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.
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.
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.
A pub is for life not just for Christmas
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.
Come On You Hatters!