TUSCL's New 3-Part Ratings
chandler
Blue Ridge Foothills
Forgive me if this has already been gone over here. What do you think of the new rating system? Do you find a useful distinction between the three categories? Do you think fractional ratings improve on the old 10-point scale?
I don't see an improvement. A club rating is what I've always thought we were giving, so why is it now only one of three ratings? Aren't the dancers a more important consideration than indicated by excluding them from two-thirds of a rating? And value is nice, but what good are low prices if the girls and the dances aren't good?
I've posted 3 or 4 reviews since the change. I've just given the same rating for each category. I like the look and the clarity of round numbers. Although I don't focus much on individual ratings, the columns of fractions are harder to visually scan and geeky looking. The same goes for all the new Yes/No fields in the club info section. Helpful info gets buried amid all the undifferentiated mass of unused fields.
I don't mean to knock Founder too much for trying to improve the site. However, I feel the reviews and ratings have always been the strength of TUSCL the way they were, and not something that needed fixing.
I don't see an improvement. A club rating is what I've always thought we were giving, so why is it now only one of three ratings? Aren't the dancers a more important consideration than indicated by excluding them from two-thirds of a rating? And value is nice, but what good are low prices if the girls and the dances aren't good?
I've posted 3 or 4 reviews since the change. I've just given the same rating for each category. I like the look and the clarity of round numbers. Although I don't focus much on individual ratings, the columns of fractions are harder to visually scan and geeky looking. The same goes for all the new Yes/No fields in the club info section. Helpful info gets buried amid all the undifferentiated mass of unused fields.
I don't mean to knock Founder too much for trying to improve the site. However, I feel the reviews and ratings have always been the strength of TUSCL the way they were, and not something that needed fixing.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
12 comments
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.
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.
I thought you would have understood, by my explanation, that the new system is not an improvement.
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.
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!
"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.