Once you click and choose a Seasonal type in the SEASONAL entry, there’s is no way to undo it…you are stuck to leave a choice there…
And why is this named SEASONAL since you can choose Special Releases and Series in those choices… it would probably be better to have those last 2 choices as separate entries since a beer can be from a Serie and a Seasonal at the same time…
In the current beer world that choice is outdated.
At least here, ~90% of any new beer is a one-off, “special” doesn’t really match, and the other options even less.
I use that field sometimes, but frankly it’s just noise.
I can hardly imagine how that information would help me plan a beer trip or set expectations.
I mean, I don’t need it to know that I won’t find doppelbocks on tap in Germany in June…
@services@joet Could you use the already existing SEASONAL option which is pretty useless in its current iteration in the world of 1-time brews) and “transform” it into something else?
We get 6 choices to work with (currently being WINTER, SUMMER, FALL, SPRING, SPECIAL, SERIES)
Rename SEASONAL to BEER CATEGORY or something like that…
Then I would change the 6 choices to:
CORE LINE UP OCCASIONAL / SEASONAL (this would be a nice overall Seasonal replacement) VARIANT (instead of using the tag, works for everything barrel-aged, single hopped, fruited version, etc) VINTAGE / MILLESIME (to prevent people entering the same beer just because of the year shown on the bottle) SPECIALTY / ONE-OFFS COLLABORATION
all of those 6 options could be useful to know… way more useful than the current ones.
And this way, they could be use FOR ALL PRODUCTS.
For example : a COLLABORATION option. This could be further used for filtering/show/hide Collaborations in the brewer listings, or to display them in a different tab/folder than the regular brewer listing.
You would just need a way to remove all seasonal reference at once on all beers to start over.
This is the best idea I came up with but if anyone have other ideas…
It’s “one-off” (singular), not one timer or whatever.
“Specialty” is not necessarily the same as “special” and might as well be something made year-round. If “Special” is to be split, it’s into “Occasional” and One-off"
“Seasonal” and “Occasional” are not the same and the seasons are split up for a reason. Sometimes beer overlap multiple seasons, but picking one is good enough. Unless we get to pick more than one seasonal option which would be very awesome.
Collaboration should be handled elsewhere, not through seasonal availability. Tags are sufficient till that system is in place.
Variants should be handled elsewhere, not through seasonal availability. Tags are sufficient till that system is in place. Some variants are seasonal.
“Core line up”, apart for being wrong, is the default setting anyway, no need to specify it.
I mean it would replace the whole Seasonal - 6 choices concept, not being like “Seasonal - Collaboration” or “Seasonal - One-Off”
Right now, almost nobody use the Seasonal option anymore because beers… just aren’t seasonal most of the time…they are more One-Off things now… Specials means/never meant anything in particular…and many beers are Series…which is often included in the name or description anyway…but have absolutely no use for filter options (because you can’t filter between different series)
I don’t think it matter to know a beer in particular is being tagged as Winter Beer or a Autumn-Winter beer…normally, the ratings let us know when they are available. a bare SEASONAL mention is enough.
Collaborations and Variants SHOULD be handled elsewhere but they probably won’t be until like…forever. You can tag them right now, but you can’t do shit with tags right now and they won’t do anything about tags in the near future too… So why not use something already existing and barely used for something that could mean something. The option already exists here…this wouldn’t be much work.
Believe you me, it’s important for people to know which is which - you are literally the first person I’ve heard who thinks that stating which season it’s made in is irrelevant. Could be wrong, just haven’t encountered any others among RB users.
We already have style names looking godawful because of arbitrary additions of diacritic-free style names favoring French-keyboard users (we who can’t type an accent grave can go eff ourselves apparently), instead of insisting that the underlying and more important issue is fixed.
You are trying to fix holes, and that’s damn cool - wish more people had the will, but sometimes, like with style names, you’re fixing holes in blue jeans with pink silk patches - it does help plug the holes technically but it’s flimsy and looks atrocious, lowering people’s will to wear said jeans.
Don’t think this is against you or personal - just that I disagree with the way of handling issues that you’re advocating. I may be wrong, I may be right. That’s for others to decide.
I absolutely agree with you that we shouldn’t have style name without diacritics when there should be.
The real solution (and the one that I’m advocating for) is that typing “o” should find “ö”. Same than search for “IPA” should find INDIA PALE ALE.
Others and I mentioned those problems plenty of times…
We shouldn’t have to “change” current Seasonals for the things I mentioned earlier, they all should be added as Extra options…
You and I know that things are change in a very slowly manner here… We still have most of the website links leading to old pages after 3 years of the new design implementation, and losing @aww for “hope-to-be-free community developers” sure won’t help on that matter…
Yes I suggest some solutions, some may not be pretty (like kolsch instead of kölsch) but at least it makes something work that otherwise would be broken for an unknown period of time.
Anyway, all in all, I like suggesting ideas, people may like it, people may not, and they sure are not all good ideas on first scratch. At least, it make us talk about it and makes the community still feel somehow alive. And I sure not like statu quo, which is what killed the website in the first place, being replaced by more proactive competitors.
The problem with that strategy, apart from the obvious visual / functional issues - is that it gives an excuse to put the actual solutions for the underlying issues even further back, which is unacceptable.