It takes all sorts

[Mobyduck]

I'm getting this thread a bit more on topic after the diversion. I have to say I find the very concise reviews by the same poster highlighted in the Report a Review thread recently far more objectionable than any food rants I've seen. The comments made might echo opinions I hold about many London pubs I've been to in the past, especially ones I went to for darts but wouldn't even consider adding a revieew today on that basis.

Agreed

[london calling]

Agreed

Agree to agree assuming its the guy I assume you are referring too.

[Mobyduck]

Agree to agree assuming its the guy I assume you are referring too.

I agree as I assume we are talking about the same guy that I originally agreed about if I assumed right in the first place.

[Aqualung]

There were over thirty reviews today and some of the less helpful ones are listed below.

Go to the other pubs in the area.

ROB'S missus must be annoying if he'd rather be in here!

Big building site over the road from here and it must be where they get the ale from.

Nah!

Don't.

Avoid if possible.

I wonder if these "reviews" are based on recent visits, and I'm not having a go at those who backdate detailed reviews.

[ROBCamra]

He's now "reviewed" over 340 pubs. As far as I can see about 6 of them are useful.

[Lady Grey]

Can I briefly go slightly off topic and mention the anomaly regarding the stats feature? According to the stats, there are 341 "reviews" by the aforementioned contributor. The anomaly also occurs in the photo contributors section, which is puzzling.
Sorry guys, back on topic. Interesting thread by the way.

[Rex_Rattus]

Can I briefly go slightly off topic and mention the anomaly regarding the stats feature? According to the stats, there are 341 "reviews" by the aforementioned contributor. The anomaly also occurs in the photo contributors section, which is puzzling.
Sorry guys, back on topic. Interesting thread by the way.

I think it's fairly straightforward - unless I've misunderstood your point (which is entirely possible!). He's posted 363 "recommendations" on 341 pubs - therefore 22 of his "recommendations" are about pubs on which he's posted more than once. Regarding photographs, it says he's contributed to 243 other pubs - therefore he's uploaded photographs of 244 pubs. Obviously he doesn't upload photographs of every pub on which he posts. Nor does it tell you how many photographs in total he's uploaded.

I also don't find these single word postings at all helpful. If you say "avoid" - and then go on to say that you should avoid it because there's no music, no TVs, and it's full of old blokes drinking real ale, then I conclude that it should be sought out rather than avoided!

[Lady Grey]

I think it's fairly straightforward - unless I've misunderstood your point (which is entirely possible!). He's posted 363 "recommendations" on 341 pubs - therefore 22 of his "recommendations" are about pubs on which he's posted more than once. Regarding photographs, it says he's contributed to 243 other pubs - therefore he's uploaded photographs of 244 pubs. Obviously he doesn't upload photographs of every pub on which he posts. Nor does it tell you how many photographs in total he's uploaded.

Having reread the stats, I see your point. Sorry.

[Maldenman]

Bit of a tricky one this, the contributor in question has posted some reviews which give a modicum of useful information and has added photos and changed some map points so he is clearly not a troll a la dark side. He may quite likely be thoroughly unaware that some postings are considered less than helpful. If I was an admin my strategy would probably be some selective deletions following a carefully written and friendly email advising why but reinforcing that he is potentially a valued site member. Not easy.

[aleandhearty]

Bit of a tricky one this, the contributor in question has posted some reviews which give a modicum of useful information and has added photos and changed some map points so he is clearly not a troll a la dark side. He may quite likely be thoroughly unaware that some postings are considered less than helpful. If I was an admin my strategy would probably be some selective deletions following a carefully written and friendly email advising why but reinforcing that he is potentially a valued site member. Not easy.

Nicely put. Echoes my thoughts almost exactly.