As Anth says, quite a lot of Greene King owned pubs have more beers of interest these days. Greene King tenants can often stock pretty much whatever they please although it can be financially punishing for them to do so. I would certainly not rule out a pub just because it is owned by Greene King.
How often do people really decide what pubs to visit in a town by just looking at the list and not the full place page & the reviews and is the owning brewer the most important factor? If they do, is there other stuff we should put in the name field to save them the chore of an extra click through to the place page? I’m often looking for pubs with wifi. Some people want to know which pubs are child-friendly. I don’t think many users would want all that info "tagged" by cramming it into the name field though. |
I can see both sides of this issue.
Given the current RB structure, I don’t think we could elegantly fit any additional information into the name of a listing, i.e. adding something like wifi availability. Perhaps one day we could have little icons next to place listings, but for now all we have is text, and adding more text would make the entry look cluttered.
As Chris points out, tied houses seem to be slightly less tied nowadays. There are some Fuller’s pubs, for example, that have a nice range of guest beers. In London, the Union Tavern is the go-to example. They typically have around 15 beers on cask and keg, and fewer than five tend to be Fuller’s. I was also in the Mad Bishop and Bear yesterday (Fuller’s pub in Paddington), and they have an excellent range of non-Fuller’s on cask, keg and in bottle.
I do see some value in having the associated brewer in the name of the listing. I still think that, most of the time, you can infer a lot from seeing Greene King or Fuller’s in the name of a pub. Most of the time, that will mean that the beer selection is dominated by the associated brewer. Does listing this information push people away more than it draws them in? That is a great question, and I can certainly see cases where it could. But I also think it’s very handy if I’m going to a new city and I can quickly tell what’s GK or Fuller’s and what’s a freehouse. (Sure, there are shit freehouses, but let’s keep that matter to the side for now.)
There’s obviously no perfect solution, and since RB lacks the tech firepower to engineer a good solution, we’ll probably just have to figure out what the best solution is given our current circumstances. |
For what it’s worth, my view is that having the brewery affiliation next to the name of the pub isn’t helpful and doesn’t add anything. There is already a facility to make the link under "associate brewer" when adding a new place.
Of course this doesn’t apply to Wetherspoon pubs but I don’t think the “JWD” tag is particularly helpful either. If I had a pint for every visitor from overseas who’s asked me what it means I’d be very tipsy indeed! It’s obvious from the website addresses which chain these pubs belong to but, if something has to be added to the pub’s name, why not just put “Wetherspoon”?
Leighton - you mention convention and consistency. Where can I find out what the agreed conventions are? There are so many inconsistencies with place listings (including the issue currently under discussion) that it’s difficult to add places "correctly" and I’ve virtually given up on meticulously checking existing information when I add my place reviews.
On related topic, the apparently arbitrary assignment of places to areas of London (and other UK cities) is a particular source of frustration. I appreciate that it’s not easy to decide on what divisions to use (or indeed to come up with a system that suits everyone) but those currently in place not only play havoc with the maps, they are frequently meaningless to anyone who knows London and completely baffling for visitors who don’t. It would be helpful to know what the thinking behind it is and what system / logic (if any) is being used. I’m also happy to help if there’s a will towards devising a more consistent approach.
Thanks. |
|
|
Originally posted by Boudicca
For what it’s worth, my view is that having the brewery affiliation next to the name of the pub isn’t helpful and doesn’t add anything. There is already a facility to make the link under "associate brewer" when adding a new place.
Of course this doesn’t apply to Wetherspoon pubs but I don’t think the “JWD” tag is particularly helpful either. If I had a pint for every visitor from overseas who’s asked me what it means I’d be very tipsy indeed! It’s obvious from the website addresses which chain these pubs belong to but, if something has to be added to the pub’s name, why not just put “Wetherspoon”?
Leighton - you mention convention and consistency. Where can I find out what the agreed conventions are? There are so many inconsistencies with place listings (including the issue currently under discussion) that it’s difficult to add places "correctly" and I’ve virtually given up on meticulously checking existing information when I add my place reviews.
On related topic, the apparently arbitrary assignment of places to areas of London (and other UK cities) is a particular source of frustration. I appreciate that it’s not easy to decide on what divisions to use (or indeed to come up with a system that suits everyone) but those currently in place not only play havoc with the maps, they are frequently meaningless to anyone who knows London and completely baffling for visitors who don’t. It would be helpful to know what the thinking behind it is and what system / logic (if any) is being used. I’m also happy to help if there’s a will towards devising a more consistent approach.
Thanks.
I don’t think there’s any place on the site that provides exhaustive guidance for adding places - that would be far too helpful, Ruth, and you know it!
I can’t really recall any discussion of adding the brewery names to the place listing, so not sure how that decision came about. Ditto the way large cities are now split out. I couldn’t imagine being a visitor to London and trying to navigate the listings as they are set up now. |
Originally posted by Leighton
Given the current RB structure, I don’t think we could elegantly fit any additional information into the name of a listing, i.e. adding something like wifi availability. Perhaps one day we could have little icons next to place listings, but for now all we have is text, and adding more text would make the entry look cluttered.
As I’m sure you guessed, I wasn’t seriously suggesting that we should add more stuff into the name field. All this information is available on the place page and people just have to accept that they will need to click through to the place page to get it the way things are at the moment (and are likely to remain for the foreseeable future). So I guess the question is do we want to sacrifice simplicity & elegance in presentation for additional information in the name and, if so, how much & is the owning brewery the most important (probably not these days in my view).
|
Originally posted by Leighton
But I also think it’s very handy if I’m going to a new city and I can quickly tell what’s GK or Fuller’s and what’s a freehouse. (Sure, there are shit freehouses, but let’s keep that matter to the side for now.)
The concept of the "free house" is a bit murky these days and doesn’t necessarily have that much to do with who owns the pub or what you’ll find beer-wise. Is the intention to reflect ownership or beer range with these additions to the pub name? A very high proportion of pubs are under the ownership of pub groups - some massive, some very small. Some pub groups impose a quite strict regime regarding beer choice, others don’t. Some have a high degree of variation within the group. Some have a mix of managed and tenanted houses which may impact on this variation. Often adding the pub group to the name will mean nothing to people who aren’t clued up on that sort of thing, much less convey any useful information about what to expect in terms of beers. Many of these pub groups don’t have any distinctive branding so it’s often difficult to pin down ownership anyway. |
