TUSCL's New 3-Part Ratings

Welcome back, Chandler!! To answer your ??, Yes and No.
Yes, I think it confuses issue a bit. No, I don't think that it provides that much more insight.Yes, I still read between the lines to find out what I'd really like to know (after ranking city clubs on a numerical point scale).

However, I like newer system in a way, because it allows for fractional grades which can further refine ratings & choices. What I'd do to a club that I think is better than a 7, but not quite an 8, would be to downgrade 1 of 3 factors that bug me the most. For example, if club B has equal mileage & dancers to club A, but higher prices, I'd downgrade value grade. If club B equal, but has less attractive dancers, I'd downgrade that. If club B equal, except for uncomfortable lapdance chairs, or lousy ventilation system, I'll tweak the grades appropriately.
As for yes/no answers- for some people, smoking vs non-smoking & other factors may be an issue, or a determining factor for choosing 1 club over another.// Good thread,btw.

I prefer to read what is said about a club. The numbers, well, they mean little to me. I figure if one is willing to take the time to type, then their thoughts mean more than a numeral.

My question was whether the new rating system is an improvement over the old one, not whether numbers are better than words. I agree that reviews tell more about a club. In fact, my main problem with the new system is that it calls too much attention to individual ratings.

Thanks, Minnow. I could have guessed you'd take an interest in the topic. And that you and I wouldn't see eye to eye on the usefulness of fractional grading.

chandler,

I thought you would have understood, by my explanation, that the new system is not an improvement.

I like the three part numerical rating, but I am a numbers guy anyway. I rate the CLUB on physical appearance and staff attitude, the Dancers on looks and attitude, and the VALUE rating for the dances. An air dance has little value, but as the contact increases, the better the value IMHO. If we all used a similar system, then the three part rating would be a good supplement to the words.

The three-part ratings confuse me. I tried to deliver a review recently, but couldn't get my desired "overall" to fit the automated "averages" and got all addled. Eventually I just let the computer handle it, but I wasn't happy with the result. Doesn't look like what I wanted to say about the club.

Book Guy - you got it right. A couple of times I have made a half-hearted attempt to differentiate between the three components. But afterwards I felt it was a waste of my very limited brain power. So now I am inclined to decide on an overall number based on my overall experience. And just enter that number three times.

I do think the concept of "Value" is what it is all about. And "Value" certainly is not the same as "Low Cost". It is the total combination of many things, including your own expectations. You get more VALUE for the same dollar spent, if your expectations are lower. That may sound like a paradox but it's true. Example: the first time I went to Vic's in Irvington, I had to give it a TEN. I didn't spend a lot of money, and I sure didn't expect to get the great service that I got. Now that I know what it is like there, I think it would be tough to give it a TEN. I would go in EXPECTING to get what I got, and when I got it I would say "well that is nice, but I'm not blown out of my mind". So I would probably give it a SEVEN if I went back again and got the same service. These numbers carry a lot of subjectivity. The best example was a guy named Kyle1111. I really didn't approve of his method of rating. He would say things like, -- I gave this club a "1" but I could have given it a "10". -- Definitely not useful. My point in citing Kyle1111's approach to rating is just to gently poke fun at Founder's attempt to improve things by giving us more parameters to rate on, when we can't even agree on using a single parameter. I really think it is a waste of time but on the other hand I really appreciate Founder's overall approach to this site and if it pleases him, it is definitely OK with me. (Founder, have you considered a training program for reviewers so we would all understand all the parameters and would become MUCH MUCH more objective and informative to the information-hungry public????) Keep up the good work, Founder, I mean it when I say you are doing a GREAT job -- one-part ratings or three-part ratings. Really makes no difference.

I agree that the more we're asked to break down our ratings, the more confusion and disagreement will result. Views on what the ratings represent are as subjective as opinions about the clubs are.

thought I'd chime in here...

when we get enough reviews with the 3 ratings, we will be able to see how clubs rate in the different aspects. So if you need to entertain clients, you can search for clubs with high club ratings, if you are short on cash, search for value ratings... it will take some time to get to that point though.

thanks for the reviews!

I'm still up in the air ... does "Value" mean "value for the money," or does it mean "Low cost"? Etc. Some explanations would be in order. Maybe the word (right next to the scrolling number menu) on the submit-review page would have a link that explains what is desired?

BG,

"Value", "extras", and most any rating is so subjective, it really doesn't help all that much. Better to get a feel (NPI) about a club from the reviews.

Club, Dancer, Value -- what exactly are we supposed to evaluate with those three criteria?