zero. I bounced one yesterday that said, in essence, "This club is about what I expected. If you want to know more, go and find out."

Perhaps the science community has discovered our research website:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-…

Besides short review and article submissions, I've noticed an uptick in lengthy reviews that seem to check the boxes regarding length, club layout, etc. They seem to be AI generated with a communication style akin to university student writing a Shakespeare AI generated essay vs 2 horndogs talking about their latest club visit.

1. Do see a lot of reviews that appear either to be AI-generated or from non-native English speakers;
2. An easy workaround to maintain VIP is to recycle a perfectly acceptable review and resubmit every month or so. I see that a lot. Unless the adjudicators recall the review or go back and look at recent reviews for the club (which is a lot to expect), there's no apparent reason not to approve

Plagiarism is an automatic banning offense. If you mean recycling your own reviews with some slight or no modifications, public shaming on the board here ought to take care of that. I’d agree with increasing the minimum time between VIP credit for reviewing the same club from 1 month to 3-6 months. The downside to it is you disincentivize local, frequent visitors to a club from providing frequent updates. There’d need to be a balance.

There need to be some examples of what a good review looks like. It doesn't have to be OWGs monthly compendium on the Desire lineup, but show a minimum of what passes muster.

^ The problem with "good examples" is that the moment anyone provides a good example, there's a line of guys pointing out how it's a shitty example. Consensus on TUSCL is as mythological and elusive as Big Foot.

Super short, low effort reviews have been a thing on TUSCL for years now, including one I saw that read "Great club. Now give me my free fucking VIP.", which shockingly did not result in a free fucking VIP. For a lot of guys submitting sub-50 word reviews, it's not that they don't know better. It's more likely that they don't care. So, really I think the only solution is to keep voting them down.

Regarding guys who review the same club over and over, I'm one of those. For Club Desire I have boilerplate copy aimed at the newcomers (lol) which gets light editing only when things change. And then I have a couple of sections where I write about that specific visit in detail. This has always received positive feedback (except from desertscrub...). So, if a guy is copying and pasting the exact same review with no attempt at updating, that's not great. But I don't think some recycled content along with updated content is okay (speaking selfishly here).

The reality is that some reviewers are lazy, and nothing is going to make that go away.

It’s amazing the effort some folks give to just to get around the system it’s probably easier just to do it legit. Is it really that hard to walk into a real strip clubbing and write what you saw? Just describe the lineup and call it day, it ain’t that hard.

Take away free vip. Nothing is free.

And, a lot can be communicated well in 4 to 5 well written sentences.

Having a standard format equals consistently boring repetative reviews.

I once saw a review (that was ultimate rejected) that I found a bit useful even if it was too short.

"SUCKS!"

Have not noticed but there are lont of worthless long winded ones.