Review Details

The point is that a prospective customer only has to read your review.

It helps to show you were at least in the building if you don't have a VIP w/TUSCL.

Having a description of a club is helpful for a single read. I usually don’t have VIP so it helps… and SRLV is a good example. Even though I’ve been there many times before the remodel / expansion,I haven’t been there since.

I describe layout on my initial review of a club then just any changes to it thereafter.

I will usually read more than the last review to get a feel how different reviewers view the club. I do not mind the repetition since I know not everyone does what I do and instead just reads the most recent review. I do like it very much when someone throws something different or entertaining into a review too.

You can always write a comment on a previous review, instead of a new review. Indicate anything/one that' s changed, or was omitted.

Repeating the basics gets tiresome, but for unfamiliar clubs going back through review to find a decent description is also irritating.

It would be nice if each club listing had a wiki-like ability to just edit a basic description (layout , parking, cover, etc). Then everyone reviewing it could update that as necessary but not have to rewrite it. The body of the review could then just be a review of the more interesting and variable aspects of the club.

This is an example where self-plagiarism is acceptable. Rather than write an entirely new description of the club, I'll often say "As I described in a previous review of this club" and then copy and paste from a prior review that I wrote. I also use this strategy to update club descriptions. I never copy anything that I didn't write myself. In that way, each review stands by itself as a complete review.

Not really necessary. If I’m going to a new to me club I’m reading several reviews to get an idea of the place first anyway. Besides, I’m running out of ways to describe just how pink the Geriatric Handy Factory is or how disgusting the men’s room is at DDTR.

Ah GHF the memories....

This situation is due to a minor but fundamental design flaw in the TUSCL database (normalization). The club name, address, hours, etc., are attributes of the club itself, so they seem to be in the clubs table, listed only in one place, as they should be. However, the physical description is also an attribute of the club. It is not an attribute of the club_review. It should really be a field in the clubs table, shown on the club page and edited the same way as club_name or club_hours. Instead we have been putting this information in the club_reviews table, where we need to repeat it because there are (usually) many reviews to one club. Also, club_layout doesn't even get it's own separate data field, as review_text is doing double duty (violates First Normal Form).

The physical layout of a club simply isn't important. I throw in physical details when they seem worth while: e.g a rural club that has monkey bars in addition to the stripper poll, a club that has notably better or worse furniture for private dances than the other 5 clubs with walking distance. Perhaps a club that has 7 small stages instead of the traditional setup.

When I reviewed Scarlett's in Denver I pointed out how they went out of their way to make it uncomfortable for customers by reserving all the tables in an empty club.

People describe Desire in detail, but the only things of value in the layout are (1) knowledge of the upstairs members only club and (2) where the dancers who are hoping to be approached wait (by the DJ).

I usually read a few of the most recent reviews so I can have an idea of what to expect.

And I don't mind the description of the club's layout. If it's a club that I'm well familiar with and see some glaring inconsistencies, then I can question the validity of the review.

Yes because no one wants to read a review from 5 years ago to get that info