Unique pub visits

[Soup Dragon]

Greetings All,

When revisiting a pub you have already reviewed, when do you think it is to write a completely new review, rather than updating an older one? The renaming of a pub, changing ownership, rebuild/refurb - or do you always just update the old one?

Does it even matter!

[Farway]

I add a new post, but try & say just an update, to show things are unchanged, or not

[Strongers]

If nobody else has commented on the pub since my last review I will update it, with reference to the previous times I have visited. If someone else has commented since my previous review I add a new review so that some sort of timeline is maintained.

[Al 10000]

I will only update a review if there is a big change to the pub like having real ale put back on the bar or taken off the bar.

I went in three pubs yesterday that have been reviewed by a good amount of regulars on this site but i wont bother doing a updated review because these pubs were pretty much the same as the previous times i have been in them.
The pubs i went in were the Stratford Haven,the Canal House and Fellows Morton & Clayton.

[Bucking Fastard]

If nothing much has changed ,I leave my original review unaltered.If however there is a material change such as a refurb,wider choice of drinks,food now available or even a change in vibe,say from a boozer to food dominated then I will maintain the original review noting the date when it was written and then add an update below,which thereby shows the date of the update.I suppose I could just junk my original review and then write a new review,but often there is detail in the original which is still relevant to the update such as pub layout ,so I leave both reviews to show what has and hasn't changed since my original visit.

However if people feel that this is too much information ,or is against best practice,then I am quite willing to listen to suggestions.

Interesting topic , to see how others cope with changes that occur to pubs they visit.

[Strongers]

I’ll usually only add a review to a pub again if something has drastically changed.
Some of my older reviews are very brief so if I revisit a pub with a dated two line review I will delete it and say something along the lines of “this pub is much the same as my last visit in august 2009…..”. I can then add a little more information… Sky Sports, plasma screen, dartboard etc!

[Mobyduck]

Greetings All,

When revisiting a pub you have already reviewed, when do you think it is to write a completely new review, rather than updating an older one? The renaming of a pub, changing ownership, rebuild/refurb - or do you always just update the old one?

Does it even matter!

After some consideration I think a new review is the way to go, a previous review possibly has no bearing on the present situation( although it may do). You can choose to delete the old if you wish but I think they are worth keeping for historic/nostalgic reasons even if they have no bearing on the present day.

[RogerB]

I always re-write a fresh review but if there is historic stuff within the initial review that I feel would still be of interest but isn't really relevent to the current pub circumstances, I do incorporate it within the text.

[ROBCamra]

I tend to update reviews if

a/ No-one else has reviewed it since me and it's greater than 12 months old

b/ Other people have reviewed it since me but they are also greater than 12 months old and my previous comments are still valid.

c/ It's less than 12 months old and something minor has changed

I do a new review if something major has changed like the name or completely new management etc.

None of the above are cast in stone.

[sheffield hatter]

I tend to update reviews if

a/ No-one else has reviewed it since me and it's greater than 12 months old

b/ Other people have reviewed it since me but they are also greater than 12 months old and my previous comments are still valid.

c/ It's less than 12 months old and something minor has changed

I do a new review if something major has changed like the name or completely new management etc.

None of the above are cast in stone.

That seems to be a sensible way of doing things, especially bearing in mind the way reviews change colour/tone after 12 months, though undoubtedly there will be variations in the circumstances that will need to be considered. For example, if a later reviewer refers to your review, e.g. "ROB Camra's description below remains accurate", it would be crazy to then amend your review so that it is a) different and b) no longer below. As you say, not set in stone.