Re Bitery

[gillhalfpint]

I have just tried to post on the thread bitery on report a review and was not allowed to.

I was just going to say I thought it quite funny really, and not offensive, and it does give a good view of the pub. The landlord likes dogs, no problem with that. Grumpy Bastard wasn't offensive and gave a good indication of all that is right with the pub. Next reviewer gave his opinion - he is surely allowed to do that. He likes dogs.

[sheffield hatter]

I didn't find either of the reviews useful. Grumpy Bastard said the pub was brilliant, but only to the extent that there was nothing (apart from dogs) for him to complain about. I want to know what it was that was good about the pub.

The response was amusing enough but again doesn't tell us anything about the pub. I think both postings, not being reviews, would be better in the Chit Chat forum.

[Aqualung]

I didn't find either of the reviews useful. Grumpy Bastard said the pub was brilliant, but only to the extent that there was nothing (apart from dogs) for him to complain about. I want to know what it was that was good about the pub.

The response was amusing enough but again doesn't tell us anything about the pub. I think both postings, not being reviews, would be better in the Chit Chat forum.

Does that mean they should be deleted? I would hope not as I found them quite amusing.
I have noticed one thing missing from some reviews that I always try and include (but sometimes forget) is the price of the drink that was bought in the pub concerned. To me this is far more important than any specific architectural feature or a description of the food menu.
If the price of beer in the Liverpool Philharmonic for example were over the top then I would swerve past it.

[Rex_Rattus]

Neither of the posts are offensive, and they do provide some information. Grumpy's is informative in a tongue in cheek way, in that he is grumpy because there isn't much for him to be grumpy about. He tells us that there was no music, no one-armed bandits; no smell of cooking; no kids running around; and that it's dog friendly. These are all pluses in my book, and saying what things are absent can be just as informative as saying what is there. Paul's is less informative, but he does tell us that they had Oystermouth Stout on (which must have been OK as he had several pints of it); and reinforces the dog friendliness comment as he also tells us that there are doggy treats on the bar.

As a general rule we don't need responses to others' postings as we've learned from elsewhere that they often degenerate into slanging matches, but these two seem to amount to friendly banter to me. I would let them stay.

[Mobyduck]

Neither of the posts are offensive, and they do provide some information. Grumpy's is informative in a tongue in cheek way, in that he is grumpy because there isn't much for him to be grumpy about. He tells us that there was no music, no one-armed bandits; no smell of cooking; no kids running around; and that it's dog friendly. These are all pluses in my book, and saying what things are absent can be just as informative as saying what is there. Paul's is less informative, but he does tell us that they had Oystermouth Stout on (which must have been OK as he had several pints of it); and reinforces the dog friendliness comment as he also tells us that there are doggy treats on the bar.

As a general rule we don't need responses to others' postings as we've learned from elsewhere that they often degenerate into slanging matches, but these two seem to amount to friendly banter to me. I would let them stay.

I agree with all of the above and in this case I don't see a problem, but can see where ETA is coming from and do share his concerns.