I think that OB summed it up earlier in the thread.
Printable View
I'd certainly agree with OB's last three points. I think the first one is slightly tricker. I've added a couple of bars that don't sell any draught beer, so on that basis these should be deleted. Fair enough if that's the concencus, I don't have a problem with that. But there are many restaurants that have a small bar area at the front that although may be mainly used by diners there's nothing to stop anyone wandering in and having just a drink, and many of these will sell something on draught.
So if we follow that to the letter, we'd have lots of restaurants on here, but we'd be missing several bars that are just drinking establishments.
For me, and the list was my personal definition of a "pub" and not a drinking establishment, draught beer and "pub" are inseparable. I think places that sell alcohol but not draught beers are "bars" and that's not to say they shouldn't have a place here as long as it's clear what they are - sometimes it's easy; just look for a surname or a Z in the name :D . (& of course the name will change every six months too)
Point 4 on my list excludes pure restaurants but not those that allow you to wander in and just buy a drink without restriction, again they should have a place here but clearly defined as what they are.
We have dozens of bars on the site - mostly without reviews - because that sort of place doesn't seem to appeal to the core reviewers; due to our average age I guess. For a good example of this check out the Fleet St / Slater St / Wood St / Bold St area of Liverpool City Centre probably centred on this one.
I think Conrad has said before we shouldn't get too hung up on the Pubs bit of Pubs Galore.
Talking of tea lights and candles there is a pub in my town which is covered in them. Supposedly cheaper than using electricity.
OB sums it up for me , if you can walk in off the street and buy a pint , be it in a traditional boozer , chavy lager barn or trendy winebar its OK on here , if to gain entry you need to be signed in or pay or need membership no .
If you start adding clubs where do you stop , the local Sikh Temple has a bar would anyone want that on here
Not 100% if the new purpose built temple has one , but the old one certainly did , serving Tetley Smooth and Carlsberg , the place was a bit like a small leisure centre with a Gym , function room(for hire , maybe thats why they had a bar) as well as the main prayer rooms .
Darn right OB, as well as chopped wood next to gas fires and bloomin' vases and abstract sculpturey stuff. Ban smiling and Christmas too.
One handpull (aka handpump), selling Bathams MILD - all you need.
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/63885/ I did review our local Temple!
Ah Soupy! Batham's Mild, nice as it is, is not enough. How about Wye Valley Butty Bach? Or Beowulf Beorma? Or Two Towers Jewellery Porter? Banks's Mild is also a very nice pint. Even Batham's Bitter or Enville Ale? And Milton Brewery's Mammon, very strong, but very tasty. Black Dog Rhatas - amazing!
I'd say a pub needs at least four real ale hand pulls, two different pale beers and two different dark beers.
But not Purity...Oh no, nothing by Purity...
I agree with your rationale. The Good Beer Guide is, as it says on the tin, a guide to good beer rather than specifically a pub guide. An example I have come across this week is Bernie's Real Ale off-licence in Shirley, Solihull. It's been in the GBG for about 25 years or something but it's clearly not a pub ........ so I won't be adding it, taking a photograph or doing a review
I prefer the darker ales but it seems the majority of beers on offer are on the paler side because that's what sells. E.g. the beer board in the Wellington is predominantly A and B category beers, even in winter, and typically only one or two D or E http://www.thewellingtonrealale.co.u.../beerboard.php
Give me Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby and Highgate Mild anyday!
(By the way, GS, they are still working on the Boars Head)
[QUOTE=Andy Ven;30385]http://www.thewellingtonrealale.co.u.../beerboard.php
I've not come across colour classifications A-E before. Also I'd hate to have to order ales by pump number-reminds me of a dodgy Chinese! It gives the impression that the landlord/barstaff aren't interested in the beers themselves, and just see them as a commodity to knock out a la TESCO.
[QUOTE=Wittenden;30392]I don't mind that, tbh, probably speeds up service when there are a lot of beers on. Often ordered by number at The Crown, where they certainly aren't disinterested in beer. I believe that would be the case at the Wellie too.
Just wish there were more pubs around where choice of ales made numbering likely!
The reason seems to be the fast turnover of ales, this is a city centre boozer very famous for high quality ales. They certainly wouldn't fall into the category of not being interested. The magnificent Birmingham PuG pi55 Up started off in here last year and a fine time was had by all, even Father Ted.
Yes, this old chestnut again....
I have started planning a few trips, especially around the Birmingham areas. I have noticed several private clubs (working men's etc) on the site. I know there are grey areas regarding pub/restaurants, pub/cafes and pub/hotels, but is it at least possible to get a decision on private clubs? What is the point of having a pointer on a map, or writing a review for a place that none of you can actually get in, unless attending a private function? I can't see my Lord of Horsham, or hondo being invited to a 60th at the Star Member's Club in Stechford (once the North Star pub, by the way). I still believe that places on here should be free entry.
With hotels - which are in fact massive hotel complexes that do weddings, conferences, have golf courses, private fishing, as well as having gyms, tanning studios, restaurants (no mention on their websites of a bar!) - i simply propose to write a comment that these places are what they are, instead of asking for removal from the site.
I think you are banging your head against a brick wall concerning deletion of private clubs,because if certain PUG users go in one and find a drop of real ale on there they will then go ahead and add it to the site.
I completly agree with what you are saying, but dont give up trying to delete hotels and the like.
If any club or similar comes up for proposal for going on the site i will as usuall argue against it and more than likely be shot down in flames,but i will still carry on argueing my point about not having to have CAMRA membership or pay a fee to get into said establishment.
Whilst I certainly have sympathy with the 'free entry only' argument, I think we need a little flexibility. I got Leyton Orient Supporters club added the other day. Why? Because I genuinely believe that a large number of this site's users would find the listing beneficial due to their beer festivals and numerous CAMRA awards.
Whilst guidelines are always useful I think being too rigid is just as bad, personally.
I'm with Quinno on this one and feel that I must be one of those referred to by Al 10000.
Many of the pubs I looked up in Weston that were on the site are less deserving of entry than a really good club, and a review is useful information about a drinking establishment, and once read, it is up to the reader to decide if it is a place he/she wants to visit.
Any review is therefore useful, whether it be club, pub. bar, hotel or airport bar.
The point is it ISN'T up to the reader if they WANT to visit, as they can't get in!
I have far less of a problem with clubs that are on if someone HAS visited and reports back (even if private), it is the plethora of those that are on because someone has simply took a photo and there is no review at all.
If any place that serves a drink (one small place i know simply serves lager/bitter and Guinness in cans) can be reported on, then surely 'Pubs Galore' is a misleading site-name, should it not be beer galore (no offence to cocktail drinkers)?
Maybe a rule that a club/large hotel etc that is put on should have a review to accompany it?
I have visited a number of very nice bars within fitness and health spas. Don't go getting the wrong idea I merely visited as a non functioning guest . My stepsons were members and I was providing the wheels.No way would I consider them eligible for entry to PuG no matter how good they were. If you have to pay for entry or meet other criteria such as being a member before entry is granted then it is not a pub . What confuses me is eating places that allow you to pop in for a drink without having a meal.
This sounds like a useful compromise,maybe one for the Admins to consider.If the reviewer could also include details on how members of the public can gain entry to the said establishment ,then PuG members would have the information to make a decision about whether they are able and willing to visit the place.
I cannot understand the logic of taking a photo and not doing a review of sorts, even if to say it was closed at the time of visit. That was my problem at Newquay and Weston when I visited places listed on here without reviews, and I found it was a total waste of time (to me anyway).
A club in Halesowen says in GBG that you needed to have CAMRA card or GBG to get in, and I have been plenty of times without ever being asked for the card or book, and the same applies to the Kings Heath Cricket and Sports Club. I have been for their Sunday carvery and to their beer festivals and never had to show ID of any sort.
It would be a shame to have places as good as these removed when there are so many on site still that have no reviews at all and no-one therefore knows what sort of place they are. If any places were to be removed, I would say those with no reviews, whether a photo held or not. Some photos may be ancient and names and use could well have changed since they were put on.
There is no way we are all going to agree on this issue, as people feel strongly one way or the other.
Black mark for using the why is it called Pubs Galore argument. As I have said before fixating on this is not productive. :p
As to the removing listings that are not reviewed, whilst I personally have sympathies with the argument I am not happy to follow it. The photographers don't post on the forum and thus aren't represented, but they have put a lot of work into the site predating any of the posters on this thread in the last few days. Without their contributions the site probably wouldn't have been maintained and gone by the time you got here. If we are to forget how we got here should we remove all of your reviews when we find that we are getting a higher proportion of contribution from Facebook and you aren't valued by the new flavour?
Also I don't hold favour with deleting old photos, especially where the names have been changed, it is possible that we hold the only image of that frontage that is visible on the net, where do you start drawing that line, especially with all the fears about the speed with which pubs are closing.
Just in case anyone is not aware currently we do delete anything you request which has no content, and we delete anything with content where supported with a reasonable justification. I am happy to revise that where there is a concensus. Another thing to consider is that where we delete images they are gone for good.
Hi Conrad,
I wouldn't want to delete older photos of pubs - it is good to preserve the history.
As regards clubs and so forth, what about:-
Leave on what is on (on a personal note, if i come across any i will try and give an advice note/review (CIU sign etc) )
Any future 'private clubs' requested should have a review giving such info - especially as some clubs are not obvious by their name - it seems the Poacher's Pocket in Shard End (Brum) is now private for example.
Anyhow - see what people think. I fear the maps would become less useful if they start getting choked-up with pointers for places you can't get into - i have as many clubs as pubs near me - mind you, it will do my review stats some good!;)
Whilst that sounds reasonable, how can we tell if they are clubs when they are submitted?
Dave does the approvals, if he is happy to exclude titles with club in the name then I don't see why not (although it kind of invalidates your whole point about Poachers Pocket).
However it can just lead to a negative masking behaviour, I am extremely suspicious this is why we have ended up with a number of cafe's on the system which have "Bar & Restaurant" in the title.
I have just had a look at two of Quinnos additions to the site the Red Lion in Crich and Leyton Orient supporters club and they have the same map markers as normal pubs do.
If these sort of places are going to be added to the site car'nt they have a different colour so has to warn people that these are not normal pubs with normal opening times and you might even have to pay for admission.
PS I do like these arguments they seem to be a bit thin on the ground recently.
Personally I find a photo without a review is quite useful on the basis that one picture is worth a thousand words, I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover but for example which of these pubs near each other would appeal most?
Hearts of Oak
Shoulder Of Mutton
Like Soupy I would not delete old pictures on the historical interest basis that Conrad alludes too as well. I see a few ancient postcard views have crept onto the site as well.
I got invited into a private member's club recently (thanks Brakslover) which I reckon would be a shoo in for inclusion if we ever do decide to include them. It served the rarely seen (in London) Palmer's Bitter, was located in a superb old builing overlooking the Thames, had the original dark wood panelling occasionally seen in pubs, and had a couple of snooker tables. To put the cap on it, it was called The Winchester, and even had a portrait of the great Arthur Daley in a display case! What class!! And they didn't display the blatant rattism experienced elsewhere, when I was denied access to a bar in a masonic temple on the flimsy pretext that I wasn't a mason! But they do have a dress code, which doesn't allow in those wearing T-shirts. Now I was wearing a T-shirt, but I can only assume that because it was the famous Pubs Galore T-shirt they let me in on the basis that such a well dressed person would enhance the overall ambience of the club!
But I'm not planning to ask for any private member's clubs to be added. We know what a pub is, and I'm planning to stick to the agreed definition - in general. But I reckon there might be the occasional exception to the rule that warrants special treatment (I believe a teetotal pub was added a while ago). In which case, fair enough but I would say that they have to be special cases like the LOSC.
Like Alan I don't mind seeing these issues re-aired from to time. Enough people contribute so I suppose in general we aren't bored with it yet. Anyone who is bored with the issue is of course free to ignore it.
@Conrad: Love it - just say what you mean, don't beat about the bush:D
I think the Poacher's Pocket is more the exception than the rule - as we all agree on here, nothing is definitive, or will please everyone! - my main corncern with the clubs as opposed to bary/restauranty/hotelly places is that clubs are technically inaccessible - they may not ask you for a membership card, but they should (unless CAMRA card, or other means get you in).
@Al - i thought about the pointer colours, but i think Conrad has just answered that - i refer you to the above!
@OB - is that your mobility scooter outside the 'Mutton'?