Question on "New" Beers Based on Serving Method

Branding/Imaging/Oskar Blues wants to get more of your sweet, sweet cashola.

 

I'm not sure on this one, because I don't think I've seen both, but is one carbonated normally and one canned with a nitrogen widget? That would explain it because they would both have very different textures.

 

have you ever had a guinness NOT on nitro?

 

I think the OP was wondering more specifically on this website why do some beers feature format-specific entries while others that are still commonly served under said format are lumped into one entry.

 

I was wondering if Atwater did this with their Decadent Chocolate Stout. I had it on tap at the brewery and it was nitro. What does it come with in bottles?

 

I believe those listing should be merged, it probably just hasn't happened yet

 

Sometimes the people who do the entry (us) haven't done their homework and the Mods have no time resources to routinely be double checking all the new entries. Thats where we come in again.

Report the duplicate listing and one of them will fix it after checking to make sure. It helps if you provide them with a link, etc. to speed up the process.

It does work. Been there, done that.

 

Ahhh, well as you probably remember, once upon a time the site allowed for different methods of dispense (e.g., nitro, cask, tap, bottle, etc.) to be indicated differently beyond just a mention in a review, but then made the decision that the level of abuse by users was too high and so it would all be collapsed into a single entry. Given that I never could look at the stats broken out for, say tap vs bottle, I don't see a need for a change from the present system. So I reconcile it by saying its the site admin's decision that its all one base beer and report duplicates when found (but I don't go hunting for them.... ). Just as I agree with the decision that bottles of Weyebacher Insanity at different ages should all be lumped under the single entry for that beer.

Bottom line is that the quirk you noted is considered to be an error not a feature.

 

It is pretty much a variant. I don't have a problem with it being listed separately because they really are different beers.

 

If the brewer puts out two distinct offerings, with different labels, packaging,etc, then it should likely have separate listings. If they make one bier that you can get bottled/canned or served nitro-style, then I guess that's one entry, imo. Prosit!

 

Either way, let's not delete all of the reviews for Left Hand's Milk Stout Nitro overnight on a whim just because of this (admittedly, oddly vague) policy. Inform the reviewers behind the content that they need to move their reviews to the main Milk Stout page, and give us, say, a courtesy 14 days. It's annoying when our writing disappears from one moment to the next without any notice. And then, mere weeks after the Milk Stout Nitro entry was deleted, more reviews start popping up.

And why isn't there a basic system for merging reviews (when one beer entry is going to be deleted, and a review exists for both entries) yet? It can't be *that* hard to code the combination of two blocks of text into one, character limit notwithstanding.

These issues are all vestigial; this website used to have serving type-specific reviews, and now the removal thereof has caused issues like this. Am I the only one who misses being able to see the serving types corresponding to the reviews just below the beer picture? That feature was very useful; for example, it enabled us to be able to surmise when a beer was draught-only (because all of the reviews would be draught reviews). Now we have people with Pliny the Younger on their "wants" list because they aren't keen to the fact it can (now) only be found on-draught.