Difficult really - a lot of the people who use this site are more likely to find this listing of more use than the Murderers Arms in Moss Side, I imagine. But it does fail the 'walk in and buy a beer' test.
Personally I'd say it's worth keeping in but I realise that the logical arguments aren't on my side...
"At that moment I would have given a kingdom, not for champagne or hock and soda, or hot coffee but for a glass of beer" Marquess Curzon of Kedlestone, Viceroy of India.
I still think it might be a bit of a shame to delete it. And whatever the arguments on this specific case, the wider question arising is of course whether we are prepared to allow establishments which may not strictly meet the 'rules' to be included where there are other reasons to want do so. There are some others on the site, possibly ones that some members would feel more strongly about, and we may find ourselves having this debate again about those, if we duck the general question now.
Much of the problem appears to be how one would manage a system for including establishments on an 'exceptional' basis. I think the idea of Conrad having to judge it on the basis of whether the submitter is a 'regular reviewer' could be problematic both in terms of regular reviewers having different expectations and of others getting p1$$ed off that their submissions are rejected even if of arguably greater merit than some others'.
I wondered if an alternative way of doing it might work better. We could agree a convention that if you find an establishment you think worthy of inclusion on an exceptional basis, you should first start a forum thread setting out why you think that, see what others think, and only submit it to the site if you get a consensus in favour. That would, I suspect, stop the exception becoming the norm. It would also mean Conrad could justify deletion of offending entries simply by pointing out the agreed process that the submitter should go through, rather than it being anything to do with the submitter's status.
Just an idea, would be more complicated I guess but wonder if others think it might help fix the problem?
If we did that it would seem to make sense also to agree that existing exceptions that have been strongly reviewed can remain.
'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable' - Python
I like your thinking, but at this point probably not as easy as it sounds, it may be the future solution though.
I think Old Blue's suggestion is probably still unwieldy, but if it is the best we have and people want it, it may be a way forward.
Does anyone on this thread actually want this club deleted and think it is of no use to them? Or is the perspective just an on principle thing? Basically I keep coming back to the fact in my head that the site is meant to be enjoyed and I am not sure that deleting venues that decent reviewers have enjoyed reviewing and other members are saying it sounds interesting, and they will now visit is the way to keep the site as enjoyable as possible. I may have just not really understood the majority though.
Still holding off the delete for now as it will be hard to get the bits back together if we delete (and any pictures will be gone for good unless re upped by the photographer), I don't think it is doing any harm for the moment.
It's a shame to delete these places and it doesn't sit right to have to do so, but it also doesn't sit right that I'm not allowed to enjoy a pint at Egham United Services Club as I'm not a member.
Tricky one for sure, especially as another club was deleted a couple of weeks ago that had a decent review against it and it pretended to be nothing other than what it was. No real ale though!
WE ARE THE BREADMEN - UP THE BEES
Is it easily possible to highlight, bit like the greyed out reviews, but maybe in red, that access requires payment or membership?
Having just typed that, I stiil think it should be removed as it plainly does not meet the walk in off the street criteria, where would you stop if this one was allowed?
There is a bar & grill near me, if Im take & photo and review it, should this also be allowed? Not in my opnion, which is why this one should go
We could come up with something on the page as in your first paragraph, although as you go on to say, I don't think that is the point.
As someone who has left 343 reviews on the site, if you honestly believed it should be on there then I would have no problem (assuming you left a solid review of why), and part of the reasoning behind that is based on the fact that you don't think it deserves it .
I am content to delete Egham USC, but it is an interesting issue (which I know some are bored of) and this seems to be an excellent test case.