8 comments

Visit-to-Review Time Gap Limitations

Oct 4, 2024, 5:04 PM

I posted a review yesterday, linked below, that was a summary of my experiences at a club I had been to a few times over the years and one of the adjudicators suggested it ought to be an article instead due to the long time that had passed since my visits (2021~2023 to yesterday).

tuscl.net

I was curious what the consensus was, if any, on how long after a visit that a new review is still valid to submit?

Personally, I really like going back and seeing the development of opinions on a club over time and I certainly use even old info about a club to judge its merit as a destination. I didn't know about TUSCL in those days and I very much enjoy the opportunity to share those experiences, especially when I don't want to keep grinding VIP on the same club that I have regular access to nowadays. I have a number of other club visits spanning from 2019 to 2023 that I would love to share but I want to make sure I do it in the best way.

Also, if it was an article instead, I feel like that would fracture that info from the club's Review timeline and I feel like my review was still very much written following the spirit of the guidelines (specifics of cost, dances, environment of THAT club) as opposed to an article which makes more sense to me for more club-agnostic topics.

The review was still approved (as so much other tripe on this beautiful site also is) so this is already so much overkill but I am genuinely curious of the community's opinion on this.

comments (8)

gStephlast year

Read it. Agree that it's from too long ago to be a relevant review.

Ok as a story though, if posted as a discussion about that club.

groundballlast year

I'd say anything older than a month is too old to turn into a review

blahblahblahslast year

I'll play devil's advocate here. This is an out of date review of a club that only has four other reviews in the last two years. It discusses differing experiences with different shifts, warns about food safety, describes privacy levels, and at least covers what the dancer line ups where when written.

Is this review really adding less value than yet another "I went to the pink palace, danced with XYZ, it took three songs and there was no tip" or "here is a list of dancers at Desire that is too long to memorize" or "I went to baby dolls, some latina a built a chair fort and I had a nice visit" review? BTW, all of the above examples are PLs trying to add value and insight, but the a single review of a poorly covered club is in a lot of ways more valuable due to the novelty of its information.

MajoraCreamlast year

@blahblahblahs Happy to be the Devil in this instance, that was exactly the line of thinking I had when writing the review.

@Puddy appreciate you telling it straight even though you approved the review lol

If these sorts of older, story-focused reviews belong in Discussions, I won't rock the boat, but I see the free VIP system as fundamental to the site's ecosystem: you make content to see content. It feels unfair to be generating content that people want to read and not get the access I need so I can engage with the main content the community creates (and plan an ill-fated trip to the St. James, I promise there will be pristine review from that).

blahblahblahslast year

Off topic, but if only we could edit our posts for grammar.

Hank Moodylast year

When up/down voting a review I always try to default to “does the review add anything to my knowledge about the place?” Part of that calculation however is whether the review is accurate. There’s no way to tell if your review is accurate because we don’t know if the club is still run the same way, the dancer quality is the same, pricing is the same, etc. Your experience is so old there’s just no way to tell. This is why I primarily adjudicate reviews of clubs I’ve been to or know about. If someone writes a review and it’s out dated if I approve I might leave a correction in the comments. If it’s out of date and adds nothing, I’ll just downvote.

Btw, if you submit an approved article you get the same 4 weeks of vip. I think you were suggested to put in the club forum for which you would not get the free 4 weeks.

Dolfanlast year

I probably would have rejected it and told you to post it as a discussion or article.

I'm all for a sliding scale, being pretty damn lax about approving reviews for clubs that don't get a lot of reviews. That said, a review of a club that's more than a year old isn't worth very much in any circumstances.

Sure, I hear the argument that it adds as much value as the 19th review of a popular club saying the same thing, but I don't agree. A club with a lot of similar reviews provides value in that the reader can be highly confident that the content is accurate and typical of visits. A review of a club that is from more than a year old doesn't tell me much about what the club is like today, it tells me what it was like a year ago. That may or may not be accurate now. And it pushes down the most recent review, which likely has more up to date information. It makes me less confident about what the club is like.

Is it a big deal? Fuck no. Do I feel like the posted cheated to get free VIP, not really. I probably would have approved it as a story-time style article which would have given him the same credit. And it's not like the VIP credit comes out of my pocket anyway.

But in the spirit of answering the question, I don't think reviews more than a few months old are valid. As a rule of thumb, the only time I'd approve a review from a visit more than 3 months ago would be if the club hadn't had a review in longer than that time. You could probably extend that out to 6 months. After that, the review has zero value to me whatsoever.

ilbbaicnllast year

The more recent the review, the greater the value. Lower value reviews should be allowed for clubs that don't have better reviews, not allowed otherwise.