Pet peeves in club reviews

Guys writing "Dear Penthouse" letters and calling them reviews. I don't need a play-by-play review of everything you did with a dancer.

@Electronman, Shhhhh! You'll expose the secret code and LEO will be able to decipher *everything*!

I guess we could use roses.

Anyone who thinks putting a single st*r in a d*ncer's n*me me*ns you can write "yeah, and I fucked her in her pooper" and means you're not outing her.

Or that everyone and their mother doesn't know who Billy Joel and Frank Sinatra are.

Billy and Frank are silly but the $ code thing is the worst. Just put a number. If you believe that LE is reading this site and using the data to go after dancers or clubs or customers there isn't a cop or DA or judge in the world who is going to be fooled by you putting several dollar signs instead of a number. It's asinine.

Yes this is probably my #1 pet peeve. Maybe we should start rejecting if reviewer uses these stupid codes.

My pet peeve and the reason why I stopped writing reviews because founder doesn’t pay attention to what’s being done and allows idiots to weaponize the comment section on the reviews

One big one has to be a gigantic paragraph block. Unreadable nonstarter for me.

Another one is no lineup description. Describe the girls. The absolute most important thing. A lot of guys leave that out, they focus in on one girl and it becomes a diary entry.

People who use codes because they think if they don't, then they are going to get picked up by the local police or internet police because they submitted an after action report on an internet forum for an encounter that may or may not have happened.

#1 is codes, particularly the $$5 or $$.5 or whatever the fuck. Its just fucking stupid. Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel shit every bit as stupid but somehow not quite as annoying.

#2 Excessive or complete lack of paragraphs. Unreadable.

#3 Dear Penthouse style. I'm fine with a story of the visit, but only if its accompanied by or interweaved with useful information about the club.

#4 Lack of details. The girls were hot doesn't tell me shit. If we can learn anything from these Smash or Pass posts, its that tastes vary and some guys are very insecure about their preferences and lash out at any perceived disagreement.

#5 Naming names, if that even counts as a peeve.

Seconded "no lineup description". I just read a review that spent 3 paragraphs describing the Uber and 1 sentence describing 1 dancer. Ridiculous. Also "the girls were hot" or "They were all 6s" is fuckin meaningless/useless.

1) Paragraphs were created centuries ago for a good reason. USE THEM!

2) It's easy to miss "twenty for a dance", instead of $20 for a LD.

3) AI reviews. I've seen less lately. I do test just in case I'm not sure.

4) Spent $500-$1000, then doesn't say how much LDs and VIP cost!!!!!

5) Naming a stripper, or making it obvious what her name is, and detailing what she does that might just get her jammed up or fired. We have no idea how many owners read these reviews. I just assume they do, and I'm careful how much I disclose. I don't want to ruin a great thing.

6) A 2-sentence review is an auto- REJECT. Just read the FAQ URL when you start a review to see what is expected. We don't expect an Ayn Rand novel, however, a few decent paragraphs noteworthy data for a good review is NOT too much to ask for the BEST GLOBAL STRIP CLUB REVIEW SITE in the Milky Way Galaxy now is it!!!

The codes for extras are completely unimportant to me. I want to know the dancers to customers ratio, how hot and approachable they are, what drinks and dances cost, and how the bar service was.

I'm peeved by all forms of encoding, whether it be a mere number to describe a dancers attractiveness, euphemism for LD/VIP activities, and most of all censoring the dollar values for services rendered. The first one is at least justifiable for getting a shorthand on the reviewer's feel for a dancer, but it's embarrassing (and a real liability) to see guys using a dancers name alongside a bunch of acronyms as if it's protecting anyone. And if you won't even say how much you spent for it, why even bother writing the review?

Sad though to see that the overly fluffed, journal-entry style featured in my reviews aren't to the taste of the esteemed TUSCL community. Sharing and vicariously enjoying details of a good (or even bad) LD/VIP experience is a big part of why I still engage with this site but I agree that it ought not get in the way of sharing useful club data.

All the "code" stuff is dumb, and the reviewers who use it usually write lousy reviews anyway. However, that all pales in comparison to reviewers who insist on tying named, or easily identifiable, dancers to specific sexual (and therefore illegal) acts, and the adjudicators who approve those reviews

Echo the no paragraphs, codes and naming extras girls.

Reviews that specify 11-25 dancers and a rating of 7, as an example, and give zero description of the dancers.

Veterans? Newbies? Natural? Enhanced? Ethnicity? In-shape? Flabby? Transactional? Give us something.

I'll echo the other comments about numerical rating dancer looks without other context. I don't know that your tastes align with mine, where you anchor your scale, etc etc.

I take numerical ratings with a grain of salt. If they say everybody is a 5 or below, it tells me something. If they say everybody is an 8 or above, I don’t believe it, but it’s worth checking out

Any review without the number of dancers (no, the drop-down box doesn't count), their general appearance (age, race, build) gets an automatic "no" from me. I'll forgive almost anything else if I have those.

I agree with most of what’s been said already, so let me change it up a bit. Sometimes I get annoyed by the adjudicators and the criteria they use to approve or reject reviews. I won’t name names but some guys need to be a little more thoughtful in their approach.

First, it looks like a few of you must go down the list and just approve anything that appears long enough. Reviews getting approved when they have almost no useful content. Now I’m not one of these sticklers that will reject a submission because it doesn’t check every box. I’m pretty easy in that regard. But there has been some real garbage getting approved lately. And even worse (thankfully this doesn’t happen as often) what reads like a fairly good review is actually some made-up bullshit that would be obvious to anyone who’s been to that club before. I kinda think adjudicators should stick to approving places they know something about. More to come on that.

This also goes the other way. Reviews being rejected for no good reason. Example would be that I see reviews in my home turf of NJ rejected because it doesn’t say whether the stage shows and/or lap dances were topless or nude. Well, in this state, if there’s alcohol served it’s illegal to have anything other than bikini dances. No topless. No nude. No anything. If the adjudicator knew that, he’d understand when the reviewer says, “My rum and coke was $11” and then doesn’t expressly state that the girls kept their tops on. Not to say that shenanigans don’t happen in the VIP (they certainly do) but “officially” topless dancing is a no-go unless it’s a BYOB juice bar.

So, my main point is, an adjudicator should ask himself whether he's really qualified to pass judgment on a review for a particular club or jurisdiction. I know, it takes a majority to approve or reject, but some of what I’ve described is so frequent, it’s almost like every review in NJ starts off with a strike against, or every review that’s at least two paragraphs long gets a free thumbs up. Same adjudicators over and over.

When I skim through the unpublished reviews, I’m first looking at the state the club resides in. If something outside my area catches my eye, I might read it out of curiosity, but I don’t approve reviews for clubs I know nothing about. On the other hand, when I spot a 1 or 2 sentence review that is clearly pure garbage, I’ll reject no matter the location. But outside of that, I’ll leave it up to the locals who know what’s what.

My pet peeve in club reviews is that some clubs never or hardly ever get reviewed while others get reviewed ad nauseam. Take New Jersey, for example. About 170 clubs are listed and about 100+ clubs haven't been reviewed in at least a year to as long as 15+ years. OTOH, Club Desires in Providence seems to get reviewed every week.

An adjudicator needs to have some slack in the criteria used for reviews of infrequently reviewed clubs because some information about a recent visit to the club is better than nothing.

I generally agree with what has been written above. The one peeve I disagree with is about lineups.

I find a line up with a brief general physical description and/or personality description to be entertaining and have even found it useful when going to an out of town / one visit only club. As has been mentioned, a specific dancer’s do’s and dont’s in VIP should not be included.

@WiseToo - "An adjudicator needs to have some slack in the criteria used for reviews of infrequently reviewed clubs because some information about a recent visit to the club is better than nothing."

Totally agree. Go easy on those reviews because there's so little written or it's been a long time so any tidbit of intel is useful. But still, the adjudicator should at least know enough to understand if it's a valid review and not bullshit.