Founder has been quiet about this. When you go to post a new review you will notice the different format. You not only give an overall rating but also rate 5 or 6 other topics. Number of dancers working, day of the week, time of day, etc. I don't know if this is going to be used for more review classifications or only as a way to make the reviewer provide more information. I think that I like it.
Comments
last commentMakes clubs easier to review. That's a good thing.
Log in to vote
I had noticed the extra decimal places which caused me to go look at some reviews which showed 3 sub-categories but couldn't see the big picture without actual posting a review.
I can't wait to try it seems like he has captured a number of things I try to work into reviews, but may not always remember. Time to go visit a club other than what has become my regular place.
Log in to vote
I just noticed that I submitted my last review on Apr 26th. When I submitted it, those new questions were not on the format. It looks like founder or one of his editors did it for me. They answered like I would have, so I have no complaints. This must have been done yesterday, sometime.
Log in to vote
It was yesterday, and I might've been the first to post under the new format. Started writing a review and by the time it was finished there were new rating options. Looks like the older reviews just had the original rating all the way across.
Yeah, I write slow.
Log in to vote
I noticed it yesterday and submitted a review for a club I hadn't done one for. Apparently the total is the sum of the 3 ratings you give but I'm not 100 percent certain yet without looking at it more.
Log in to vote
day of the week plus -plus day or night designation is a very important factor and I am glad they added that. I always wondered why reviewers left that out before.
Log in to vote
I really like the new formatting. There are some guys who only visit their favorite clubs at their weekend evening peak; while there may be some reviewers who visit during the early evening hours as a departure from rush hour traffic or to delay their "honey-dos."
The number of dancers present and the hours visited is helpful to those who may not want to sit in a huge Gentlemen's Club on a weeknight with only 5 dancers and 12 customers present. However, if intimacy is whet you seek and you don't want to compete with the bachelor/birthday party groups on Saturday night; you can make up your mind after reading several reviews.
Log in to vote
I like it because clubs can be awful even with the hottest dancers, and clubs can be great even if some of the dancers are less than perfect. It gives a more rounded evaluation.
Log in to vote
I am very impressed with the new questions. I think that I was the first reviewer to categorize my ratings in the body of the text, and probably the only one to use value as a category. When traveling, the changes will help us choose clubs where our money will go further. Ultimately this will be reward the clubs that don't try to rip us off.
Extending the average rating to the 100th column is perhaps unnecessary, but I like that it at least goes beyond whole numbers. Sometimes I want to indicate that my rating is a high 7 vs. a low 7.
Log in to vote
I think we'd be better off with an overall rating of 1 to 5 if the site defined exactly what was meant by each, eg. 5 - one of the best, can't wait to go again, would go a long way out of my way to visit again; 4 - above average but not one of the best, would visit again if in the area; 3 - pretty average club, might visit again if in the area but wouldn't go out of my way to do so; 2 - below average, wouldn't visit again unless I was nearby and really dying for a club visit and there was nothing else around; 1 - terrible club, wouldn't visit again under any circumstances. And by definition there should be more 3s than anything else.
The problem with the current system of 1 to 10 is the numbers mean different things to different people so are meaningless. Can anyone explain the difference between a 3 and a 4 rated club? I don't think I've ever used a 4. Or a 6 either for that matter. To me all clubs are a 1, 3, 5, 7-8 (and I don't know what the difference is but it probably has more to do with my mood that with the club), or 9. I've never found a perfect club (actually I did once but that was before I knew about ratings and it no longer exists) so I've never given a 10. Adding decimal places only makes things worse IMO.
Log in to vote
FONDL has a good idea there, he makes some valid points. what do you guys think? 1 to 5 instead of 1 - 10?
Log in to vote
Not sure that taking away detail would really help. It just means clubs would bunch together more than they do right now in the ratings. Is there variation in the way that reviewers rate? Sure.
Depending on the town there are certain reviewers over time I look for and have the gist of how they rate so that's how I bin things for my own use. In general, though, when I am heading to a new town I'm typically not interested if a club doesn't have an overall rating in the upper portion on the 10 point scale. If none of those are in the mix then I'll jump to other factors. With a lot of folks here likely brought up in the US school system there's a good chance the 7 and up being a "passing" grade is something a lot of people use as a rule of thumb.
Also, my last review for a club in Jersey turned out better IMO because I could split the rating to reflect where I thought the place was lacking.
Log in to vote
I don't like the idea. Not enough room for interpretation. Can you imagine a sporting event such as gymnastics or diving going from a 10 point system down to a five? And if you did this, how many more decimals would be used?
Log in to vote