Offices, not cafes
A cafe guide tells you where to buy coffee in a city. Deskbrew tells you what the coffee is like where people work. One physical office of one company is one entry; public coffee bars are out of scope.
What Deskbrew measures, how the office coffee score is calculated, what it takes to rate an office, and how contributor privacy is handled.
Everyone has an opinion about the coffee at work, and nobody has ever written it down in a way that can be compared. Deskbrew asks one small question about the place people already spend their days: how good is the coffee? Offices get rated the way employers get rated on a jobs site, except the only subject is what comes out of the machine.
A cafe guide tells you where to buy coffee in a city. Deskbrew tells you what the coffee is like where people work. One physical office of one company is one entry; public coffee bars are out of scope.
A company with six offices usually runs six different coffee programmes. The company page puts them side by side, so you can see whether the building you sit in is the good one.
City rankings answer the other half of the question: which workplace in town actually pours the best cup, and where yours stands in that order.
Free or paid, oat milk or none, portafilter or bean-to-cup: all recorded as facts you can filter by, none of them able to move the score. That is what makes questions like “is paid coffee better?” answerable instead of assumed.
Deskbrew is a map for rating and comparing office coffee. One physical office location is one entry. People find a workplace, read its taste score and factual details, and submit their own rating in about thirty seconds. Frankfurt is the first launch city.
Only taste ratings feed the score. Each rating is a whole number from 1 to 10. Ratings are weighted toward recent opinion, then combined with a Bayesian prior centred at 6.5 that pulls offices with few ratings toward the middle. This stops a single enthusiastic rating from producing a perfect score.
No. Cost, milk options, machine type, and visitor access are recorded as facts and exposed as filters. They never change the score. An office cannot improve its ranking by making coffee free or by buying a more expensive machine.
Nothing but the office and about thirty seconds. Rating is open to everyone, there is nothing to fill in beyond the score itself, and every rating counts. A private cookie keeps your contributions together on the device you used, so you can update or withdraw a rating later.
Several controls work together. Before a rating is saved, the exact office must be confirmed against a server-issued token bound to that office and contributor. Rate limits apply both to the contributor and to a hashed network key, so clearing cookies does not reset them. Every contribution passes a human verification check. Ratings that match manipulation patterns, such as one contributor rating several unrelated companies within half an hour, are held out of scoring for review.
A provisional office has too few ratings for its score to be treated as settled. The score is still shown, because contributing should visibly do something, but the office is excluded from official rankings until it reaches the confidence threshold.
Yes. Contributor identity is never shown on a public page. Reactions appear without a name attached, and client network addresses are stored only as a keyed hash used for abuse counting, never in raw form.
No. Company representatives can suggest corrections to factual details such as the address, machine, milk options, or visitor access. Taste scores cannot be edited, disputed away, or purchased.
One physical office location is one entry. A company with three buildings in a city has three entries, each with its own score, because the coffee is usually different in each. Company-wide figures exist but are always secondary to the location.
Frankfurt is the first launch market. Anyone can add a missing office, which enters a moderation queue before it appears in public rankings.
Every factual attribute carries a confirmation date and a freshness state, shown on the office page. Ratings are weighted toward recent opinion, so a score follows the current coffee programme rather than an office's historical reputation.
That is the shortest accurate description. As on an employer-review site, the ratings come from the people who are actually there, nobody needs the company's permission to post one, and the result is public. The difference is the scope: salary, management, and workload belong on those other sites, while here the entire subject is what comes out of the machine.
No, and that is deliberate. Every city already has good guides to where you can buy a coffee. Nobody has ranked the coffee people drink at work, so every Deskbrew entry is a workplace. A cafe inside an office building is listed only where it is that office's own coffee for the people who work there.
Open the city ranking. It orders every ranking-eligible office in that city by taste, and cost, milk, machine type, and visitor access work as filters on top of that order, so you can narrow it to offices open to visitors or serving oat milk without losing the ranking. The map shows the same data geographically if you would rather look at one neighbourhood.
The company page collects every mapped office of one company, each with its own score, so a company with six sites shows six numbers rather than one average. Coffee is almost always a per-building decision — different machines, suppliers, and cleaning rotas — which is why the location, not the logo, is the unit Deskbrew ranks.
Not on its own. A traditional espresso machine has both the higher ceiling and the higher demands: it rewards an office where someone dials in the grind and cleans the group head, and punishes one where nobody does. A bean-to-cup machine gives a consistent, unremarkable cup for far less attention. Which one wins is an empirical question, and machine type is recorded as a fact precisely so the ratings can answer it instead of the specification sheet.
Cost is not a quality signal in either direction, and it never enters the score. Offices that charge sometimes fund better beans and a service contract; offices that give coffee away sometimes buy more carefully to control volume. Filter by cost on the map, or read the free-versus-paid comparison, and judge it from how the two groups actually rate.
It is a fun idea that happens to produce real information, and what you do with that information is up to you. Some people settle an argument about whether the building across the street really does have better coffee. Some show a falling score to whoever signs the coffee contract. Most just look. Because ratings are anonymous, structured, and weighted, the comparison is something you can see objectively rather than assume — and a piece of feedback that is easier to act on than a complaint in the kitchen.
Yes. Search the company and choose the actual office location. Deskbrew rates individual workplaces rather than the employer overall.
Yes. Scores are public and can be linked or shared, but the employer cannot edit or buy the rating.
Yes. A public score and structured feedback can make the problem easier to discuss, but Deskbrew does not contact employers or demand changes.
It is better described as a workplace perk than compensation. Deskbrew records whether coffee is free separately from taste.
Fresh beans, a suitable grind, good water, clean equipment, well-handled milk and regular maintenance matter more than buying the most expensive machine.
Read the office coffee setup guideTake Deskbrew as lightly as you like. Nothing here is a performance review, no score is a verdict on a workplace, and an office with mediocre coffee may be an excellent place to work.
What the numbers are good for is your call. They let you see objectively whether the coffee at the office next door might be better, and they give you a structured, anonymous way to leave feedback about your own — which is easier for an employer to act on than a shrug in the kitchen.