Well said Millay. If it's on site with a statement as to what kind of establishment it is, anyone looking gets the relevant gen. End of story. They can make their own minds up as to whether it's a place they want to go to.
Well said Millay. If it's on site with a statement as to what kind of establishment it is, anyone looking gets the relevant gen. End of story. They can make their own minds up as to whether it's a place they want to go to.
Alcohol doesn't solve problems .... but then again, neither does milk.
I have no problem with oldboots suggestion, when I read it initially it made sense. If we could do it in a way similar to areas then we can keep it low maintenance for me and Dave.
Thinking about it a bit more though I think there would be debate on what some venues are. Also there is the issue that I think broadly we are all keen to keep PuG about what we believe are pubs, by adding these categories I can see we would invite museum cafes on by the back door.
I think the way we are working at the moment where we make exceptions as they appear is fine. The only thing I think is that we need to make it clear in the listing that it requires an entry fee of some sort. At this point I don't think filters are needed as I would imagine anyone planning a crawl from the towns pages will look at the pubs summary before making a decision.
Millays attitude towards PuG reflects mine though, enjoying the site and allowing others to do the same is the key thing.
Firstly, I'd like to echo your sentiment about not overloading Conrad & Dave.Originally Posted by Millay
However, I think your argument is a bit simplistic. There are still hundreds of listings that were inherited with the original database that just aren't relevant to the site e.g a B&B with or without photograph is still a B&B. Furthermore, I believe the site has to have some common consensus and core values to let people know what they are working towards. Just because the site is largely community based doesn't necessarily equate with it being all inclusive.
The nature of the site means that realistically we all need to help C&D monitor the content and people will only do that if they know where they stand. Should this venue be included? http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/24230/ Dennis Lloyd obviously thinks it's worthy of inclusion.
Finally I'd like to turn your last point on its head. I think such discussions show the site is evolving and indicate the passionate involvement in Pug, which can only be a good thing.
Last edited by aleandhearty; 11-05-2011 at 10:25.
'And where he supped the past lived still. And where he sipped the glass brimmed full' John Barleycorn, Carol Ann Duffy.
I thought it was "a modest proposal".
In the end I shouldn't mind what is or isn't on the site, Conrad&Dave's site=Conrad&Dave's rules; however I think that one of the better things about this site, as opposed to some we could all name, is the desire for accuracy and quality in reviews and photos among contributors, it does get let down by long lists of venues that nobody wants to review.
I agree that there is no problem with these sort of discussions, evolve is a good word, and the site needs to keep doing it.
With regards to The Fort, what a fantastic review. From my perspective, if someone asks to remove the venue I am happy to remove it, it requires a fee to get in, and so far has not been praised by a regular reviewer (or to put it blatantly, someone we would rather didn't leave the site).
oldboots is right about the long list of venues that no one wants to review, hence I feel more flexible about venues people do want to review. Although instead of review I would say contribute, as I do try and give the photographers representation.
Some places regular contributors just would not go into to review surely? No doubt we all know of pubs in our areas that only a stranger built like the Teminator with the ability to kill as per Kill Bill karate punch would enter. The Fort I think could be a step too far for most, certainly me, but the review is honest, and does state entrance fee required, so whilst it may not appeal to many it just may be the place for some casual visitors to PuGWith regards to The Fort, what a fantastic review
oldboots is right about the long list of venues that no one wants to review, hence I feel more flexible about venues people do want to review. Although instead of review I would say contribute, as I do try and give the photographers representation.
That's precisely what I was trying to do. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have started with the words 'this is not a pub' as that evidently led others to think I was asking for it to be deleted. However, my recce today confirmed you can't just get a beer there, so I think this becomes a simple delete. If a member who actually used it wanted to put it back on with a review as an entry which may be of interest to others, even if not a pub, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable' - Python
Now gone and agree with everything you said.
Until I read the review of the Fort I thought that I would go and have a beer in any establishment. I've walked into estates at dusk to visit the local pub and thought that I would never make it out of the area alive let alone the pub. One night I ran down a national speed limit A-road with no path to reach a Harvester that wasn't listed on here. I've had someone threaten and swear at me from a pub doorway as I walked past so I went into the pub through the side door only to get into a conversation with the same moron at the bar.
BUT, I would never go into a pub naked wearing only my trainers as I get really smelly feet if I wear no socks!
WE ARE THE BREADMEN - UP THE BEES 
I asked for this one to be closed, and did so because it is not longer a pub called The Cricketers, but a restaurant (NOT a restaurant/bar) called Tryst. But I don't have strong views on whether it should be closed - if you think it should be re-opened then put in the request, but with a name change as well. I take a slightly different view with restaurants that retain the original name, such as this one: http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/22065/ Perhaps I should have asked for that one to be reopened, as I think it has a stronger case than The Tryst - but I didn't, and just posted a comment saying what sort of establishment it now is. I think that suffices to tell people who look at the page what it's like now, and I guess does the trick. Actually I don't think it matters too much, but if others do I'll go along with the consensus.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote