To rate or not to rate that is the question

[Mobyduck]

Why do some reviewers feel the need to rate a pub ?/10 and some don't feel its important at all? I personally do ,its a quick at a glance reference to me as to where a pub stands in relation to another if planning a crawl somewhere, of course 7/10 to me may mean something else to someone else, to me 5/10 = average that or below I wouldn't bother again, 6/10 only if passing, 7/10-8/10 = a definite visit is in order, 9/10 = an elite pub always on the list , and 10/10 = greatest pub in the world,only one pub has ever got this score from me - this site or elsewhere ,The Harp (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/53779/), but thats just me.
I just wonder why some choose to rate and some don't.
I like to rate.

[gillhalfpint]

I always rate a pub, but notice some don't.

I would imagine that brings the average down. Is the average the total of all rated scores divided by the number of reviews, which would bring the average way down if there are a lot of unrated reviews. If one person rates 10 and another 9 give no rating it would matter very much if it is 10 divided by 10 reviews or 10 divided by the number of rated reviews.

[Mobyduck]

I always rate a pub, but notice some don't.

I would imagine that brings the average down. Is the average the total of all rated scores divided by the number of reviews, which would bring the average way down if there are a lot of unrated reviews. If one person rates 10 and another 9 give no rating it would matter very much if it is 10 divided by 10 reviews or 10 divided by the number of rated reviews.
I think it should be divided by the rated reviews, of course a pubs online rating means nothing to some ,but going back before my PUG days and before reviewing anywhere I found the rating system useful when planning a crawl , back then it would have been on BITE and I would generally only look at pubs with an average of 6 or more,(wrongly or rightly), of course you needed to read between the lines even back then , but you soon knew which reviewers were the real deal or not , in my case back then if Rex Rattus or John Bonser for example, gave it the thumbs up you knew it was worth a look , but the rating gave you a starting point to look at a pub and check out who does ,or not like it. So on that basis I am pro-rating.

[Aqualung]

I am pro-rating.

So am I but I do appreciate that it can be controversial.

[london calling]

I have tried to teach my children to have an opinion and not to sit on the fence.The meek will not inherit the earth.Publish and be damned.
So that's a yes to ratings for me.

[Strongers]

I have tried to teach my children to have an opinion and not to sit on the fence.The meek will not inherit the earth.Publish and be damned.
So that's a yes to ratings for me.

My youngest (4 years old) gave me a reasonable 7/10 and my eldest (5 years old) gave me a “you are a smelly old man/10”
Mouthy little fecker! I have my favourite!

[ETA]

I do, but I don't take it too seriously.

Sad git that I am, I also keep a record of my ratings and in a fit of mathematic zeal I did a quick and dirty statistical analysis and found, to my amazement that they are almost (but not quite) normally distributed with a mean of 5.6 and a corrected SD of around 1.2.

Before anyone else says it - I need to get out more (although Mrs A would argue I ought to stay in more).

[oldboots]

I just wonder why some choose to rate and some don't..

It's the BITE effect, some of us don't want that kind of trouble, having said that research that CAMRA did for its WhatPub site suggests a rating system is very popular and probably a must have for any pub review site. Incidentally I usually rate a pub's beers on the CAMRA site so I am a touch hypocritical by never rating pubs on PuG.


Is the average the total of all rated scores divided by the number of reviews, which would bring the average way down if there are a lot of unrated reviews. If one person rates 10 and another 9 give no rating it would matter very much if it is 10 divided by 10 reviews or 10 divided by the number of rated reviews.

a good point Gill, I suspect only the ratings given would count not the number of reviews; also what happens about multiple ratings from the same person? I guess the mean average (total of scores divided by number of scores) isn't the necessarily best choice for a rating system, maybe the median (mid-point when scores are lined up in order) would be more useful or even the mode (rating by the highest number of scores).

[AlanH]

It's the BITE effect, some of us don't want that kind of trouble, having said that research that CAMRA did for its WhatPub site suggests a rating system is very popular and probably a must have for any pub review site. Incidentally I usually rate a pub's beers on the CAMRA site so I am a touch hypocritical by never rating pubs on PuG.



a good point Gill, I suspect only the ratings given would count not the number of reviews; also what happens about multiple ratings from the same person? I guess the mean average (total of scores divided by number of scores) isn't the necessarily best choice for a rating system, maybe the median (mid-point when scores are lined up in order) would be more useful or even the mode (rating by the highest number of scores).

I have spotted that when I re-rate a pub with a separate review, only my latest score counts. This stops any danger of multiple reviews by one person giving a pub a false high (or low) score. If a person doesn't rate, I believe this is disregarded and doesn't bring the score down.

[NickDavies]

I'm glad that it it hasn't developed here into a silly league table game as it has elsewhere. All that seems to do is encourage the playing of silly buggers to elevate 'your' pub to the top. The ratings here are useful as long as a pub has got a few sensible contributions rather just than a couple of 10s from the guvnor and cronies or a couple of zeros from someone who didn't enjoy their Brake Brothers Sunday roast.

[Mobyduck]

I'm glad that it it hasn't developed here into a silly league table game as it has elsewhere. All that seems to do is encourage the playing of silly buggers to elevate 'your' pub to the top. The ratings here are useful as long as a pub has got a few sensible contributions rather just than a couple of 10s from the guvnor and cronies or a couple of zeros from someone who didn't enjoy their Brake Brothers Sunday roast.
I don't think that would be the case here ,the main contributors are people with a genuine interest in pubs in general ,not a case of my locals better than your local etc ,plus here Admin actually administers unlike elsewhere,any shenanigans would be spotted and nipped in the bud pretty sharply I would like to think. I am not interested in pub league tables as such but a rating for me puts one pub in context to another to me on a personal level . I also find it interesting to compare my perception of a pub to someone else's particularly if we've been in the pub at the same time as each other as happened last Saturday in Reading on the Pug meet up. Of course a 6/10 rating to me may mean a different standard to someone else. For the record I see it like this -
0-5/10 = from awful to ordinary and wouldn't expect to revisit
6/10 = Decent and worth a pint if passing
7-9/10 = Good to Excellent and worth travelling to
10/10 = Out of this world ,a rare beast indeed

[Soup Dragon]

Funny, i don't use PG to rate - just simply to say what i think. When i go out with my main drinking buddy, we do rate, for fun. We would see a & as a solid pub - we rate the pub and the beer, combine the score - then we have a special way to decide if there is a tie.

[ETA]

. I also find it interesting to compare my perception of a pub to someone else's particularly if we've been in the pub at the same time as each other as happened last Saturday in Reading on the Pug meet up. Of course a 6/10 rating to me may mean a different standard to someone else. For the record I see it like this -
0-5/10 = from awful to ordinary and wouldn't expect to revisit
6/10 = Decent and worth a pint if passing
7-9/10 = Good to Excellent and worth travelling to
10/10 = Out of this world ,a rare beast indeed

I'm pretty much in agreement with Moby on this one, plus you get to know the sort of things the regular contributors go for. So if, for example, I see a 5/10 from David Hunter I know he is a bit more generous than I am so I might not go to that first, while Steve C usually rates about the same, so a 5 from him means I will probably have a reasonable experience.

Of course it's not an exact science, but isn't that part fo the fun?

[Farway]

I like the rating system, and find it useful as a guide when visiting a new area with limited time, why bother going to 3/10 pub when 9/10 is just down the road?

Off course it is all subjective, Sky sports, pool tables may get high or low marks from some, more foodie than pub may get low or high marks

I rate pubs, or at least I did until my password got messed up & can no longer review :mad::mad:

[Al 10000]

I don't think that would be the case here ,the main contributors are people with a genuine interest in pubs in general ,not a case of my locals better than your local etc ,plus here Admin actually administers unlike elsewhere,any shenanigans would be spotted and nipped in the bud pretty sharply I would like to think.

You would be right Moby,i spotted some strange reviews in Castle Donington,Conrad stepped in and deleted all reviews in that town from two so called different reviewers.

Regarding rating pubs i always rate them,i know some on this site probably think i rate them too highly but i enjoy almost any visit to a new pub so my starting point for an open pub is 5 then goes up for real ale and what the pub is like inside,if i like the pub but there is no real ale then i will give it a 6 or 7,if there is a real crap pub and a fight or kids running riot then i will give it a lower score of 3 or 4.
I rarely rate less than 4 because if i have had a drink in a pub it is better than finding a closed pub.

[Rex_Rattus]

I always rate a pub. It's a bit of a habit really, and I don't think it's desperately important but a nice to have. As we don't have a league table there's really no point in anyone trying to inflate, or deflate the average rating. Not that that sort of thing would be tolerated here of course. I Never give a pub less than 2 - it gets 1 for being there and not having been pulled down, and another 1 because someone could be arsed enough to open the doors so that I could go in and buy a (however inadequate) pint of something or other! But everyone to their own, not everyone wants to rate a pub and as others have already said it's what people you trust say about a place (and there's a lot of such people on here) that really counts.

[Wittenden]

I wrote a long piece about why I don't rate, bringing my experiences at the Low House at Laxfield, but the system swallowed it. Suffice it to say that I don't feel qualified to rate on the basis of one (usually) enjoyable visit: I review as I recall my visit, but other people will have other stories.

[Strongers]

1 - A crap hole with rude service or abusive customers that I have left without a beer and with the hump.
2 - A crap hole with rude service or abusive customers where I have had an ill kept beer and left with the hump.
3 – Rude service or abusive customers, but pub itself has potential. Poor beer.
4 – A poor pub, but bearable if it was the only choice. The beer is passable.
5 – Average pub with average beer. Not somewhere I would go out of the way to revisit.
6 – A decent pub with a limited beer selection and a reasonable atmosphere.
7 – A good all-rounder with a decent atmosphere and good beer.
8 – A good all-rounder with a good atmosphere and good beer. An interesting beer selection and very friendly service. A destination pub.
9 – Interesting beer selection perfectly served by very friendly hosts. A friendly group of locals at the bar. A special pub worthy of a hike to visit.
10 – Only a perfect local where ‘everybody knows your name’ could get a 10. I do not have a local at the moment so no 10s.

The inclusion of Sky Sports can add to a pubs score only if it generates a decent atmosphere. I would mark a pub down if the screens were on for no reason.
A dartboard or pool table (that is not the focal point of the pub) will usually give a pub an extra point.
Loud music or pop/hip-hop will lose the pub a point. Loud hip-hop or pop will lose the pub 2 or 3 points.
I always take into account the time of my visit. I will not mark a pub down for lacking atmosphere if I visit on a Monday afternoon when it is empty. I’ll also not mark a pub down too harshly for having loud music if I visit on a Saturday night. I try to always state the time of my visit in my reviews.
I think that my major bugbear is bad service and I will be harsh on a pub where I receive such service. Inversely I will give a decent score to a pub with good service.

This is very general as there are more factors including whether I click with the pub. A little bit of effort by the managers will earn the pub a 7, but it is much more difficult to get an 8 as that denotes a special pub.

[Blackthorn]

I think it's worth rating, although perhaps not quite so much on this site. One thing I always found very useful on the other site was that you could view all the pubs in an area and then see at a glance the average score. Whilst taking on board valid points about false ratings by the landlord or whatever, it was at least a good starting point before doing some more in depth research.

The ones I find very difficult to rate are the type of pubs that generate endless debates about whether they should be included or not. If it is, in reality, more of a cocktail bar or a restaurant, then it might be the case that whilst it's very good at what it does it's not really that pubby, eg; it may have a small, or non-existent selection of draught ales. So should it be rated highly (because it's a good cocktail bar/restaurant) or low becuase it's not very "pubby" and this is a pub review website?

[Aqualung]

The ones I find very difficult to rate are the type of pubs that generate endless debates about whether they should be included or not. If it is, in reality, more of a cocktail bar or a restaurant, then it might be the case that whilst it's very good at what it does it's not really that pubby, eg; it may have a small, or non-existent selection of draught ales. So should it be rated highly (because it's a good cocktail bar/restaurant) or low becuase it's not very "pubby" and this is a pub review website?

Surely the answer is not to rate that sort of place?

[Mobyduck]

I think it's worth rating, although perhaps not quite so much on this site. One thing I always found very useful on the other site was that you could view all the pubs in an area and then see at a glance the average score. Whilst taking on board valid points about false ratings by the landlord or whatever, it was at least a good starting point before doing some more in depth research.

The ones I find very difficult to rate are the type of pubs that generate endless debates about whether they should be included or not. If it is, in reality, more of a cocktail bar or a restaurant, then it might be the case that whilst it's very good at what it does it's not really that pubby, eg; it may have a small, or non-existent selection of draught ales. So should it be rated highly (because it's a good cocktail bar/restaurant) or low becuase it's not very "pubby" and this is a pub review website?


Surely the answer is not to rate that sort of place?
My ratings are based on my experience (enjoyment or not) of the establishment visited , so if I enjoyed my visit to a cocktail bar it would have a higher rating whether it was pubby or not, of course this is an unlikely scenario as I wouldn't be seen anywhere near an unpubby cocktail bar assuming I was of sane mind at the time and,or not totally blind drunk.

[Blackthorn]

My ratings are based on my experience (enjoyment or not) of the establishment visited , so if I enjoyed my visit to a cocktail bar it would have a higher rating whether it was pubby or not, of course this is an unlikely scenario as I wouldn't be seen anywhere near an unpubby cocktail bar assuming I was of sane mind at the time and,or not totally blind drunk.

Good point! But if it's already listed on here I feel obligated to go and review it. And even if it's not, I might get dragged in by Mrs. B. so would then probably add it!

[Lady Grey]

Why do some reviewers feel the need to rate a pub ?/10 and some don't feel its important at all?.

Personally speaking, I tend to rate pubs if I have a little knowledge of them and what they have to offer. I don't think it's fair to rate a pub that you've never been to, only to spend 20 minutes there. I tend to visit some pubs that I'm photographing in the afternoon - when there are not many customers and its quiet. That really dosen't give a true reflection of a pub. Plus, I don't have a good knowledge of real ale (as I'm a cider drinker!)
Sounds daft, I know.

[sheffield hatter]

Personally speaking, I tend to rate pubs if I have a little knowledge of them and what they have to offer. I don't think it's fair to rate a pub that you've never been to, only to spend 20 minutes there. I tend to visit some pubs that I'm photographing in the afternoon - when there are not many customers and its quiet. That really dosen't give a true reflection of a pub. Plus, I don't have a good knowledge of real ale (as I'm a cider drinker!)
Sounds daft, I know.

No, that sounds like a reasonable approach. I must admit that I do always rate, though only if I've had a drink, because I'm more concerned about the availability of real ale and the choice and quality. But each of us has our own reasons for what we do, which is why an average score (whether mean, mode or whatever) is pretty meaningless. Even if all reviewers kept to the same guidelines, it's too easily skewed by someone awarding their own pub a 10 (and getting all their mates to join in) or their rival's pub a 1.