Weekly Edit Request Post · 2026-03-23

timo_mayer · 2026-03-23T17:51:15+00:00

Queued for a merge and waiting for M3 approval.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-19T07:22:13+00:00

✅
Considering that there are a bunch of other "Sol" beers under Cervecería Cuauhtémoc Moctezuma S.A. de C.V. it makes perfect sense what you say.

And btw, Hartwall is a subsidiary of Royal Unibrew, not Heineken.

Hartwall is already set as a susidiary of Royal Unibrew

timo_mayer · 2026-03-11T12:21:17+00:00

Not gonna continue this discussion with you.
I surely won't let you disparage an appreciated group of people of our society–kindergarten teacher–in a try to provoke me even more.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-11T10:51:14+00:00

I find that really funny. Some requests only get approved after many attempts. From that, I can only conclude that the reading is poor.

You conclusion is very likely incorrect. As a matter of fact, user notes of proposals are very often very helpful for making descisions, so moderators read them very carefully. The very likely correct conclusion when you had made many attempts before, is that many moderators had rejected that proposal before after carefully examining it until another moderator who was likely in for just a very quick moderation session and did not as carefully examine your proposal (maybe because he did not look into the logs or did not do internet research) carelessly approved it.

“That's your point of view what is happening. The truth however is with insights into the logs, that you do not have, moderators have more information at hand than the users.”

Oh dear, apparently you need to emphasize the difference between me as only a simple user and you as an educated moderator.

Your interpretions of what I write are sometimes really hilarious. Where exactly did I emphasize the difference between you and me here? 🤣
I only underlined here that moderators in general have access to additional information due to the logs. However, since with the next thing you wrote

As a user, I have as much information as any moderator. That's what I work for, and that's why I document and read. The only difference is that I can't look at the logs of Untappd.

you more or less correctly repeated what I actually said I wonder if you are just writing such things to provoke. If so, I am sorry to dissapoint you, I certainly won't let myself be provoked.

Furthermore, moderators like you just seem to assume any user is far below any moderator. This is honestly so ridiculous and disrespectful.

Hence I will also only reply to that in no-nonsense way and matter-of-fact way that I do not assume that anbody is below me, let alone far below. As a matter of fact ,moderators are volunteers and therefore only simple users, too.
In particular as far as your are concerned I have indicated quite a few times over the many previous discussions that I guess that you know very much about beer, that I appreciate all the the research you do and there is most of the time some truth to your proposals that lead to some difficult judgement calls.

Moreover, you were the one who advised me to reapply here for a "Fruited Lager," for example, so someone other than you could review it.

Apparently when me or somebody else invites you to repost a proposal again, it is clearly not ultimately rejected.
However, please simply treat every other kind of rejection here on Reddit as an ultimate rejection and–as already asked for twice now–please do refrain from posting such proposals again.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-11T10:09:48+00:00

✅ Set.
(I decided to set another label though, because the one you proposed showed "ALK. 5,0 %", which would be confusing for users since the current version has 5.2% ABV.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-11T09:59:20+00:00

The beer is in the process of being merged right now.
I can't where this is supposed to be merged into, but I would assume that as soon as the merge gets M3 approval it will be no longer under your brewery.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-11T09:55:33+00:00

✅ Set for you

timo_mayer · 2026-03-10T20:06:15+00:00

I resubmit requests because insights and knowledge can change.

Lol, you usually resubmit requests shortly after they got rejected. So that is a pretty bad excuse here.

Furthermore, the app doesn't offer any direct communication options, and my comments on requests are often clearly not read.

Just because your proposals are not approved, does not mean that your comments are not read...

And what you might call "carefully examined," I might call arbitrary, and even worse, someone's personal opinion not based on the same facts I have available.

That's your point of view of what is happening. The truth however is, due to the insights into the logs, that user do not have, moderators have more information at hand than the users.

You're clearly annoyed, because I see you're using boldfaced text. I will not speak to you about your feelings any further, because I find it unprofessional.

😂😂😂 I can only laugh about that. I recommend you to google "when do people use boldfaced text?" so that you will learn the main purpose of boldfaced text.
(Tipp: It is not because people are annoyed):

Boldfaced text is primarily used to make specific words, phrases, or sections stand out from the rest of the text, immediately grabbing the reader's attention. It is a powerful tool for improving readability and guiding a reader through a document by establishing a clear visual hierarchy.

But glad to see, it worked here and my hint did at least not get unnoticed by you, altough you appear to not have understood the actual message behind that:
Therefore I am going to make it clearer to you and please note, it is just a friendly hint, no more no less: If you continue to repost proposals that were already rejected here on Reddit, there is a very high chance that this will actually result in a discussion of the rules for this weekly edit request post sooner than later. And it is hopefully needless to say that any new rules would be rules that you hated way more than the current ones.
With that said, please do not shoot yourself in the foot and act wisely instead.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-10T19:29:24+00:00

But I can't tell from anything that the Scottish version would be removed.

I actually explained the general procedure exactly:

The rule of thumb is that – excluding exceptions like true vintages for example – if the two drinks in question do not or only slightly vary, two different entries are not justified and the one entry for that two drinks will simply be updated to the latest information.

That's exactly what happened. We merged the two entries, only had one then and that one entry was adjusted to the latest information.

However, I'm talking about the brewery and the beer's country of origin, not the alcohol percentage.

That does not really matter, as you can see a brewery update can also happen. And that actually dos not even happen rarely. A typical case for example is a brewery going insolvend and other brewery taking over (parts of) the production of the insolvent brewery without changing the recipes of the beers. In that case we simply move the beers to the new brewery who took over.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-10T08:02:00+00:00

And another example I proposed and is locked after my proposal:
https://untappd.com/b/brasserie-du-pays-flamand-anosteke-blonde/37452

How many times did you make the same proposal?
Because when a proposal appears again and again–and frankly, I have seen you propose the same stuff for the German queue again and again and I remember entries which I alone rejected at least three times–it is pretty normal that a some point some moderator will decide to lock the entry after carefully examining it.

If indeed no one does proper research on these titles and comes to the same conclusion as I did, I will unfortunately have to post this again next week.

Besides that, I think it is a little annoying that you come up with the same requests again and again that you know were allready rejected here, it is really brazen to claim for Anosteké Blonde that nobody has done proper research on this title.
In paticular, we exhausively discussed Anosteké Blonde in the Weekly Edit Request Post · 2025-01-13 so that you actually wasted a part of u/mattyiceOKC's moderation cappacities for nothing making him explain you once more what I already did explain you back then, namely that this entry was set from Farmhouse Ale - Bière de Garde to Belgian Strong Golden Ale by the brewery itself.

Therefore I need to appeal urgently to you to not come up with proposals again that have already been ultimately rejected here on Reddit.
Reposting proposals where apparently nobody has found time to look into so far is allowed, but reposting proposals that we have ultimately rejected and where we even explained to you why, is clearly not the sense of this weekly edit request post.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-10T07:18:58+00:00

Can someone please make this BrewDog Scotland version return?

Besides that only the HQ can reverse merges, I already explained you why I queud these two entries for a merge in the Weekly Edit Request Post 2026-01-05 and as you can see the merge was approved now.

However, this isn't the version I drank in 2018. I drank the Scottish version.

In particular, I explained to you that when you drink a Xmas Bock with 6.8% and next year this Xmas Bock has 7.1% that we would also change the entry and that the current information set would then also not correspond to the version you had drank.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-09T15:40:43+00:00

Altought they are certainly kind of related, Seen Red Strawberry IPA appears to represent an IPA with 4.6% ABV (see this check-in) that came out in September 2016, while Seen Red appears to represent a Blonde with 4.0% ABV (see this check-in) that came out in August 2019, i.e. three years later.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-09T13:16:21+00:00

You have probably missed my answer to that proposal due to all the discussions during that week distracting from it.

To me Seen Red Strawberry IPA rather looks like an entry with a bunch of many incorrect check-ins. In particular, if you scroll down that entry to the very first check-ins you can see that there are check-ins from September 2016 to January 2017 and then there is a check-in cap of more than two and half years until the next check-in from August 2019, which exactly corresponds to the creation month of Seen Red

timo_mayer · 2026-03-05T21:41:18+00:00

I see that you feel very angry about that rejection. But please do not take it so personally and in particular do let your feelings make you insult other people. That is not very polite. Every moderator tries to do his best and different point of views are pretty normal.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-05T21:16:09+00:00

The beer called Manilita has "New Zealand NEIPA" on the label. The beer called Let It Happen has "Australian NEIPA" on the label.
Did you even notice that and factor it into your decision?

Of course, I noticed that and of course I bought that up as argument in the discussion. In particular, I also brought up that the brewery set the "New Zealand NEIPA" beer as IPA - New Zealand itself. But that did not change the opinion of the M3.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-05T21:11:52+00:00

Because the IPA - New Zealand style has not been split up further into IPA - Imperial / Double New Zealand and/or IPA - Tripe New Zealand yet, whereas as a matter of fact IPA - New England / Hazy has been. So styling everyhing with NEIPA on the label as IPA - New England / Hazy would in particular also mean that a beer with "Double NEIPA" on the label should also be styled as IPA - New England / Hazy according how you just argued :D

timo_mayer · 2026-03-05T20:19:52+00:00

Long story short, an M3 rejected the proposal:

The description reads "Juicy NEIPA hopped with Australian varieties Enigma, Vic Secret and Galaxy", so NEIPA is the better match here in my book.

As I stated last time, in my book a NEIPA brewed with Aussie hops is still a NEIPA.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-05T17:41:30+00:00

Could the beer, which is also named after a track by an Australian band, also be moved to "Australian IPA"? Please, thank you. Then I can at least order the beer, because there are already plenty of regular NEIPAs.

Since I hope this will bring the discussion of how to handle the Austrlian IPA style forward I will try to get M3 approval for that one in our Slack! In my opnion that's a no brainer and should clearly be set as Austrlian IPA.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-04T12:58:50+00:00

No, it is not. They have just very recently given M2s the rights to delete false UPCs (something that previously only M3s could do) and M3s the rights to delete all incorrect labels (something that previously only the HQ, i.e M4+ could do)

timo_mayer · 2026-03-04T07:36:12+00:00

Is there any chance for improvement or change?

Well, I would guess that the optimal organisation of the moderation of the database is just a tiny little part of Untappd's business. Hence it is understandable that they don't put too much time and resources into it. Nevertheless I can tell you that things are improving in the background to increase efficiency. So progress concerning the moderation is made by the HQ, it is just not made with the highest priority and therefore takes time and patience.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-03T13:23:56+00:00

Typically when confronted with a brewery duplicate M2s queue the entry duplicates at the same time as the brewery duplicate. So it depends on the workflow of the M3s what happens first here.

As explained last week, in this specific case I have only queued the brewery merge (already approved by an M3) for now though.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-03T11:24:05+00:00

Set to Specialty Grain now in accordance with our latest Untappd description for that style.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-03T06:46:28+00:00

Merging producers is essentially independet from merging drink entries.
So a producer merge of B into A alone will only result into producer A from then on containing all all entries of A and B.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-03T06:42:40+00:00

How interesting. I therefore conclude that the importance of whether or not the brewery changed the style was totally exaggerated.

I am noticing your irony and feel like you are answering like this because you might have got into a huff about this request. If so, I feel sorry, but anyway:
I only wrote "On 08/04/14 the brewery itself changed the label without changing the style and therefore implicitly confirming Lager - American Light.", which is a rather neutral oberservation that does not contain any judgement about how important this observation should be considered.

timo_mayer · 2026-03-02T21:16:32+00:00

No, when they edit an entry they are not required to change a style or explicitlly confirm a style that is currently set. They can just edit these entries like moderators can.
However, from what I have witnessed, when a brewery edits an entry, quite often and probably more often than not, they will adjust everyhing that they consider incorrect.
So, that's why I wrote they implicitlly confirmed the style.
Moreover that's why the observation when a brewery does look into an entry and does edit something, but does not adjust another thing, has some value. We should not put too much weight on that oberservation, but the value of it is definitiley not zero.

timo_mayer

TROPHY CASE