I’m just wondering since you guys decided to delete my rate for Alesmith Pat’s Blend, when are you going to delete all the Firestone Walker Anniversary ales for the same reason?
Seriously, this shit is why I’m on untappd.
My favorite version of Abyss gets deleted months later because it’s “not available to the public”, though it was available to anyone who took a tour, just like a festival beer is available to anyone that goes to said festival. Pat’s Blend gets deleted I’m assuming cause it’s a blend (just like FWAV’s & 100’s of beers on here still) and all the others remain. I mean…it was kegged as such and sold at their damn brewery. It’s not like they took a splash of each beer from different taps to make the damn thing.
Anyone, keep deleting legit beers that people take the time to add to and rate on your site. Traffic’s at an all-time high after all…
That’s more than a bit ridiculous, deleting reviews.
um. Pat’s Blend is still on the page; it is even verified. Hence I find it hard to believe that rating it is not allowed on the site as of now.
Did you get any information about your deleted rating?
Right now Pat’s Blend - 2018 is unrateable.
@support
oh come on, why does the beer page itself not show that?
I’m the one that entered it over a month ago, and yes, I got the generic notice you get when a rate is deleted.
It does show that. The gold “full rating” bar has been turned to grey.
my browser still shows the old page 90% of the time.
Clear cookies and delete your brain. Guaranteed solution.
Traffic is at an all time high on the street where I live. I’d rather it wasn’t. It’s just an annoyance that adds zero enhancement to my life.
I’m shocked there was never any (official) reply as to why this particular blend was disallowed while so many others remain. Shocked I say!
6 more days til my paid membership expires. Between getting logged out and my password not working too damn often (today included), the shitty looking formatting, my contributions getting deleted for stupid and/or inconsistent reasons, that’s it for me. I was on the fence about premium, but the choice is easy now. I’d walk away altogether but for all the work I’VE put into the site. Logging my own beers (the ones that are allowed, of course) will be the extent of my involvement from here on out.
@BeerandBlues2, care to tell the story of how this became unrateable? I’m sure it’d be appreciated by Chris.
With the big investment, why is it necessary to offer premium membership? Ad free should now be standard and free. Just my humble opinion.
Yes, I spoke to Peter Zien about these beers. They start out as someone playing with tap blends in the Anvil and Stave, and some of them get blended post fermentation in a keg and named so they can serve them. We do not allow post fermentation blends, and have not for many years. Yes, there are more to change to unrateable, including some of mine. I typically send folks beermails before I delete anything, but if I failed to in this case, then I apologize.
What about something like the Firestone Walker Annivesary series bottles… aren’t those post fermentation blends?
Or basically all of Storm in Vancouver which is just 4 base beers and then various tinctures added in… and what about radlers and shandies or juice beers… why based on this logic are they permitted?
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
@slowrunner77 I handled the Abyss entry and I messaged you about it. We discussed this one. The blend was not sold to the public and was just a blend of stuff made by the brewery for themselves- messing around. This is not like a festival beer which is clearly marketed and sold to the public. I’ll re-discuss this with Deschutes if you want. I am fair, and I respect you- I just expect the same.
In terms of the AleSmith, this may be a mistake. I didn’t touch that but I will find out who did.
This is not a big deal in the sense of new draconian policies. I assure you that I want every legitimate entry on this site. There are no new policies. But the admins are not perfect and maybe we screwed up. We’re just as frustrated as everyone by the chaos here at times, and working for free. Instead of bashing, let’s work together.
What? Why should they not be allowed? There are so many beers which are blended after fermentation, not just macro Lagers for consistency reasons but also many barrel blends or other stuff. If two or more of those beers are blended, then filled in a keg or bottle and named differently comparing with other beers, why should this not be rateable? Or did I get you wrong?
We may have a case of comparing apples and oranges here. If local bar staff combine Harp and Guinness using 2 taps (or 2 bottles) and give it a name (say Diageo B&T), even if they put it on the board for a day, it’s not a blend from “the brewer”.* If we try to apply “do not allow post fermentation blends” to brewer blends (to include blends authorized by brewers), we’d be eliminating some lambics and guezue. Those two examples should be illustrative. Any post-fermentation blending by/for brewers and sold (in whatever fashion) to the public, should be acceptable.
*Of course, if the local bar is the Guinness Storehouse / Gravity Bar and the mix is a semi-permanent offering, the admins need to think about it. Maybe even if the semi-permanent offering is from a local brewpub or tasting room. But not for the casual “blends” of a friendly nut behind the bar.
