Monotony

19 comments

• gammanu95

  •

  6 months ago

  BadBob has an interesting point, however, I do not want to waste the time or money going into a strip club that is not going to be a good time. I do not fault anyone who chooses to drive to Tampa or Daytona instead of going to a strip club in Orlando.
• Dolfan

  •

  6 months ago

  I try to periodically review the less popular clubs in my area, but the reality is that many of the less popular clubs are less popular because they're less fun. That means I go there less and have less to say about them in a review.
• shadowcat

  •

  6 months ago

  Some people like to run around and constantly check out clubs new to them but like me others would rather just stick with what they know and like. I'm in the latter category. I go once or twice to the same club every week but hold off on the number of times I review it.
  
  When I do check the unpublished reviews I do look for clubs that are rarely reviewed and are more forgiving about the amount of details when approving them.
• rattdog

  •

  6 months ago

  if i had to guess chances are the clubs that haven't been reviewed within the last 12 months is simply because they flat out suck. i don't care if they're located in fl, ny, ca, or even in the uk. 12 months from today they're still are not going to get a review. why? because they will still continue to suck. and if one should get a review i'm guessing it'll be a negative one.
• Hank Moody

  •

  6 months ago

  Good point Bob, but it’s an inherent element of the crowd sourced reviews. It’s both a feature that the large number of reviews directs members to the best clubs, but it’s a bug in that it promotes bias to the exclusion of other clubs.
  
  The one downside to reviewing lesser clubs that you didn’t mention is that a well written review of a so-so club can draw people in. I’ve had members contact me about lesser clubs I reviewed and they were relying on a review I wrote because it was well written, even though I tried to be clear that the club was only ok.
  
  Lastly, there is a slight reward to reviewing the lesser clubs. The club’s average score and how it gets ranked against other clubs is only based on the last 18 months of reviews. If a club is only reviewed once in 18 months, its ranking is based on that single review and the reviewer gets sole “credit” for how the system sees the club. So, there’s that.
• Dolfan

  •

  6 months ago

  ^ I'm pretty sure there's a minimum number of reviews to get a score? Or at least to have that score count in the Top Clubs lists.
• Manuellabore

  •

  6 months ago

  I try to avoid reviews on heavily reviewed clubs unless I think I have a fresh take. More thinly reviewed clubs are actually easier to review because you are either providing new information or at least providing current confirmation of the limited information available
  I have also sometimes had good experiences at clubs that don’t get a lot of reviews, Louisville and Memphis for example. My assumption is that there are just fewer TUSCL members in those locales
• Hank Moody

  •

  6 months ago

  @dolfan
  
  That’s probably right about a minimum number of reviews, though I don’t know for sure. In any case, if your review is only one of a few, it will get included in the score and read more often by people looking for info on a less reviewed club, than Deaire, Pandoras, Vivide, Burlington, etc.
• shailynn

  •

  6 months ago

  I quit doing raviews years ago because I was writing the same raviews, saying the same things, as everyone else for the same clubs.
  
  If there’s a club with little or no raviews, any intel is vital.
• Puddy Tat

  •

  6 months ago

  It seems like the Desire reviewers compete to see who can provide the most detailed intel. Nothing wrong with that though.
  
  But number of reviews is also a good indicator of how good a club is. If no one is reviewing it, it might be because no one goes there.
• ClubFan81077

  •

  6 months ago

  I practice monotony, since having more than one partner at a time would be too much for me anyway... :)
• chiefwiggum

  •

  6 months ago

  When I used to stay at Client sites for long periods, like Rochester, NY, there wasn't much to write about, Rochester clubs as well as Buffalo was like mining for diamonds in the rough and it was way more rough than finding diamonds. I do try to hit the lesser clubs, especially if they get talked about on here (e.g. Bogarts, Henry's, Play it Again Sam's). But since I'm batting like 0-100, I don't find it efficient to write about striking out so I stick a little blurb in my review of the club I finally end up going to.
• blahblahblahs

  •

  6 months ago

  My take is that heavily reviewed clubs give a very nice portrait of the club, and probably indicate that it is a good club. However, a lack of reviews doesn't imply the opposite. I've enjoyable visits to infrequently reviewed clubs. IMO, TUSCL's utility would go up if infrequently reviewed clubs received more coverage, but what can we do beyond reviewing them ourselves?
• Muddy

  •

  6 months ago

  You know what that would be interesting to incentivize clubs that haven't been reviewed in a while. I think there are places we overlook a little bit. Some spots I was the first to review in like 6, 7, 8, years. I saw sinclair reviewed a club in upstate NY that was like a 16 year gap. I mean who wouldn't want more info to think about. From my standpoint I got change it up every now and then otherwise I would get bored as fuck going to same club every night.
• iknowbetter

  •

  6 months ago

  I tend to agree with Dolfan - there’s usually a reason why clubs don’t get reviewed often. They’re not popular because they’re a waste of time. However, there are notable exceptions. Deans Gold in North Miami comes to mind. Deans is under-reviewed, but in my opinion, a top tier club with top tier talent.
• WiseToo

  •

  6 months ago

  The reason why some clubs get the reviews and others don't may simply be due to the Pareto Principle, also known as the 80 / 20 rule. This phenomenon states that roughly 80% of outcomes come from 20% of causes.
  
  Strip clubs are the "causes" and the "reviews" are the "outcomes". So out of the population of strip clubs serving mongers about 20% will get reviews. And the Pareto Principle can also apply to the mongers writing the reviews, 20% of the mongers write 80% of the reviews.
  
  More generally, the Pareto Principle is the observation that most things in life are not distributed evenly.
  
  
  
• BadBob

  •

  6 months ago

  Except it’s more like 5/95 percent than 20/80 percent.
• DandyDan

  •

  6 months ago

  Then there's clubs in out-of-the-way locations. They could be good, but people on TUSCL don't generally live in those areas, so they don't check them out, so they don't get reviewed.
• ilbbaicnl

  •

  6 months ago

  Probably the best reviews of some strip clubs are on launderyourmoney.com .