Why donít we just list every effiní pub in London?

Reads 3457 • Replies 96 • Started Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:15:48 PM CT

Thread Frozen
beers 20116 º places 1015 º 13:59 Thu 9/20/2012

There arenít many other cities - if any - with the breadth of pubs London has. Ergo, it should not surprise that London has exhaustive coverage.

And the Places section does point you to the best places: note how when you go to the Greater London Beer Destinations sub-section, the highest rated places appear highest on the list. If that isnít pointing drinkers to the best pubs, then I donít know what would.

And I would say the majority of visitors to London would like to know what their local options are, in addition to what the best pubs are. You canít always travel across the city to have a pint.

I agree some places in the London section push the definition of ígood beer destinationí, but if there is an informative review of the place then that is helpful.

beers 1701 º places 129 º 13:59 Thu 9/20/2012

I think we need a stricter policy with entering places but the question is important, there is no need for the pub with a full on assault by the blandest breweries going in the database. This is the issue which I think Gazza is getting at. I also think that if you just look at the top places then London has more choice and diversity than most major cities. This is good.

beers 18419 º places 1029 º 14:01 Thu 9/20/2012

Originally posted by yespr
Bullocks question Gazza. Counter question which other town in Europe has that many peeps living in it? Bigger and bolder, needs more places. Thats London today. Leighton has the answer, coming from abroad I really want to know what is in my area instead of spendng one or two hours on the tube before getting there

One or two hours on the tube - it isnít that bad/slow a system honest !!!

Tube pride aside - it is worth having a good spectrum of pubs all over the town whether the selection is vast or moderate.

Some folks visit with their families and other halfís and may only be able to squeeze in a couple of pints in a touristy area as opposed to trecking out to the likes of William IV or the Wenlock etc.

Better to have this gen than not have it.

beers 1234 º places 56 º 14:06 Thu 9/20/2012

As Places descends into ísome place I had a beer I quite likedí and beer listings become íits on a festival list but no-ones rated it yetí, maybe you can understand why I donít see this site as a go-to for recommendations anymore. Sad but true.

beers 5663 º places 91 º 14:13 Thu 9/20/2012

Anyone who only uses Places to decide where to go for a beer is not doing themselves a favour. Part of the fun of going to visit a city is in planning where to visit, and if you use just one source, be it BITE, the GBG or Places, then youíre limiting yourself. Anyone who is so seriously short of time that they only have time to look at Places must expect they are likely to end up missing out on some good pubs.

To be honest I donít use GBG anymore - havenít done so for years as the selection of pubs is very random. Nor do I use Places as the selection is even more random.

I do like BITE and other pub listing sites, such as Fancy a Pint, as they are more comprehensive, and the comments give you a fair idea of what the pub is like. The people who write the entries do not need to be beer experts nor prize winning journalists to give you a flavour of what the pub is like, especially when you get several comments. Added to the regular pub listing sites are the local sites, sometimes by CAMRA, sometimes by ordinary pub going folks. I will use Ianís pub site for pubs in Kent. Itís not a CAMRA site - itís one by and for ordinary pub loving people.

I have always though that Places would have been better if it had been allowed to be comprehensive (like our beer listing), but Oakes had a different view. The admins spent years reluctantly carrying out his philosophy of only listing "the best" (but exactly whose best was never clear - it seemed to come down to personal judgement), and deleting various pub listings. I think most admins gave up on the deletions a while ago (I certainly did!), and thatís why the listings are perhaps starting to become more comprehensive.

If it does change so that Places becomes a comprehensive listing the same as the beer database Iíll be interested. But until then Iíll continue to ignore it, and use the other sites.

beers 2504 º places 185 º 14:18 Thu 9/20/2012

I go the other way. I want every place listed so I can look at the scoring system and instantly know whether it is worth bothering with or not.

beers 2504 º places 185 º 14:19 Thu 9/20/2012

By the same argument why do we bother listing shit beers on Ratebeer? We do it so that the information is out there and those on the site can know what to try, what to avoid etc.

beers 1234 º places 56 º 14:40 Thu 9/20/2012

The value of Places used to be reviews by people I could trust, rather than reviews by regulars / licensees. I trust good people to find the good pubs and report back. Yes, Iíll cross-check with other sites - Iíll ask Twitter before I look anywhere else - but the great thing about ratebeer was that Places were the best of the best.

beers 7422 º places 709 º 14:52 Thu 9/20/2012

Originally posted by haddonsman
The value of Places used to be reviews by people I could trust, rather than reviews by regulars / licensees. I trust good people to find the good pubs and report back. Yes, Iíll cross-check with other sites - Iíll ask Twitter before I look anywhere else - but the great thing about ratebeer was that Places were the best of the best.

Itís definitely frustrating that thereís a spam reviews for London pubs (*Cough* Black Heart *Cough*).

I think the assertion that the Places section has become a general index of the universe of pubs in London is far-fetched. Sure, a few pubs can/should be culled, but most places I see listed do offer something worthwhile to your typical visiting ratebeerian. The filtering option also helps - if you only want to see the very best of the best, just limit your search.

beers 4127 º places 111 º 22:01 Thu 9/20/2012

Back in the day when we started putting in UK places, I think many of us agreed that there could be a distinction between what you would put in a "brew tour" and what would be listed for rating.

London *is* one of the most touristed cities in the world, and it is also one of the places with the most pubs. (Compare, e.g., Paris or Amsterdam, which get many tourists but donít have the same culture.) From the perspective of someone visiting for the first time, it is overwhelming and difficult to sort out whether a historic pub that youíve heard about is worth it. So you look it up...and what, thereís no entry at all? Does that mean it is really bad or just not good enough to make a Top 20 list?

When youíre a visitor to London, it is far more helpful to know that the pub close to where youíll be staying is rated at 60%--but thereís one at 90% a little further on--rather than knowing that thereís that great pub and then this pub with no entry whatsoever. Having more data, even if it rates poorly, is simply more helpful.

(And, do you realize that even though the Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese is rated just #58 in London, it is still at 76%? Thatís a very reasonable score for many cities. And why? Because it is one totally cool place to visit, a celebration of the history of drinking beer, even if the beer they serve there is rather pedestrian. So cool, in fact, that this summer Steve insisted on us walking a block or two out of our way to find it.)