Moderation of places

Reads 6089 • Replies 71 • Started Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:56:36 AM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message chriso P beers 7540 º places 736 º 10:07 Wed 7/27/2016 Originally posted by Travlr If you simply say that you should enter terrible places just so other Ratebeerians avoid them, you’d have an overwhelming number of places in some areas. It’s not so much a huge number of places in itself that’s problematic but: 1. We don’t get enough reviewso f places to make filtering by score very helpful. 2. The weighting/smoothing system makes this worse for places with few reviews. 3. We lack any sophisticated search/filtering facility to allow uers to drill down onto what they’re interested in. But all this has been said many times. I fear the issue is intractable. Unfortunately, many people are quite happy to rate every new beer they drink but not to review every place they visit - not a criticism, just the way it is & a big limiter on the value of our places section.
Message muzzlehatch beers 4975 º places 327 º 10:30 Wed 7/27/2016 This is a great thread, and valuable for those of us in the USA and Canada as well - in particular, those of us living in un-exciting areas with few active members, such as me. I’ve been doing some research over the last couple of weeks and have found probably a dozen local places with 10+ taps of craft beer - including an English pub with almost 30, some of which may be cask (rare around here) - that have yet to be listed at all. There’s a local brewpub that’s been open at least 3 years that only has one review - and this is in a metro area with 300,000+ people! Even if it sucks (I haven’t been there yet) you’d think it would get a little attention, and that goes for plenty of other brewpubs and bars in (slightly) out of the way places. If somebody starts up a pub or bar in a town of 1500 in the Yukon that’s 500km from anything, I wouldn’t expect much action - but in Wisconsin, Illinois or Ohio it’s rather surprising. Like chriso says it’s an intractable problem. 7 1/2 years ago before I went on hiatus there were only a few people really making the effort, and unfortunately that seems to be still the case, at least in some areas. If we could somehow get most people to just write a detailed review of their own immediate area locations - and compare and contrast when useful, i.e. "this is far and away the best of the three beer bars listed here in this part of town, for these reasons", that’d be a start. Oh and not rating everything over 90 is also helpful...
Message shoulderbroken beers 4258 º places 393 º 21:47 Wed 7/27/2016 Having a problem working out where to go in Krakow as I have just noticed that places have ’ratings’ like this one does. http://www.ratebeer.com/Place/state/city/placename/46526.htm Guess I won’t be going by the overall scores!

Message caesar P beers 7642 º places 411 º 00:00 Thu 7/28/2016 We used to have "tours" available in the places section: a guide of places selected by a reliable user, but I cant seem to find them anymore. They could provide a welcome support perhaps?
Message humlelala beers 1377 º places 89 º 02:37 Thu 7/28/2016 In my view a big part of the reason why the philosophy of "adding every place and letting the ratings speak for themselves" does not work on Ratebeer is because somebody decided that the minimum average a place could score is 50 points. This leads to absurd situations like this smoking-allowed, only macro beer served place getting an overall rating of 56 points despite two people having given it 20, one 8 and one person 46 (a real average of 23.5): http://www.ratebeer.com/p/bro-cafe-aarhus/28249/
Message HenrikSoegaard P beers 20702 º places 691 º 02:45 Thu 7/28/2016 Maybe an admin could explain how this calculation is done? I have asked before and didnt get an answer. Originally posted by humlelala In my view a big part of the reason why the philosophy of "adding every place and letting the ratings speak for themselves" does not work on Ratebeer is because somebody decided that the minimum average a place could score is 50 points. This leads to absurd situations like this smoking-allowed, only macro beer served place getting an overall rating of 56 points despite two people having given it 20, one 8 and one person 46 (a real average of 23.5): http://www.ratebeer.com/p/bro-cafe-aarhus/28249/
Message chriso P beers 7540 º places 736 º 03:52 Thu 7/28/2016 Originally posted by caesar We used to have "tours" available in the places section: a guide of places selected by a reliable user, but I cant seem to find them anymore. They could provide a welcome support perhaps? They were phased out. I’ve suggested in the past that they should be resurrected in some form to provide curated lists in areas where we have reliable users who are prepared to act as curators. And perhaps that those curators could also assign a star rating, or something similar, to all places in their area.

Message FatPhil P beers 26061 º places 995 º 22:27 Thu 7/28/2016 The paradox of locals knowing the scene being reliable is that locals are unrelentingly unreliable too. Maybe show 2 averages - locals, and travlrs. Maybe something like IMDBs reviews having "this review was/wasn’t useful" moderation would be handy. Those krakow ones were mostly hilariously useless, for example. However, the average being higher than any of the scores is just retarded.
Message t0rin0 P beers 102 º places 1528 º 22:31 Thu 7/28/2016 Originally posted by HenrikSoegaard Maybe an admin could explain how this calculation is done? I have asked before and didnt get an answer. Originally posted by humlelala In my view a big part of the reason why the philosophy of "adding every place and letting the ratings speak for themselves" does not work on Ratebeer is because somebody decided that the minimum average a place could score is 50 points. This leads to absurd situations like this smoking-allowed, only macro beer served place getting an overall rating of 56 points despite two people having given it 20, one 8 and one person 46 (a real average of 23.5): http://www.ratebeer.com/p/bro-cafe-aarhus/28249/ It uses the same weighting as the beer scores do (as far as I know), but the starting point is 70, rather than 3.0 with beers. So if more people rate it a 20/100 the sore will continue to drop.
Message Marduk P beers 21940 º places 968 º 01:30 Fri 7/29/2016 Originally posted by t0rin0 It uses the same weighting as the beer scores do (as far as I know), but the starting point is 70, rather than 3.0 with beers. So if more people rate it a 20/100 the sore will continue to drop. So it’s all built on that "if"? That logic is wrong. Maybe there should be 2 different type of logics? Like places <= x amount of reviews and rest. But this average being higher than numbers given just makes people to visit shit places ’til they don’t bother anymore. Can somebody dig up place rating statistics? What is the average number of reviews per place?