Egham United Services Club, should we delete?

[aleandhearty]

Have you ever started something and wished you’d not bothered? That’s pretty much how I feel about this thread now. After I initiated the Brookside Social Club debate and then resurrected the ‘What should be included on PG?’ thread everything appeared sorted. Crystal. Er….unless it’s an ‘ineligible’ venue that someone has reviewed and happens to sell nice beer.

If people now want to move the goalposts and include such venues as Egham USC that’s fine by me, I’ll always go along with a common consensus. However, I think the site has to be evenhanded and fair in its approach otherwise its reputation may be damaged. (Alan made some telling points here.) Having been personally responsible for flagging up the Brookside for removal and with the Egham now potentially maintaining its listing, I’m left feeling a little grubby by it all. (Particularly when The Brookside was aggrieved enough to register with the site to ask why they had been deleted.) By all means let Egham stay, but then re-instate The Brookside also. If the original listing has been permanently deleted I’ll re-suggest it if necessary.

[Conrad]

So I take it from that a&h your answer to my question is it is a principle thing?

No need for you to regret it, I have taken advantage of the request to push my agenda.

As to the Brookside there is a very distinct difference, Egham USC has been reviewed by 2 valued reviewers who constantly contribute to the site and clearly enjoyed it. The Brookside was a review left by an owner/employee who got in a tissy when it was deleted and signed up to moan that he couldn't get some free advertising (not his words, but certainly what I read). He was getting us confused with a Yellow Pages, if he wants to pay for the listing I will happily list him and take a contribution towards the running of the site.

As to the sites reputation I don't see it. As easy to say that we lose reputation by deleting good venues that deserve the promotion but are losing out because they for whatever reason have had/chosen to go the club route.

[Millay]

I'm entering this debate a little late but will provide my thoughts.

I go along with the general 'if you can't walk in off the street' thing, but surely we should consider this to be a guideline rather than a rule (I hate it at work when people hide behind rules and policies just because they are too lazy or incapable of thinking for themselves). Yes we should have guidelines but we should also have confidence in Conrad and Dave to employ some common sense in how those guidelines are applied. If an owner comes onto the site simply to promote a club then perhaps it should not be allowed. I assume that was the case with the Brookside.

The irony is that that is exactly what happened with Egham USC, the first review was effectively an advert by the landlord so perhaps it should have got the same treatment as the Brookside. However the review is clear about the entrance policy and now that it has had visits and glowing reviews from both Quinno and Gill I'd say the entry serves a useful purpose, is within the spirit of the site and should stay.

[Conrad]

To be clear, if it had just been the review by the owner and not had Quinno and Gill on it I would have deleted out of hand.

I think the thing that is crystallising from my thoughts on this is that the site is actually about the contributors (they after all are what gives the site its worth) not about pubs, pubs is just the guideline that we chat about (eg, we shouldn't start chatting about taxi companies before I get clobbered by that). More and more I would like to steer this site to help you use it in a way that is about the members, so if you like the pubs Quinno likes you can get more information about them.

The ideas I have are still some way off, but it is changing my thinking about being jobsworth about what is listed.

[aleandhearty]

So I take it from that a&h your answer to my question is it is a principle thing?

If an owner comes onto the site simply to promote a club then perhaps it should not be allowed. I assume that was the case with the Brookside.

The irony is that that is exactly what happened with Egham USC, the first review was effectively an advert by the landlord so perhaps it should have got the same treatment as the Brookside.

Conrad, to answer your question, I think it was a principle thing based on the discussions we'd all previously had. However, as the site seems to have shifted a little, then it's time to let go. However, for the record, my interest is and always be traditional pubs, but that hasn't stopped me suggesting several boxy bars for the database that I've no intention of visiting. In an ideal world, I still wouldn't include clubs.

Millay, your point about first entries has been the key point in my misgivings, they were virtually identical, as I recall. (In fact you could argue that merely by being listed a venue has free advertising of a sort.) The Brookside has an excellent reputation for its beer and has just received an award from Wakefield CAMRA. I suspect it's probably on a par with the Egham for quality. The fact that I've not reviewed it seems to be the only difference.

Anyway, time to move on methinks.

[Conrad]

I have to admit I am kind of sorry I started this, but it has been very useful for me. At the start I felt it was time for a change but wanted to poll the community.

As it has continued however I have realised that I am convinced it shouldn't be deleted which I think is against the majority of opinion expressed. For now I have chucked a simple warning on, hopefully in the future we will turn it into something more practical.

Basically my thinking is to do with the fact that there are a number of review sites out there (including Google these days), BITE continues to be the top hit and I don't see that changing, Google is stealing other sites reviews to create its own service that will eventually barge others out of the way. I think that we need to get this site more about reviewers and allowing them to review venues they enjoy is I think part of that and takes advantage of our members which is hopefully what distinguishes us from the competition.

[gillhalfpint]

Thanks Conrad. As a reviewer I didn't want to get in on this discussion too much, but I am pleased with the outcome.

[ETA]

I must have been in a grumpy mood that day (so yes, sounds like me).

I don't want us to start including clubs just because of CAMRA membership, and in some ways by extension selling real ale...

...or you might have to look at the Off Licence in the 2010 GBG in the same light? Where will it end?

Although I am an active CAMRA member, I too disagree with much of what CAMRA does and I value the fact that this site is independant of CAMRA, CaskMarque, SIBA et al.

[Lady Grey]

Running along the same sort of theme, I was wondering what your thoughts are on an establishment called The Cheltenham Motor Club. It is a popular venue which serves real ale and is located in a fomer pub called The Crown, I've never been in myself, but my real ale loving pal rates it one of the best pubs in Cheltenham. They do favour camra members however. It is listed on a certain other pub site.......

[Conrad]

If one of our competitors has it, we MUST have it

More seriously though, my feeling is that if one of our regulars, adds it (yourself included Lady Grey), and gives it a knowledgeable review that makes it clear both that it requires a form of membership and that they have visited, then it is fine to stay, we can add the notification to make it clearer as we have elsewhere and that is good enough for me.