The usual purpose seems to be to make a one-off complaint about a bad experience rather than to leave serial negative reviews...maybe..."if your purpose is to make a complaint about a pub you should take it up with them directly. Such contributions will be deleted.Originally Posted by Conrad
It is certainly the main purpose, and if your phrasing is preferred it works for me. I made mine a little more ambiguous to stop people telling me "it was a review not a complaint" (has happened) and also to try and imply that you should leave reviews of pubs you like.
Whilst I would prefer it if people only reviewed pubs they like I have no problem with those who are giving a balanced set of reviews. I personally have no time for those who just want to leave negative reviews however, if that is your experience of pubs, then stop going to them and don't moan at us - if however you know there are good pubs, tell us about those (as well as the bad if you must).
Also there is the reality that I just don't want to put up with the licensees moaning at me for trying to ruin their business. You wonder how many of these reviewers would leave that review if they had to publish their address next to them.
Edit:
I actually do believe that Pubs Galore is here to promote good pubs as well, if it was just about reviewing pubs we would close the site, it costs money to run so why bother with it? There is an element of love in there somewhere, and in that respect I believe it is about rewarding the pubs that are providing a good experience. I accept if people don't need that forced down their throat in the guidelines though.
Conrad, I think you've gone off half cocked... yet again
I love pubs and I want to celebrate whatever is good about any pub I visit. When I review a pub I try to be balanced and describe what the pub is like; I try not to be gratuitously nasty or to include comments for effect or colour. A simple honest description while giving a realistic impression of the establishment is my aim. I write what I see and what I think, I may occasionally lapse with what I might think is "a well turned phrase" rather than the plain unvarnished truth but I always strive for honesty.
I use the site to gain honest impressions of what a pub is like, I don't care if someone's tastes are not my tastes, I want to know from a review what the place is like, what drinks I can expect and their quality, what the service is like and what the usual customers are like; most especially I want to know has it got bloody candles on the tables or fairy lights and twigs?
and that's what I try to do in my reviews and what I hope for in others.
If this ever became a place where I could only find anodyne, gutless comments that tell me nothing about what a pub is like I wouldn't bother contributing or reading the contributions of others. I for one am perfectly capable of discerning the difference between a one drop reviewer, a licensee indulging in some marketing and a "proper" review.
If this site is not about "reviews" ie an informed, impartial, thoughtful and factual description of the good and bad aspects of businesses that are asking to take my or anyone else's money then it's only a catalogue of outlets that people want to promote and you should be charging for that as a service.
Not straightforward this one at all. There is a whole world of difference between the one drop disgruntled reviewer who has just had a crap meal/been barred or thrown out/not been allowed to take their baby or dog in or whatever and the contributor who has reviewed a number of pubs and written as they found. I would suggest that generally if a regular poster writes that something wasn't actually that good then perhaps it wasn't and the truth is enough. If the pub owner/manager doesn't like that then tough, it is most likely to be true though. The one droppers generally will only do the one post, perhaps a few under pseudonyms but then they tend to go. I really see no issue with deleting these and to be fair we do self police and flag dodgy reviews up quickly in general.
Personally I tend to be as positive as I can but sometimes things are not good. I will report poor and indifferent service, stupid rules and regulations or a dubious clientele. I'd be less likely to comment on say beer quality as it could easily be a one-off and not the pub's fault. Having said that a comment about negative issues would not be my sole point as I would describe the whole experience.
Part of the reason of me using this site apart from the tremendous enjoyment it offers is as a valued reference point from other reviewers I trust. If a regular on here says the beer's good, the pub is nice and friendly I'll probably put it on my list for when I'm nearby. If the opposite is clear then I'll give it a miss. Surely that's one of the main points?
As for one droppers or self promoters they are obvious and easily avoided and ignored.
Umm did you actually read my post oldboots, what have I said that disagrees with your rather extended statement? I would be grateful if you could explain how my one sentence guideline rules out any of what you said.
Please forget I mentioned anything, since this is clearly already degenerated into the "How dare you censor me" tack, rather than addressing the actual issue of how we stop this site getting sued and consequently closed.
If we need a statement then I think Nick's version is fine maybe tweaked as you see fit. I wouldn't like to see a statement that would put off a genuine new site member who felt that what they said would be overly scrutinised and subject to censure. Without going around in too many circles perhaps the only other solution is to put new members under moderation until they've submitted say 5, 10 reviews but this is extra work for you admin people.
Perhaps a Code of Conduct could be formulated which is sent on auto....if its easy....when a new member registers, and included in that is a cooling period whereby registration is accepted but posting cannot commence for say 24 hours? ie when they may have chilled a bit. Just a suggestion in this debate, I'm no Techie if it is impossible to do.
Generally I think the way things work at the moment is about right - however, I would like to make sure we still have a site in two years time and Conrad and Dave need to make a living (and how much potential development time is wasted responding to irked landlords and the like?)
Currently a gap is there for an up to date, friendly and reliable pub listings site with genuine reviews (I notice that the other site, despite their new footer and reactivated blog, are still failing to do some really basic things...).
If we all keep working together, I'm confident this site will really start to take off
I'm not sure if people are realising, there are already guidelines, all this would be would to add another bullet point to the end of them. If you look at the add review button there is a link to them there.
Thanks Quinno for the vote of confidence, it is far more inspiring than being told I have gone off half cocked (even in jest) for explaining the rational behind my phrasing.
I'd noticed the guidelines and they look sensible. I'm not sure they'll make much difference to the twitteranti or those returning from a particularly poor Sunday lunch experience.
Conrad, I'm sensing that, as well as being informative, you also see these guidelines as a defensive measure against the litigious. This is the www so people can actually post what they want. But provided the site has provided guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable, and makes a reasonable attempt at 'keeping it clean', then I'd have thought the site has a pretty defendable case.
I'd be interested in your thoughts Conrad, and those of others of course.
I've just joined Alcoholics Anonymous - I still drink, just under a different name.
I believe that no one has had a go at ansering Robs original question...
Why is this? Is it via Facebook?
I think the answer is ... yes.
Work is the curse of the drinking Class - Oscar Wilde
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote