short reviews

There are several adjudicators who accept every single review.

I see where you're going with this, but it's not the best idea. Because a fair number of reviews also get rejected for connecting dancers by name to extras, etc. So, those need to never be seen.

The review guidelines and examples of good reviews would help. But really, there's always going to be folks who want VIP without doing the relatively light lift of a decent review.

So, I think it's also a matter of accepting that it's always going to be a thing.

If a review gets rejected, does the author see the adjudicators on the review? Or are the adjudicators only visible once the review is published?

I always feel bad rejecting reviews, because I don't want to generate any bad karma with the author I'm rejecting.

^^ I believe they do see who rejected them. And if you wrote something additional besides just checking a box, it will show that too.

For example, it will say something like:
John Doe, the adjudicators have declined to publish your review. RonJax2 said, "Dude, you're a fucking scumbag for posting that." Misterorange said, "John Doe, you suck donkey dicks." Desertscrub said, "Club ad of the week."

That said, the troll who posts some piece of crap review like: "Great place with cheap specials every day. Well worth the drive" isn't worried about any karma coming back on him.

If you're worried about karma don't reject reviews that you aren't confident that there's a good reason to reject. When I see one of these one liners I hit reject without a second though. When there's a review that I think is borderline I tend to not adjudicate it.

Rejected means rejected...all gone away. And yes...the rejected find out who rejected them. And I've told everyone on of them that I honestly don't know who wrote the review when I rejected it. There are no names on it.

When I reject a review I include suggestions that the writer can add to make a more complete review.
Constructive criticism is not "bad karma".
My minimum is: topless or nude, cost of anything, mileage, dancers and stage dancing.

I have the same approach as Casey if I'm on the fence about how to judge a review I just move onto the next one and let others decide

I generally adjudicate only two kinds of reviews:

(1). I have been to the club. I approve these unless there's a real problem.

(2). There's a real problem. If the review is vacuous, or the reviewer sounds like a bot or a jerk, I reject.

If anything is not in one of those two categories, I don't vote.

I am glad that you guys rejected the review of Sugar 44 in Phoenix that was submitted earlier today. It was obvious that the person did not visit the club. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for rejecting the review of Hi Liter in Phoenix. It is obvious that the same person wrote the fake reviews of Hi Liter and Sugar 44.