http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/33367/
No rating without review. (Trainman's mantra)
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/33367/
No rating without review. (Trainman's mantra)
A pub is for life not just for Christmas
Just beat me to itOriginally Posted by ROBCamra
Now removed.
Thanks for that.
Is it me or is there a spate of people posting on here over the last day or so to moan about dodgy meals?
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/38733/
This one might object to badly cooked food, but I also object to gross abuse of the English language.
That one confused me, they had deleted it themselves by the time I got there. As you say was a crime against the language though.
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubreviews/35845/
I think Diva's in Guildford needs a looking at, chaps
MILD:
Why? If the pub/bar is to be included on PuG then we should expect, and maybe be thankful, that people are reviewing it, good or bad. The ownerrs have identified themselves as such and refuted previous claims, I see nothing wrong in that. They even appear to have recruited a couple of new PuG members to leave, albeit maybe biased, reviews.
There may be some fears that PuG reviews will end up with the flame wars that we have seen elsewhere but surely that is no reason to start deleting reviews and pubs just because they don't correspond with what some of us would wish.
I have no problem with members bringing these issues to the attention of Conrad and Dave but I would hate it if they felt that they had to react to the wishes of a few, albeit active, members. This is a pub review site and it relies on activity.
I've just joined Alcoholics Anonymous - I still drink, just under a different name.
I think we need to bring a new rule to this thread whereby you mention what you want done and for what reason. I am not always sure.
Bit late at the moment and it looks like it will cope until I have a chance to chat with Dave tomorrow, but there are 2 things with Diva's, the less important is to just check that the owner is not using multiple identities (different writing styles make me think not). The other is to possibly delete the complaint - it is the sort of thing that is better suited to Police (public indecency) or Environmental Health (lack of cleanliness) and as such the sort of thing that opens us to litigation, I have to admit I am inclined towards that again as it is a 1-drop complainer as well.
If all is as it appears though I think the owner has dealt with it admirably.
I agree the owner appears to have dealt with it admirably. However, if you delete the original nasty review (which smacks of ignorance and homophobia) it will make the subsequent responses kinda meaningless, so I would be inclined to leave all the reviews in place.
I agree also with your comment about being specific. If we think something needs fixing, we should say what and why. Your job must be hard enough without having to try to guess where we're coming from.
Come On You Hatters!
Just to add my two pennyworth, I can see exactly where Soupy is coming from, as Millay says we do fear "flame wars" and if they get to a certain level Conrad and Dave should just delete the whole series of posts. However in general I think all reviews should stand unless they are obscene, potentionally libellous, or are disguised adverts. I'll put up with a few "nuff said"s, bad spelling, worse grammer and even misplaced apostrophes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote