Printable View
I quite often glance at the Pubs Galore App and have noticed there is no method of suppressing old reviews. I was wondering if it might be possible to add a feature to the main Pubs Galore site, that enables contributors to suppress their own, no longer relevant reviews. We already have this facility for photographs, why not with reviews?
You can delete your reviews - or do you mean something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Grey
I'm not familiar with the app. On the main site, old reviews become greyed out when more than a year old. Older reviews disappear from the front page when there are too many to display. What bothers me is when reviewers revisit their old reviews and add something to them, bringing them back up to the top of the page. This makes it hard (if not impossible) to recreate the sequence in which their reviews and those of others were written.
Does this mean if you revisit a pub many times after your first review you have to do a separate review to the first review,i have been taking notes of beers of some of the Nottingham pubs i have visited quite a few times but my review probably dates back to 2010,i was thinking of editing my review with updated beers is this a right or wrong thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffield hatter
I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to reply to your response, I don't have constant access to the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickDavies
I'll try to give you all an example of what I mean. If an old review of a pub contains outdated information, but contains interesting historical information, then the review should remain on the pub page. What I am saying is, that it would be useful to have the option of suppressing an old review from appearing on the area of the page, for example The Merry Fellow in Charlton Kings Cheltenham. This contains a review dating back to 2011, the pub has changed hands quite a few times and has been refurbished twice since the review. Yet because there is no way of suppressing it (other than deleting it, which I don't want to do - it is an historical account of the pub), it appears on the Pubs Galore App. I'm sure there are many other examples like this. Contributors have the option of suppressing their own out dated photos, why not out dated reviews?
I think there was a discussion about this a few years back. My personal view is that a new review is better. Some regular and respected reviewers (Quinno and ROBCamra spring to mind) add to their own previous reviews. There is no right or wrong way - the way the review boxes are set up, you can edit your own reviews at any time. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. If it was down to me, I would allow editing for a short period, say 24 hours, to correct typos and glitches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al 10000
I see what you mean. But surely the solution is to write a new review? That will let users of the site know what you know about the changes of ownership and the refurbs. No doubt Dave could introduce an option to relegate an old and no longer relevant review to an archive, but I imagine it would not have a very high priority on his to-do list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Grey
An example of what I mention above, about amending reviews: The Woolpack Inn. The reviewer, Manky Badger, has amended his review of 5 May 2007 because of changes in ownership resulting in poor service and being ripped off. To my way of thinking, that should be two separate reviews, especially as another reviewer had posted their opinion in between.
I'm with SH on this, personally I write a new review, even if it is no changes from a couple of years back, I do not go into the layout etc again, just "revisit much as before" type of entryQuote:
Originally Posted by sheffield hatter
I'm with SH on this one as well. I used to amend old reviews including dates for the various "bits" of the review, but in recent years I've gone for adding new reviews - my local, the Earl Beatty, is a good example. I haven't felt a need to suppress old ones so I've not missed having this facility. I rather like the idea of having a record of a pub's iterations over the years. The only time I amend a review is to correct errors, and only then if it's only up to a day or two after posting the review. But that's just my way of doing things, and I certainly don't criticise anyone else if they choose to do things a bit differently.
I prefer updating a review with dates as otherwise you end up with surplus reviews in the totals. I've still got a few surplus ones that I can't track down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex_Rattus
I'm a bit of a numbers man myself, but I felt it was a necessary sacrifice when compared the rather more important aspect of keeping the site tidy and useful. What would you do in these two situations:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqualung
1) A pub you have reviewed changes its name and you go back to see how it's getting along. If you amend your old review, not only the date changes but the name of the pub also changes in the review box. So both parts of the review now appear to refer to the same pub, rather than one part referring to the old pub name and one its new guise.
2) Someone on the site visits a pub you have already reviewed and writes "I won't describe the pub in detail as Aqualung's review (below) is still accurate". You then go back a couple of years later and, without reading what the second reviewer has written, amend your old review which now jumps to the top of the pile, making the later reference meaningless.
Aren't we still awaiting the name changes update from Dave???
I've always updated a previous review with the old date added to the initial review.
In case 1 I would probably just delete the older review or maybe add to the review date the fact that the new review refers to the new pub name.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffield hatter
Case 2 is tricky and I suspect is a relatively rare occurrence. I don't think I've ever come across it.
I've got a review lined up for the Bollin Fee in Wilmslow and it makes it clear that it is a review of the old JDW rather than the new Brewhouse and Kitchen. I don't think your examples are common enough to be really relevant, certainly not in the case of pubs I visit. I wish I could find my last few surplus reviews!
If I go back to an old review I say something like " The above was on 00.00.00 and ....."Quote:
Originally Posted by bcfczuluarmy
Reviewing pubs is getting ever more complicated these days, so when we were in Bristol recently I tended to add reviews for pubs that hadn't been reviewed for over 12 months. If you don't want old reviews bringing up again, I am happy with that. There is so much criticism of how folk review pubs these days, I try to keep mine very brief now.
I asked Dave a while back whether it would be possible to identify on the site those pubs which hadn't been reviewed for over 12 months, so that we could, if we wanted to, decide to visit them specifically to bring the site up to date. His subsequent silence seems to indicate not.Quote:
Originally Posted by gillhalfpint
I haven't seen much in the way of criticism. More of a friendly discussion about what would help the site to become better than it already is. Brief can be good, but there needs to be enough information so that a future reader can understand what it was you liked/disliked about a pub.Quote:
Originally Posted by gillhalfpint
Here's an interesting example of a pub that I quite liked, and that Nev and Charlie hated three days later. Obviously we visited at different times of the day, and in different parts of the week, but it's interesting to see how different reviewers can have such dissimilar experiences in the same pub. This is not about criticising them (or me) but about how we need to try to make it clear what we are looking for in a pub, so that others can judge whether it would suit them or not. (For those that can be bothered to read all three reviews, if Heat music channel had been on TV during my visit, I would have thoroughly agreed with their desire to leave asap.)
My view on doing reviews only if nobody else has reviewed for over 12 months, is that at least folk know it is open, and I indicate what I am drinking there. I am not really into furnishings and features unless something really strikes me as worthy of note. I don't keep notes apart from what I have been drinking.
I had a great time in Bristol visiting 20 different pubs over the 4 days there, but did not look up any reviews before going round, never do but appreciate some want an opinion before visiting a pub, and only wrote reviews as I said if there was no review for over 12 months. I do try to check the list at the bottom to update anything whether I have done a written review or not though. We all do things our own way.
Still on subject, someone seems to have been having a purge by removing previous images & reviews from the past
This comes back to previous history of the pub, and how it changes over time
I refer to The Maids Head
Was the Mayden's head as some of the 2012 images show
However I know I went in here and submitted review, and images, which did once appear, alongside other posters, quirky landlord, good beer etc. Now just one review left
Any one know what is going on? Is there a new / old edict to remove older images and reviews come name change or what happened?
As a general rule if the pub changes name and pictures of the pub with the new name are on the site then
older pictures are suppressed from the main page not deleted.
Reviews aren't deleted at all.
On The Maids Head the latest photo of the pub is still as The Mayden's Head apart from the later pub sign one, so it is still being shown.
There are no indications on the pub history that any reviews have ever been deleted from this pub.
I dont know what is going on and i would'nt bother looking at a pubs history as some alterations that take place dont seem to show up on the pubs history,i noticed two pubs deleted from East Manchester last week and i follow the area but was not notified about the deletions,it is probably akin to the KGB or Stasi,we mortals will never know what is going off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farway
I'm pretty certain that there were no previous reviews on the site when I reviewed what was then still called Ye Olde Maydens Heade back in 2013, which was why I made a point of going in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farway
I have four photographs that I took on that visit, but I reckon it more likely that I neglected to upload them rather than they having been deleted by somebody else (but I think that Dave is the only person who could do this, and I can't imagine he would have had a reason for doing so).
The only people who can delete reviews are the person who wrote the review, and Dave. There is always an audit trail when reviews are deleted or amended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al 10000
"Deleted"? Do you mean removed from the East Manchester area? If you know which pubs were removed, it is easy enough to check who removed them by going to the audit trail. Click on View all updates for [name of pub], and it will say something like "Request to remove pub from area East Manchester by Stasi agent XYZ".Quote:
Originally Posted by Al 10000
You are wrong in this on this subject Will,take a look at this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/core/pubaudit.php?id=74927 my request to add it to East Manchester as been deleted and now say request to add to area approved,the same goes for the deletion of the pub from East Manchester,it just says request to delete from area approved,it is as though East Manchester never exsisted,the Stasi agent is a bit cleverer than you thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffield hatter
FFS change the record, because as usual you're wrong again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al 10000
I could explain to you exactly how it works but to be honest I can't be arsed! :muppet: