There really needs to be a way to stop the rubber-stamp review approvers who know nothing about the club they're adjudicating. I have very little knowledge of IT or what it takes to make website changes, but @founder is always working on it, so maybe he can find a way to get rid of these assholes.
Here’s an example of what I mean. tuscl.net See my comment at the bottom. Dude has clearly never been there before. But he's not the problem, it's the adjudicators. What else are you there for except to authenticate the experience that's being reported?
I don’t know what the answer is, but maybe there should be a “top 10 list” of adjudicators; how many they’ve approved vs. rejected, and how many of their own reviews have been approved and published. Put that into some statistical model and then have a tolerance factor. This whole website is based on free speech, but this isn’t about that. It’s about checks and balances on the Judiciary committee, which means the fucking retards who approve everything they see.
Okay, I’m a little high. But still, a valid point I think. Maybe it’s as simple as members taking more pride in themselves?
We do important work here, and we can be so much better than this.
Raise the bar, assholes.
Replies (28)Latest
Whew! Glad I wasn't one of the approvers... 😏
However, @misterorange brings up a good point about adjudicating clubs we've not been to. Aside from Atlanta, Florida, California, Michigan, and New Jersey, I often can't judge a club review from direct experience. I instead rely on inclusion of key bits of information - vibe, patrons, dancers, prices, and actual experiences. But aside from some well-known details (like Baby Dolls Dallas has seven stages), I wouldn't readily know if a review is factually correct for a club I never visited.
Not sure how to combat that. Only adjudicate clubs we've actually been to?
So when I read the review I didn't really see a problem. Not necessarily my style but it included at least the minimally required level of detail and some actionable intel. Then I read misterorange's BS alert indicating that the detail and intel was all BS.
Personally, I usually won't adjudicate a review on a club I'm unfamiliar with, unless it's a downvote because it is deficient on its face. If I know the club and the reviewer has a different perspective than me, I'll still upvote it. If it's factually inaccurate to the point it's clear reviewer has never been there, I downvote.
If, as Misterorange says here, adjudicators let a complete BS review slip through, then the answer is to do exactly what Misterorange did and call it out. Presumably, if this is a popular club, others will do the same.
As far as consequences for the malefactors, rather than developing some algorithm, maybe just keep an eye out for repeat offenses, then publicly call the reviewer out for the repeat offenses, and alert Founder
@Manuellabore It's so bad with these auto-approvers that the guy in my example above claims to have first "mistakenly" submitted his review for the wrong club, and even that got approved. He even mentions a supposed conversation at the NJ club. The girl lives in NYC and he questions why she doesn't dance there, but this mistaken club is in Key West. I don't think the approvers even read the review. Then he resubmitted it for the "right" club (the one I called bullshit) and that also got approved. So he got the same review approved twice for two different clubs, and neither one is accurate.
Too many members can't seem to tell the difference between a real Review, and a buddy tweet. What part of founder guidelines "write for a first-time visitor" do these people not understand?
If only people that have been to a particular club can approve it(or even reject it) it would take forever for reviews to get adjudicated. Maybe 2 adjudicators that have reviewed the club can override the approval of a review if they suspect a reviewer didnt visit the club in question. For example op and another person(thats been to the club in question) could flag the alleged false review(even after the fact) and overturn the decision, if they see fit.
Years back, I'd gotten myself way too upset about some posters here. I started to get into it via PM with the Founder, and then had an epiphany: Why should I care more about this site than the founder, who, in his actions (or lack thereof), encouraged shit posting, fraudulent reviews, sock puppets and retards galore? Once I realized this, I stopped caring about all the noise and now just come for the Phoenix area reviews and nothing else.
I admit, I will sometimes approve a review on a club I've never been to. But I base it on the believability of what I read and the information contained. If it seems real and it is a well written review... i'll approve it. But if it's lacking and just seems to be totally bullshit, I'll downvote it. I'm sure I've made some mistakes in judgment, but that's why it takes a certain number of votes to upvote it.
What about the opposite? The adjudicatirs who shoot down reviews because of -a missing punctuation mark -no mention of the toilet paper brand in n the men's room -do they serve Pepsi or Coke Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
All of our profiles includes a list of clubs we've reviewed. That can be a cross-reference for any new reviews (that or even if the adjudicator and the clubs are in the same geographic area). If these match up, the adjudicator's vote could be considered valid.
Another thing to consider is the reviewer: just how many reviews has he done? If he's someone like Muddy or Sinclair, two guys who seem to have hit just about every club in the Western hemisphere, they could have more pull adjudicating, even if they haven't been in that specific club largely because they're probably more familiar with the area than many of us. On the flip side, someone who's fairly new to the site shouldn't be able to adjudicate, at least not until he has more experience and more reviews under his belt.
Founder should change DickyDoo2"s name to ApprovesAnything. It keeps the alliteration
At my suggestion Founder once changed the bar to approve reviews from 4-3 to 5-2. That made it a little harder to get approved, but should be no issue for a good review. On one of the forum refreshes, it went back to 4-3. I’ve mentioned it a couple of times, but founder has left it alone. The good thing about changing the bar is that it doesn’t rely on anything other than math and preserves the crowd sourcing nature of the approval process.
A review should be automatically rejected as bullshit any time the reviewer claims to have spent $$$ in the club, but is vague as to how that money was actually spent. Here are some typical examples I've seen in reviews. The reviewer states, "I don't remember what the cover was" or "I got a beer and it was reasonably priced for a strip club" or "I got some dances from a blonde spinner and gave her $100." There are no details because the reviewer was never at the club and the review is bullshit.
@WiseToo Or, as often occurs in my case, I was high as fuck and didn't pay attention top the exact price for a vodka tonic, didn't pay attention to the amount of the cover, etc. My prime mission for a visit is to have fun, not to be a journalistic. I've published plenty of reviews that lack some of the details mentioned. Adjudicators thought they contained enough substantive info, and I agree. Adjudicators can "automatically" reject for any reason they want, but I don't agree that failure to mention precise dollar amounts (or dollar amounts at all) should be an automatic disqualifier
Not mentioned above but to me it's just as important, shill reviews written by management, a dancer, etc. AKA club ad.
@440viking Where's desertscrub when you need him?
@misterorange Personally I don't need that dipshit around. Not because of but he actually called a critical review I did of a club a club ad so he seemed to randomly just throw that term out. But the term does apply to actual shill reviews.
@440viking That was a joke. He called everything a club add! Lol
Funny, I just now downvoted a review for Purple Orchid in PHL which had a couple specific facts which were either wrong outright or don't fit the club, and no facts which would uniquely suggest the reviewer had ever been there. Place has some unique attributes, at least some of which get mentioned in every substantive review.
This review was otherwise bare bones, if that, so I had no qualms about downvoting it. Almost hope it gets published anyway, so others can dunk on it and the reviewers who upvoted it
I know the best solution. No more free membership! There should be a required annual fee of $120 to get membership here. Or charge $20 per month. No more free membership to post reviews. There’s too many trolls. When someone does post an honest review, the troll adjudicators reject them. A copy cat review or plagiarism gets approved all of the time. I see it a lot when a troll poster copy someone’s review, and paste it as their own review.
@sarsta You are more than welcome to pay my membership.
@sarsta That could kill the site. My incentive to write reviews is to get access to the info on the site. Why would bother writing reviews if I have to pay anyway. And, if people stop writing reviews, why pay to go on the site? I think most members are conscientious, even if not all reviews are high quality.
@Manuellabore I thought the same thing too. The thing is, this sits gives an incentive to liars copying and pasting someone’s reviews to get free access. This hobby is for money makers. Not the $15 dollar an hour lurkers who don’t have the disposable income to succeed without us. TER is a prime example.
In fact, keep the lurkers out, who only makes 3 club visits a year, and don’t have the disposable income to be a good regular.
“R.I.P. Bottoms Up”
Leave it as is...the,stats on approval and rejection are attached to the member for review. For example minnow is an automatic rejection and the stats refect that....BUT he adds color to the process and this hodge podge of styles and perspectives is what makes TUSCL both unique a and incredibly active. Not only that it enables you to get a good picture of what to expect when you are planning a trip. Look,at the traffic on eccie as opposed to us. Portland has nothing ..now look at our Portland reviews. Night and day. Granted Dallas is well represented on ECCIE.NET with better encounter details. All that being said if it ain't that broke leave it be
I wrote an article, "what makes a good review".
tuscl.net I agree a lot of reviews that I would reject get approved. Several times I've commented "how did this get approved".
But, I don't like any of the suggestions in this thread. I think it's probably better to have some unworthy reviews approved than to have some worthy reviews rejected.
The vast majority of approved reviews are legit. If you know one is bullshit, or if it's under the wrong club listing, you can point it out in the comments section. No need to reinvent the wheel.
We might make a distinction between submitted reviews that fail to contain requisite information (e.g., omitting any description of the dancers, the stage show, and the private dance facilities, costs and mileage) and reviews that include blatantly incorrect information that would be apparent only to the adjudicators who knew something about the club under review. Let's call these "sins of omission" reviews versus "sins of blatantly incorrect" reviews.
Sins of omission can best be remediated with a bit of education (suggesting the need for additional content). Sins of blatantly incorrect content are more intentional and troubling and might merit a "penalty" for the person submitting the misleading review, such as a public list of TUSCL members who have had reviews removed because of falsehoods.
I have been fortunate enough to travel a bit and have been to a few clubs in different parts of the country. I will tend to review only those clubs I have been to before -- and, yes, I do read a lot of reviews that I do not initially adjudicate. I had one experience when I was reading a review of a FL club . . . and recognized it as MY own review. Someone had essentially plagiarized my review of the previous month by cut and pasting. I notified founder and that poster was immediately banned. No telling whether or not "he" created another user name and is still creating bullshit reviews at present.
Join the conversation
Sign in to reply to this discussion.