PDA

View Full Version : Egham United Services Club, should we delete?



aleandhearty
23-04-2011, 10:59
Admin note from Conrad: This post has been moved to a new thread from an existing thread


I have no doubt that this is a centre of excellence for beer, but the fact remains it is a private club. A couple of weeks ago The Brookside Social Club (South Elmsall) had its listing deleted for similar entry criteria. (See 'Review???' thread #165 onwards) On the grounds of consistency and fairness I feel the same should be applied here.

Conrad
23-04-2011, 11:25
The posts that a&h refers to are here (http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/showthread.php?4131-Review&p=29617#post29617).

I have to admit I was tempted to remove Egham United Services Club (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/70591/) out of hand it is clearly a members club and as a&h correctly points out that is apparently the criteria for deletion used elsewhere.

However there are a number of members reviews against it, and this site is for the members enjoyment.

Your thoughts are welcomed, but to be clear the fact that it lets CAMRA members in is a brilliant excuse as far as I am concerned to delete it, so any justifications had better be based on a different excuse :evilgrin:.

Farway
23-04-2011, 14:57
I reckon, despite the reviews, it does not meet the "any member of public walk in off the street etc" criteria and thus should go as per A&H suggestion

Al 10000
23-04-2011, 17:59
I agree what Aleandhearty says, you should'nt have to carry books or cards about to gain entry to a drinking establishment

Delboy20
24-04-2011, 10:07
It should be removed - although it seems a decent club it is not open to the general public. I am not a CAMRA member and if I can't call in without meeting certain criteria or paying it has to go !

Quinno
24-04-2011, 11:00
It should only be removed if someone can get back the ten minutes of my life spent writing the review! ;)

Old Blue
24-04-2011, 11:20
I am not, never have been, and probably never will be, a CAMRA member. In fact, I don't even have an anorak. But I don't have a problem with including something that would appear to be an excellent drinking establishment which has been enjoyed by other PuG members. As long as it's possible for that to be done as an exception rather than the rule.

RogerB
24-04-2011, 11:52
I'd never heard of Egham United Services Club and if it were not included anywhere on the site I never would have but as a CAMRA member I would certainly think about visiting if I were in the area and to that end, its continued inclusion has some value. My local club in Dartford has won Club of the Year on numerous occasions and regularly has 15+ ales available but no-one will ever know about it if we don't have some degree of flexibility. There are a couple of pubs within heritage museums that are included on the site and I have no problem with this either. Maybe we should have a separate section somewhere for worthy clubs, venues etc where entry is limited but have sufficient merits or interest to warrant inclusion somewhere within their own pigeonhole.

Alesonly
24-04-2011, 12:00
Ive been in this club a few times but it was a few times during the Beer Festivals held there over the years. Ive not been charged or refused entry I just show my CAMRA gold card on door seems a nice place but it was always packed when we went in.

Conrad
24-04-2011, 14:06
I think Old Blue is probably most in tune with my thinking. The site is there to be enjoyed and clearly this club is attracting reviews. Only real issue I have is how exceptions are decided, kind of just think in the back of my head that if you have done over 100 reviews then you get a bit of leeway on adding venues, seems a little weak in some respects though.

Certainly I posted this with that agenda a little in mind though, there are venues I think it would be a pity to delete, and this is potentially one of them.


Ive been in this club a few times but it was a few times during the Beer Festivals held there over the years. Ive not been charged or refused entry I just show my CAMRA gold card on door seems a nice place but it was always packed when we went in.

Did you not pay for your CAMRA membership then? What do poor sods like me who are not a member of CAMRA (and will not be unless they pay me to join) do?

rpadam
24-04-2011, 14:47
What do poor sods like me who are not a member of CAMRA (and will not be unless they pay me to join) do?
With the £20 of Wetherspoons vouchers on offer, they almost are!

Conrad
24-04-2011, 15:24
With the £20 of Wetherspoons vouchers on offer, they almost are!
You see, I dislike CAMRA because they are too interested in campaigning on issues I don't care about (see beer tie for classic example). Now it crossed my mind that I should join as you can't change anything from the outside, sadly JDW's beat me to it.

Regardless, not my point and whilst fun is probably more appropriate in a new thread.

gillhalfpint
24-04-2011, 17:08
I have been in other clubs on this site, and although it says CAMRA cards to be shown for admission I have never been asked to show mine when walking in. My son, not a CAMRA member has had no problems either.

Always difficult if someone has had a favourite club deleted and others aren't, but I would think they should be on the site if good for the ales as long as no-one experiences problems getting in.

Al 10000
24-04-2011, 17:25
Why should a club be included on this site if it stocks real ales this is a PUB site and once you let a few clubs that have real ales on then people who run none real ale clubs will think why car'nt i have my club on this site.
On another thread Conrad said in reply to me most people looking at this site probably dont drink real ale so including a few real ale clubs will be pandering to a small minority of people using this site.

Conrad
24-04-2011, 17:56
Why should a club be included on this site if it stocks real ales this is a PUB site and once you let a few clubs that have real ales on then people who run none real ale clubs will think why car'nt i have my club on this site.
On another thread Conrad said in reply to me most people looking at this site probably dont drink real ale so including a few real ale clubs will be pandering to a small minority of people using this site.
I must have been in a grumpy mood that day :) (so yes, sounds like me).

The real ale portion does bother me, the pandering to small minority less so. I don't want us to start including clubs just because of CAMRA membership, and in some ways by extension selling real ale. If that small minority however is posting the reviews that make the site worthwhile we should pander to them.

oldboots
24-04-2011, 20:00
I am a CAMRA member and so it doesn't apply to me if entry is restricted to CIU card holders with a CAMRA dispensation or just CAMRA card holders BUT as a general rule as a site open to all then the venues listed should be " open to all"

Alesonly
24-04-2011, 22:44
Did you not pay for your CAMRA membership then? What do poor sods like me who are not a member of CAMRA (and will not be unless they pay me to join) do?

Yes I did Pay but it was so long ago that I joined as a Life Member for a one off fee. It was back in the Mid eighty's I think it was around £50 for Life membership back then.

P/s But Ive definitely got back more in Discounted Beer And Beer Vouchers & Discounted entry into Beer festivals then I Paid back then so did it costs me ?. :D

gillhalfpint
26-04-2011, 08:48
http://www.natashamoorfield.co.uk/content3.php?page=natashaOnTour/ruleRevisions/currentRules&pTitle=Ticking%20Rules

A bit of a laugh when you have some time, but it does define what a pub is, and it would exclude clubs for the reasons you have given.

Still think it a shame to exclude when a lot of these clubs DO let folk in off the street without checking credentials. Suppose some are lucky and others not.

Conrad
26-04-2011, 12:21
Well it is looking my vague hope of relaxing the rules is failing then :).

If no one raises any compelling points by Thursday morning I will go ahead and do the deletion. So make sure you store those reviews if you want to rescue them as well.

trainman
27-04-2011, 11:31
I won't get into the yes/no debate, but am pleased that this thread highlighted what looks like a must-visit venue next time I'm over that way.

Conrad
27-04-2011, 11:37
I won't get into the yes/no debate, but am pleased that this thread highlighted what looks like a must-visit venue next time I'm over that way.

Sounds like exactly the sort of place we should be deleting :whistle:

Quinno
27-04-2011, 21:34
Sounds like exactly the sort of place we should be deleting :whistle:

Difficult really - a lot of the people who use this site are more likely to find this listing of more use than the Murderers Arms in Moss Side, I imagine. But it does fail the 'walk in and buy a beer' test.

Personally I'd say it's worth keeping in but I realise that the logical arguments aren't on my side...

Wittenden
28-04-2011, 09:14
I won't get into the yes/no debate, but am pleased that this thread highlighted what looks like a must-visit venue next time I'm over that way.

I won't either, as I'm not a clubman, but I'm sure there is a nook or cranny on the site-I keep finding new ones!- where we could store anomalies like museum pubs, clubs and real ale steam railway bars that demand some form of "payment" for access?

Old Blue
28-04-2011, 09:27
I still think it might be a bit of a shame to delete it. And whatever the arguments on this specific case, the wider question arising is of course whether we are prepared to allow establishments which may not strictly meet the 'rules' to be included where there are other reasons to want do so. There are some others on the site, possibly ones that some members would feel more strongly about, and we may find ourselves having this debate again about those, if we duck the general question now.

Much of the problem appears to be how one would manage a system for including establishments on an 'exceptional' basis. I think the idea of Conrad having to judge it on the basis of whether the submitter is a 'regular reviewer' could be problematic both in terms of regular reviewers having different expectations and of others getting p1$$ed off that their submissions are rejected even if of arguably greater merit than some others'.

I wondered if an alternative way of doing it might work better. We could agree a convention that if you find an establishment you think worthy of inclusion on an exceptional basis, you should first start a forum thread setting out why you think that, see what others think, and only submit it to the site if you get a consensus in favour. That would, I suspect, stop the exception becoming the norm. It would also mean Conrad could justify deletion of offending entries simply by pointing out the agreed process that the submitter should go through, rather than it being anything to do with the submitter's status.

Just an idea, would be more complicated I guess but wonder if others think it might help fix the problem?

If we did that it would seem to make sense also to agree that existing exceptions that have been strongly reviewed can remain.

Conrad
28-04-2011, 13:04
I won't either, as I'm not a clubman, but I'm sure there is a nook or cranny on the site-I keep finding new ones!- where we could store anomalies like museum pubs, clubs and real ale steam railway bars that demand some form of "payment" for access?
I like your thinking, but at this point probably not as easy as it sounds, it may be the future solution though.

I think Old Blue's suggestion is probably still unwieldy, but if it is the best we have and people want it, it may be a way forward.

Does anyone on this thread actually want this club deleted and think it is of no use to them? Or is the perspective just an on principle thing? Basically I keep coming back to the fact in my head that the site is meant to be enjoyed and I am not sure that deleting venues that decent reviewers have enjoyed reviewing and other members are saying it sounds interesting, and they will now visit is the way to keep the site as enjoyable as possible. I may have just not really understood the majority though.

Still holding off the delete for now as it will be hard to get the bits back together if we delete (and any pictures will be gone for good unless re upped by the photographer), I don't think it is doing any harm for the moment.

hondo
28-04-2011, 13:07
I would keep all social clubs on . If i go to a social club its my risk that i might not get in, might have to pay to get in or get in no problem. Entry criteria on the review is a bonus.

529 :cool:

Strongers
28-04-2011, 13:32
It's a shame to delete these places and it doesn't sit right to have to do so, but it also doesn't sit right that I'm not allowed to enjoy a pint at Egham United Services Club as I'm not a member.

Tricky one for sure, especially as another club was deleted a couple of weeks ago that had a decent review against it and it pretended to be nothing other than what it was. No real ale though!

Conrad
28-04-2011, 13:51
Tricky one for sure, especially as another club was deleted a couple of weeks ago that had a decent review against it and it pretended to be nothing other than what it was. No real ale though!
It was a tricky one, but the difference there for me wasn't the real ale, it was that the good review was an owner self-promoting the place, which may explain part of the tac of my suggestions.

Farway
28-04-2011, 15:01
Is it easily possible to highlight, bit like the greyed out reviews, but maybe in red, that access requires payment or membership?

Having just typed that, I stiil think it should be removed as it plainly does not meet the walk in off the street criteria, where would you stop if this one was allowed?

There is a bar & grill near me, if Im take & photo and review it, should this also be allowed? Not in my opnion, which is why this one should go

Conrad
28-04-2011, 15:08
Is it easily possible to highlight, bit like the greyed out reviews, but maybe in red, that access requires payment or membership?

Having just typed that, I stiil think it should be removed as it plainly does not meet the walk in off the street criteria, where would you stop if this one was allowed?

There is a bar & grill near me, if Im take & photo and review it, should this also be allowed? Not in my opnion, which is why this one should go
We could come up with something on the page as in your first paragraph, although as you go on to say, I don't think that is the point.

As someone who has left 343 reviews on the site, if you honestly believed it should be on there then I would have no problem (assuming you left a solid review of why), and part of the reasoning behind that is based on the fact that you don't think it deserves it :).

I am content to delete Egham USC, but it is an interesting issue (which I know some are bored of) and this seems to be an excellent test case.

aleandhearty
28-04-2011, 20:28
Have you ever started something and wished you’d not bothered? That’s pretty much how I feel about this thread now. After I initiated the Brookside Social Club debate and then resurrected the ‘What should be included on PG?’ thread everything appeared sorted. Crystal. Er….unless it’s an ‘ineligible’ venue that someone has reviewed and happens to sell nice beer.

If people now want to move the goalposts and include such venues as Egham USC that’s fine by me, I’ll always go along with a common consensus. However, I think the site has to be evenhanded and fair in its approach otherwise its reputation may be damaged. (Alan made some telling points here.) Having been personally responsible for flagging up the Brookside for removal and with the Egham now potentially maintaining its listing, I’m left feeling a little grubby by it all. (Particularly when The Brookside was aggrieved enough to register with the site to ask why they had been deleted.) By all means let Egham stay, but then re-instate The Brookside also. If the original listing has been permanently deleted I’ll re-suggest it if necessary.

Conrad
28-04-2011, 20:42
So I take it from that a&h your answer to my question (http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/showthread.php?6758-Egham-United-Services-Club-should-we-delete&p=31644#post31644) is it is a principle thing?

No need for you to regret it, I have taken advantage of the request to push my agenda.

As to the Brookside there is a very distinct difference, Egham USC has been reviewed by 2 valued reviewers who constantly contribute to the site and clearly enjoyed it. The Brookside was a review left by an owner/employee who got in a tissy when it was deleted and signed up to moan that he couldn't get some free advertising (not his words, but certainly what I read). He was getting us confused with a Yellow Pages, if he wants to pay for the listing I will happily list him and take a contribution towards the running of the site.

As to the sites reputation I don't see it. As easy to say that we lose reputation by deleting good venues that deserve the promotion but are losing out because they for whatever reason have had/chosen to go the club route.

Millay
30-04-2011, 09:49
I'm entering this debate a little late but will provide my thoughts.

I go along with the general 'if you can't walk in off the street' thing, but surely we should consider this to be a guideline rather than a rule (I hate it at work when people hide behind rules and policies just because they are too lazy or incapable of thinking for themselves). Yes we should have guidelines but we should also have confidence in Conrad and Dave to employ some common sense in how those guidelines are applied. If an owner comes onto the site simply to promote a club then perhaps it should not be allowed. I assume that was the case with the Brookside.

The irony is that that is exactly what happened with Egham USC, the first review was effectively an advert by the landlord so perhaps it should have got the same treatment as the Brookside. However the review is clear about the entrance policy and now that it has had visits and glowing reviews from both Quinno and Gill I'd say the entry serves a useful purpose, is within the spirit of the site and should stay.

Conrad
30-04-2011, 11:56
To be clear, if it had just been the review by the owner and not had Quinno and Gill on it I would have deleted out of hand.

I think the thing that is crystallising from my thoughts on this is that the site is actually about the contributors (they after all are what gives the site its worth) not about pubs, pubs is just the guideline that we chat about (eg, we shouldn't start chatting about taxi companies before I get clobbered by that). More and more I would like to steer this site to help you use it in a way that is about the members, so if you like the pubs Quinno likes you can get more information about them.

The ideas I have are still some way off, but it is changing my thinking about being jobsworth about what is listed.

aleandhearty
02-05-2011, 14:24
So I take it from that a&h your answer to my question (http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/showthread.php?6758-Egham-United-Services-Club-should-we-delete&p=31644#post31644) is it is a principle thing?


If an owner comes onto the site simply to promote a club then perhaps it should not be allowed. I assume that was the case with the Brookside.

The irony is that that is exactly what happened with Egham USC, the first review was effectively an advert by the landlord so perhaps it should have got the same treatment as the Brookside.

Conrad, to answer your question, I think it was a principle thing based on the discussions we'd all previously had. However, as the site seems to have shifted a little, then it's time to let go. However, for the record, my interest is and always be traditional pubs, but that hasn't stopped me suggesting several boxy bars for the database that I've no intention of visiting. In an ideal world, I still wouldn't include clubs.

Millay, your point about first entries has been the key point in my misgivings, they were virtually identical, as I recall. (In fact you could argue that merely by being listed a venue has free advertising of a sort.) The Brookside has an excellent reputation for its beer and has just received an award from Wakefield CAMRA. I suspect it's probably on a par with the Egham for quality. The fact that I've not reviewed it seems to be the only difference.

Anyway, time to move on methinks.

Conrad
03-05-2011, 10:13
I have to admit I am kind of sorry I started this, but it has been very useful for me. At the start I felt it was time for a change but wanted to poll the community.

As it has continued however I have realised that I am convinced it shouldn't be deleted which I think is against the majority of opinion expressed. For now I have chucked a simple warning on, hopefully in the future we will turn it into something more practical.

Basically my thinking is to do with the fact that there are a number of review sites out there (including Google these days), BITE continues to be the top hit and I don't see that changing, Google is stealing other sites reviews to create its own service that will eventually barge others out of the way. I think that we need to get this site more about reviewers and allowing them to review venues they enjoy is I think part of that and takes advantage of our members which is hopefully what distinguishes us from the competition.

gillhalfpint
03-05-2011, 18:47
Thanks Conrad. As a reviewer I didn't want to get in on this discussion too much, but I am pleased with the outcome.

ETA
04-05-2011, 13:29
I must have been in a grumpy mood that day :) (so yes, sounds like me).

I don't want us to start including clubs just because of CAMRA membership, and in some ways by extension selling real ale...

...or you might have to look at the Off Licence in the 2010 GBG in the same light? Where will it end?

Although I am an active CAMRA member, I too disagree with much of what CAMRA does and I value the fact that this site is independant of CAMRA, CaskMarque, SIBA et al.

Lady Grey
19-05-2011, 19:18
Running along the same sort of theme, I was wondering what your thoughts are on an establishment called The Cheltenham Motor Club. It is a popular venue which serves real ale and is located in a fomer pub called The Crown, I've never been in myself, but my real ale loving pal rates it one of the best pubs in Cheltenham. They do favour camra members however. It is listed on a certain other pub site.......

Conrad
19-05-2011, 19:34
If one of our competitors has it, we MUST have it ;)

More seriously though, my feeling is that if one of our regulars, adds it (yourself included Lady Grey), and gives it a knowledgeable review that makes it clear both that it requires a form of membership and that they have visited, then it is fine to stay, we can add the notification to make it clearer as we have elsewhere and that is good enough for me.

Lady Grey
19-05-2011, 19:57
That's a fair comment. I won't add it until I've visited it. If however some other regular gets there before me, it's OK by me.