GBG Errors

It's VERY useful. Those of us actually go in search of interesting pubs need to know where in a city just as much as the countryside. Postcode plus one of Internet map systems is just what we needed.

I've found a few errors I agree, but I don't know if that is GBG or Multimap, except where postcode is completely wrong and not valid.

-- David Replace diesel with steam to reply.

In message , David writes

The number gets reduced by branches that don't fill their entire allocation, (hopefully you'll agree that's better than padding out their section of the guide). The allocations get altered to match the real distribution of 'good enough' pubs but it's always going to be behind changes.

Also, as publication approaches no new entries get made but pubs can be removed, so the total is likely to be reduced. I suppose they could start with too many entries and gamble on losing just enough, but its less than 3% out so hardly worth worrying about IMHO.

Have you included the "Inn Brief"s?

In article , David writes

Have you considered the advisability of getting out more?

Once in a while I have a good idea. Then I nag people to do it. (sometimes they listen)

Nice to see other people find it as useful as I do.

Its a short measure. I'm not sure about putting a smiley or not on this one ;-)

John B

In message , JohnB writes

Maybe they should conform to industry guidelines and put 450+ of the pubs on a separate 'on request' top up booklet. We can fill the empty space with frothy guff about lager ;)

True if branches don't fill in enough forms because they haven't found enough good pubs then the overall numbers may be down.

Not true. Allocations for the different counties have not changed in some while.

The new system divided the allocations between full and Inn Brief entries slightly differently.

The suggestion that the co-ordinators (be they regional directors National Executive or guide editors) reduce an allocation simply because a branch does not fill the allocation on any year or sequence of years is total tosh. It's total tosh that various people in the know have been trying to eliminate for years. Please do not make their jobs harder by repeating it.

In the 2004 guide? What "Inn Brief"s?

Yes. I confess to muttering the words 'Sad' and '#astard' when I read that.

Ruff

Sad I maybe, but there was a reason for it. I've compiled a database of GBG pubs and add each years quota to it, so its easy to see how many pubs are included. I added the postcodes this year and it was obvious that some were wrong. The result is that I can now print out lists of pubs by county, postcode or anything else, tailored to where I'm going without having to carry a GBG around with me.

David

No disrespect intended David. Each to his own and enjoy it.

atb

Richard

Seems to make sense though. Say one area consistently fails to fill their allocation and another has to leave out GBG quality pubs due to lack of space...

Cheers

Blackfire band website :

Bristol & District Campaign for Real Ale :

Then during the editing phase the reserve entries will be given page space.

The fact that in say 2004 an area shows with 20 entries while the allocation is 30 does not mean that the area will lose 10 entries for 2005, or indeed 2006, 2007, 2008 etc

The calculation of the pub entries per area is somewhat complex. People have suggested alternate methods of calculating the entries many times but interestingly when each method was put through the number cruncher with real data the difference in entries tended to amount to a handful of pubs across a large county.

The last radical change in method was in the late 80's and the differences for places like West Midlands (bogus county) 9 fewer, Merseyside 1 more represent a bigger change than any other proposal since.

In short " it ain't broke, so people ain't tryin' t' fix it"