How honest..?

[General Staal]

How honest should we be when reviewing, considering the issues Tripadviser is facing?

I visited a new real ale establishment yesterday, which served a brilliant range of ales. I tried quite a few and all but one was flat. I admire a new place trying to do something different and I would love it to succeed. But how can I 'recommend' a place which, on my visit, was just not that good?

Should I give a bland, non-descript review, or just tell it as it was? Which is what I actually did.

[Conrad]

Assuming this review. I think there is nothing wrong with it, particularly with your history of reviews. As long as it is opinion it is fair game, any mention of feeling ill or crime on the premises will pretty much get your review deleted as soon as we spot it now. But a review like that is in many ways positive, it would not have put me off visiting the pub to check it.

Only thing I would say on different note is that as you didn't take the beer back I think it is a little harsh to give a low rating, they may not have known what was going on and been able to rectify it in some way (refund, new barrel, etc). The really key point is that your review had enough information in it that I can raise that criticism though.

[General Staal]

Assuming this review. Only thing I would say on different note is that as you didn't take the beer back I think it is a little harsh to give a low rating, they may not have known what was going on and been able to rectify it in some way (refund, new barrel, etc). The really key point is that your review had enough information in it that I can raise that criticism though.

The rating I gave was not just about the beer. I had a chat with Mrs Staal who had been with me and the rating given was a joint one about the whole experience. Point taken about not taking the beer back or complaining. I usually do. Just not this time.

[RogerB]

As long as you offer a constructive reason as to any shortcomings then I can't see what the problem is. I recently posted a less than favourable review of Colchester's Fat Cat http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/11707/ but did point out the reasons and that I probably caught it on a bad day. On a good day it would probably get an 8/10 but I couldn't stretch further than a 6 without guesswork and potential playing a factor. I rate it as I find it and I can't see that anyone would choose not to got there based on my report but if half a dozen people came up with the same issues as me than the pub has something that needs to be addressed. Frankly, if a pub thinks it is above criticism and doesn't take constructive comments on board, it will find itself struggling.

[Farway]

As long as you offer a constructive reason as to any shortcomings then I can't see what the problem is...... Frankly, if a pub thinks it is above criticism and doesn't take constructive comments on board, it will find itself struggling.

I agree entirely with this, say it as you find it. It may well be it was on off day, but to me that is a challenge for the landlord / lady to correct

The Jamaica Inn on Bodmin Moor springs to mind, the reviews point out how busy / crowded it can be, the owners can do nothing about this without losing income, but at least anyone seeing the reviews is forewarned, far better than a bland review which gives no real guide as to facilities on offer [or not]

If beer was flat, food was lukewarm, toilets were dirty or flooded, seats were torn, carpets stuck together with duct tape, then I think reviewers should say so

PS, as we should, and do, praise excellent pubs, we should also highlight the flaws in others

[Strongers]

If we're not going to tell it how we see it there's no point in doing it in the first place. Hopefully the sane managers and landlords will take it more as constructive criticism than a personal attack - I wouldn't bank on it though!

[Maldenman]

Took the words out of my mouth Strongers. A review, by definition, is a critical analysis of something. So if it is good, it should be reported as such, if it wasn't then likewise. I think there is a clearly defined line between identifying and remarking on an experience, and the more critical general panning of a place based upon usually personal reasons or some vendetta. Many of us will be aware of that from a previous place.
From my perspective I tend to review factually and try to leave minor criticism to the readers ability to read between the lines, but if something is very good or very bad I will say so, but in context.

[NickDavies]

There was a piece in the Grauniad yesterday about the TripAdvisor class action. My take is that the problem is largely down to one-drop reviewers recounting a bad time they had at owner-managed properties and using websites as a way of 'getting back' at them anonymously. A bit like throwing stones at their windows and running away. There's seldom even the slightest hint that any steps were taken to resolve the issue at the time. One-off food critics are forever doing it on pub sites.

Corporates are a different matter. A lot of the time the people on the ground are paid and treated so poorly they couldn't give a toss and the only hope of getting a company to pull its socks up is to tarnish its reputation until it sorts itself out - though some will fight back (remember McLibel). On the other hand some companies seem to thrive on tarnishing their own reputations yet carry on regardless, like Ryanair.

[Quinno]

if we're not going to tell it how we see it there's no point in doing it in the first place.

nailed!

[Oggwyn Trench]

Just tell it like it is , as long as its a truthfull account and not abbusive or personal its OK .
If the beer and service are crap say so , just dont say the beer and service are crap and the Landlords an obnoxous loud mouthed w**ker , which i could easily have done after one pub i visited last night