Pubs Galore App and old reviews

[Rex_Rattus]

I'm with SH on this one as well. I used to amend old reviews including dates for the various "bits" of the review, but in recent years I've gone for adding new reviews - my local, the Earl Beatty, is a good example. I haven't felt a need to suppress old ones so I've not missed having this facility. I rather like the idea of having a record of a pub's iterations over the years. The only time I amend a review is to correct errors, and only then if it's only up to a day or two after posting the review. But that's just my way of doing things, and I certainly don't criticise anyone else if they choose to do things a bit differently.

[Aqualung]

I'm with SH on this one as well. I used to amend old reviews including dates for the various "bits" of the review, but in recent years I've gone for adding new reviews - my local, the Earl Beatty, is a good example. I haven't felt a need to suppress old ones so I've not missed having this facility. I rather like the idea of having a record of a pub's iterations over the years. The only time I amend a review is to correct errors, and only then if it's only up to a day or two after posting the review. But that's just my way of doing things, and I certainly don't criticise anyone else if they choose to do things a bit differently.

I prefer updating a review with dates as otherwise you end up with surplus reviews in the totals. I've still got a few surplus ones that I can't track down.

[sheffield hatter]

I prefer updating a review with dates as otherwise you end up with surplus reviews in the totals. I've still got a few surplus ones that I can't track down.

I'm a bit of a numbers man myself, but I felt it was a necessary sacrifice when compared the rather more important aspect of keeping the site tidy and useful. What would you do in these two situations:

1) A pub you have reviewed changes its name and you go back to see how it's getting along. If you amend your old review, not only the date changes but the name of the pub also changes in the review box. So both parts of the review now appear to refer to the same pub, rather than one part referring to the old pub name and one its new guise.

2) Someone on the site visits a pub you have already reviewed and writes "I won't describe the pub in detail as Aqualung's review (below) is still accurate". You then go back a couple of years later and, without reading what the second reviewer has written, amend your old review which now jumps to the top of the pile, making the later reference meaningless.

[bcfczuluarmy]

Aren't we still awaiting the name changes update from Dave???

I've always updated a previous review with the old date added to the initial review.

[gillhalfpint]

Aren't we still awaiting the name changes update from Dave???

I've always updated a previous review with the old date added to the initial review.

If I go back to an old review I say something like " The above was on 00.00.00 and ....."

Reviewing pubs is getting ever more complicated these days, so when we were in Bristol recently I tended to add reviews for pubs that hadn't been reviewed for over 12 months. If you don't want old reviews bringing up again, I am happy with that. There is so much criticism of how folk review pubs these days, I try to keep mine very brief now.

[sheffield hatter]

..when we were in Bristol recently I tended to add reviews for pubs that hadn't been reviewed for over 12 months.

I asked Dave a while back whether it would be possible to identify on the site those pubs which hadn't been reviewed for over 12 months, so that we could, if we wanted to, decide to visit them specifically to bring the site up to date. His subsequent silence seems to indicate not.

There is so much criticism of how folk review pubs these days, I try to keep mine very brief now.

I haven't seen much in the way of criticism. More of a friendly discussion about what would help the site to become better than it already is. Brief can be good, but there needs to be enough information so that a future reader can understand what it was you liked/disliked about a pub.

Here's an interesting example of a pub that I quite liked, and that Nev and Charlie hated three days later. Obviously we visited at different times of the day, and in different parts of the week, but it's interesting to see how different reviewers can have such dissimilar experiences in the same pub. This is not about criticising them (or me) but about how we need to try to make it clear what we are looking for in a pub, so that others can judge whether it would suit them or not. (For those that can be bothered to read all three reviews, if Heat music channel had been on TV during my visit, I would have thoroughly agreed with their desire to leave asap.)

[gillhalfpint]

My view on doing reviews only if nobody else has reviewed for over 12 months, is that at least folk know it is open, and I indicate what I am drinking there. I am not really into furnishings and features unless something really strikes me as worthy of note. I don't keep notes apart from what I have been drinking.

I had a great time in Bristol visiting 20 different pubs over the 4 days there, but did not look up any reviews before going round, never do but appreciate some want an opinion before visiting a pub, and only wrote reviews as I said if there was no review for over 12 months. I do try to check the list at the bottom to update anything whether I have done a written review or not though. We all do things our own way.

[Aqualung]

I'm a bit of a numbers man myself, but I felt it was a necessary sacrifice when compared the rather more important aspect of keeping the site tidy and useful. What would you do in these two situations:

1) A pub you have reviewed changes its name and you go back to see how it's getting along. If you amend your old review, not only the date changes but the name of the pub also changes in the review box. So both parts of the review now appear to refer to the same pub, rather than one part referring to the old pub name and one its new guise.

2) Someone on the site visits a pub you have already reviewed and writes "I won't describe the pub in detail as Aqualung's review (below) is still accurate". You then go back a couple of years later and, without reading what the second reviewer has written, amend your old review which now jumps to the top of the pile, making the later reference meaningless.

In case 1 I would probably just delete the older review or maybe add to the review date the fact that the new review refers to the new pub name.
Case 2 is tricky and I suspect is a relatively rare occurrence. I don't think I've ever come across it.
I've got a review lined up for the Bollin Fee in Wilmslow and it makes it clear that it is a review of the old JDW rather than the new Brewhouse and Kitchen. I don't think your examples are common enough to be really relevant, certainly not in the case of pubs I visit. I wish I could find my last few surplus reviews!