Goat and Tricyle III

[trainman]

Rather frustrating not being able to simply 'reply' to 2 other comments (restricted thread area??) but, despite not being pro-underage pubs, I definitely think the poster has a valid gripe about being taken to task when a 17 yr-old lad, with his father, was asked to leave despite drinking coke.
Sorry Quinno, I think the message has a valid place as a 'review'.

[NickDavies]

Rather frustrating not being able to simply 'reply' to 2 other comments (restricted thread area??) but, despite not being pro-underage pubs, I definitely think the poster has a valid gripe about being taken to task when a 17 yr-old lad, with his father, was asked to leave despite drinking coke.
Sorry Quinno, I think the message has a valid place as a 'review'.

I don't. If he's got a complaint about the pub, he should complain to the pub, not throw stones at its windows and run away.

[Aqualung]

Rather frustrating not being able to simply 'reply' to 2 other comments (restricted thread area??) but, despite not being pro-underage pubs, I definitely think the poster has a valid gripe about being taken to task when a 17 yr-old lad, with his father, was asked to leave despite drinking coke.
Sorry Quinno, I think the message has a valid place as a 'review'.

I agree with that totally. I think far too many posts have been removed and it does nothing to encourage new people posting. I seriously think that PUG has become a genuine rival to BITE as opposed to just a drinking club. It is in a position to take over from them if it hasn't already done so and I suspect it has in terms of new reviews.
This has been greatly assisted by the spamming and trolling over there.
More tolerance with reviews should be encouraged, obviously suggesting the previous reviewers should die of EBOLA is a no-no but is a post about just food quality really such a big problem? Why should slagging off rubbish food be treated differently to slagging rubbish beer, or even complaining about Autumn leaves not being swept away in an outside toilet or lighted candles?

[sheffield hatter]

The trouble with first-time "reviews" about things like rubbish food, children being unwelcome or even leaves in toilets, is that no one can tell how veracious the poster is. How do we know they are not just slagging off the pub for no good reason?

Regular contributors to the site, on the other hand, are entitled to have the occasional moan about poor beer quality or bored serving staff, because we've read their other reviews praising good beer and good service, so we know they're not trolls. I'm inclined to think the Goat & Tricycle review should stay, because the customer appears to be telling the truth about kids being unwelcome - it's set out pretty clearly on What Pub, after all.

I agree that in most cases this sort of gripe should be taken up with the management of the pub, but this review does highlight a policy that needs drawing to the attention of the pub's users, or at least to those who might be thinking of taking their kids to the pub.

[Quinno]

Ohh what a storm! Frankly it's a gripe - it's usual to ask at the bar if you're intending to bring in an under-18 (especially in a drinkers pub) where it's not a chain place with a well-known policy so what stopped him I don't know (I suspect he said "keep your head down son, no-one will ask").

To answer Aqualung, I think one-drop reviews with a single issue gripe encourage others to post the same elsewhere. Which is why it should go. I don't want PuG to be the new BITE!

Anyway it's Dave's call, ultimately.

[Aqualung]

The trouble with first-time "reviews" about things like rubbish food, children being unwelcome or even leaves in toilets, is that no one can tell how veracious the poster is. How do we know they are not just slagging off the pub for no good reason?

Regular contributors to the site, on the other hand, are entitled to have the occasional moan about poor beer quality or bored serving staff, because we've read their other reviews praising good beer and good service, so we know they're not trolls. I'm inclined to think the Goat & Tricycle review should stay, because the customer appears to be telling the truth about kids being unwelcome - it's set out pretty clearly on What Pub, after all.

I agree that in most cases this sort of gripe should be taken up with the management of the pub, but this review does highlight a policy that needs drawing to the attention of the pub's users, or at least to those who might be thinking of taking their kids to the pub.

Very fair comments but do some of these posts not get slapped down too quckly?
I also thought the post in question was fair and made in good faith.
Do the posters of removed reviews get informed of what has happened and the reasons?

[Mobyduck]

Very fair comments but do some of these posts not get slapped down too quickly?
I also thought the post in question was fair and made in good faith.
Do the posters of removed reviews get informed of what has happened and the reasons?
Yes fair comments on both sides of the argument, well summed up by S.F. Aqua has a point on the quick removal of posts,(maybe a 24 hour cooling period) while commendable from an administrative point of view,if this had been instantly smitten from the site ,we wouldn't have been able to debate it between ourselves now.Certainly agree with Quinno ,we don't want to turn in to BITE,on the other side of the coin we don't (imo) turn into an elitist site just for the chosen few.
The pub in question (http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/22/2263/Goat_and_Tricycle/Bournemouth) seems to have escaped any troll action or gripes, on the other side, at least recently.
Anyway as Quinno states, its Daves shout at the end of the day.

[sheffield hatter]

...do some of these posts not get slapped down too quickly?

Do the posters of removed reviews get informed of what has happened and the reasons?

If a post is defamatory it needs to be removed as soon as possible to avoid the possibility of legal action that could result in the site closing down!

My understanding is that the poster of the review is sent an email telling them their post has been deleted and why.

[Aqualung]

If a post is defamatory it needs to be removed as soon as possible to avoid the possibility of legal action that could result in the site closing down!
I don't think anyone would disagree with that and in my opinion posts of that nature being deleted don't even warrant an explanation. Yesterday an idiot on the Dark Side posted stuff about the pub football team ruling the pub and how he hoped a couple of posters who had the nerve to take exception to this died of Ebola.




My understanding is that the poster of the review is sent an email telling them their post has been deleted and why.

Good! Most so called food rants are by women and it would be nice to think they might at some point contribute about other pubs but with a more general slant.

[bcfczuluarmy]

I was finishing http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/areas/corsham-town/wiltshire/ off on Saturday and in The Great Western (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/41513/) I spotted out the window a tribe of mothers with children arriving to which a women who was in with to watch the rugby up on their entry complete with shopping, toy trikes and general noise started a tirade about kids in pubs to which the landlord was in total agreement on his way from the kitchen back to the bar to serve them. However in these times I can't see how landlords can turn the money down on the whole.

If I had updated the comment against children friendly as Yes but the disgruntled landlord would rather they weren't, would that be reported?

I would generally take a bad review with a pinch of salt if I stumbled on one as I would go in it regardless.

[Pubsignman]

I was in the Goat and Tricycle on 1st November and I'm fairly sure I remember seeing a sign, either in the doorway or on a blackboard near the bar, stating that under 18's are not allowed in the pub. In all the years I've been drinking in there, I can't ever recall seeing kids in there.

Generally speaking, I would've thought a pub with such a policy might exercise a bit of discretion if a 17 year old wanted to drink a Coke in the company of his/her father. The fact that such discretion isn't applied means that the review has some merit in my opinion, even if it is presented in 'rant' format.

[NickDavies]

I was in the Goat and Tricycle on 1st November and I'm fairly sure I remember seeing a sign, either in the doorway or on a blackboard near the bar, stating that under 18's are not allowed in the pub. In all the years I've been drinking in there, I can't ever recall seeing kids in there.

Generally speaking, I would've thought a pub with such a policy might exercise a bit of discretion if a 17 year old wanted to drink a Coke in the company of his/her father. The fact that such discretion isn't applied means that the review has some merit in my opinion, even if it is presented in 'rant' format.

Given where it is I wouldn't be at all surprised if their premises licence has an over 18s rule in it, and the threat of a ton of bricks if they get caught out. I'm only speculating but how was the guvnor to know they weren't 'mystery shoppers'? It's the sort of thing councils do in busy town centres.

[hondo]

"bad review left on any website, the group organiser will be "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30100973

update
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525

[Farway]

I agree with that totally. I think far too many posts have been removed and it does nothing to encourage new people posting. I seriously think that PUG has become a genuine rival to BITE as opposed to just a drinking club. It is in a position to take over from them if it hasn't already done so and I suspect it has in terms of new reviews.
This has been greatly assisted by the spamming and trolling over there.
More tolerance with reviews should be encouraged, obviously suggesting the previous reviewers should die of EBOLA is a no-no but is a post about just food quality really such a big problem? Why should slagging off rubbish food be treated differently to slagging rubbish beer, or even complaining about Autumn leaves not being swept away in an outside toilet or lighted candles?

My views exactly, it is pub site, and comments about pubs that serve crap food, surly staff etc should remain to be listed, not removed just because the newbie poster did not mention the beer, or the interior design / layout

I view this site as a guide, and a gives me, and others, a clue if a pub is worth going to for a meal, can I park, can I take a dog, is it over run with kids etc?

[Strongers]

My views exactly, it is pub site, and comments about pubs that serve crap food, surly staff etc should remain to be listed, not removed just because the newbie poster did not mention the beer, or the interior design / layout

I view this site as a guide, and a gives me, and others, a clue if a pub is worth going to for a meal, can I park, can I take a dog, is it over run with kids etc?

I agree with you that it is important to have varied views from different sections of society who value different things. It is highly likely that a pub with excellent beer may not be very child friendly and may have a food menu that is far too basic for some. So yes, I think some reviews with relevant content are unfairly removed.

That said, I think that the comments of one stop moaners carry no weight. Have they only ever been to the one pub where they have received less than satisfactory service? Did the pub really have no redeeming features? Was the landlord really the rudest man on earth or are they a little too sensitive? We don’t know because they’ve only posted one (negative) review.

Maybe the posters should be given the benefit of doubt. When one of these comments is posted could the author not be sent a standard email asking them to make a positive review about a pub so that we can get an idea of what they actually like? If this email is ignored, for maybe 3 days, their post could then be deleted because it would seem that the poster was just looking for an outlet to have a rant.

I would hate to think that we are deleting the comments of genuine people who may go away thinking that we are stuck up beer aficionados.

[trainman]

I imagine posters may be more inclined to be a first-time poster of a negative experience than a positive one - bad news travels fast - and I agree that a one-off 'rant' may not be fair representation but, in the case we are talking of, I thought the comment was restrained, rather than ranting. Both sides of the argument hold water, but I was tired of those fence splinters in me derriere.

Stuck up beer aficionados? I represent that remark! :p not really....

[ETA]

Right that's it...

The only way to settle this is to go there and have a beer.

I shall review tomorrow.

[Mobyduck]

Right that's it...

The only way to settle this is to go there and have a beer.

I shall review tomorrow.
Don't forget your ID. :D

[ETA]

It's ok, I got away with this time.