1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Changes: Beer Hads, Full Reviews & Ratings

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Todd, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. yeah, echo echo echo

    i fear things have been a bit dilluted now, such that those with worthwhile things to say and constructive input are harder to locate, and the palates i care to hear from are lost in the wash. why did we do this?
     
  2. mudbug

    mudbug Advocate (500) Oregon Mar 27, 2009

    Maybe I'm missing something but from the home page "beers/ recent reviews" used to be enjoyable, now it's useless. Can you filter out the "hads" on recent beer reviews? Also, since we are talking about site updates when will the top beers regions break up the ridiculous "West coast" region into something that resembles reality?
     
    JohnnyHopps likes this.
  3. that said though, the filter hads feature and the display of many more reviews per page are both tremendously useful. so bravo for that! this site is the best!
     
  4. Bitterbill

    Bitterbill Poobah (1,145) Wyoming Sep 14, 2002

    You hit the nail on the head there and I didn't lose reviews other than different servings so no biggie.:cool:
     
  5. MrDanno96

    MrDanno96 Savant (370) Ohio Aug 26, 2009

    It seems to me that having Hads count to a beer's overall score encourages quick and careless reviewing. If this change sticks, I can't wait to see what happens when EBF rolls around and hundreds of buzzed Beer Advocates are adding "Hads Scores" left and right to the beers they are ticking at the fest.

    But I do like the .25 increments change. This was a long time coming IMO.
     
    cosmicevan and jrnyc like this.
  6. kscaldef

    kscaldef Advocate (725) Oregon Jun 11, 2010

    Dude, your post, while written seriously, was reactionary and judgmental in the extreme. I used humor to point that out. Even this response is duplicitous as you first claim "there are no rights and wrongs" then proceed to judge your post right and my post wrong.
     
  7. MrDanno96

    MrDanno96 Savant (370) Ohio Aug 26, 2009

    At the very least, there needs to be a way to filter between the Hads and the actual reviews. I just went to go look for a review of Parabola and there were literally no reviews longer than a few words on the first page. Frustrating. Also, someone giving Parabola (or any beer for that matter) a "1" or a "5" with no explanation just doesn't seem right to me.
     
    jrnyc likes this.
  8. Reviews Attribute Scale: .25 increments have been applied for all attributes (Places too).

    Much appreciated! Numerous positive repercussions (e.g., more accurate average ratings), including the not-so-obvious easier to review in many cases where a beer simply fell about midway between, say, 3 and 3.5
     
  9. So I load up the beer page and click reviews and see a bunch of numbers and no reviews.

    Yes, I can filter hads. But what if I was a new user who came to the site looking for opinions (this is how I found BA at first- googling beers and reading reviews) - would someone who came through a search engine like google see this when they pop up a beer?

    [​IMG]

    If so, doesn't this kind of cheapen the quality of the site? Apologies if this has been addressed, long thread here.
     
  10. tut2528

    tut2528 Savant (470) Illinois Sep 26, 2008

    i simply echo what many have said here.... not a fan of these changes. and don't like how the "Hads" have polluted the reviews
     
    mactrail and cosmicevan like this.
  11. Lucidious

    Lucidious Initiate (0) California Nov 15, 2012

    I like this implementation. I am new here, but I started using "Hads" to at least contribute, esspecially if I don't have time for a review.

    I don't understand why people have such a low opinion of "Hads". Polluted? How is a larger more varied sample size "pollution"? Now the scores reflect the slice of the community that DOESN'T write reviews. If anything its making the beer scores a more accurate representation of the general consensus of the beer, which I thought was the whole point.

    I have a feeling some of the more "Elitist" reviewers are feeling threatened, or that their reviews are somehow being watered down or made negligible by these changes.... but really people use BA to find out about beers they might want to try.. or not.. so i think it is useful. Very important that you don't have to sift through hads to read reviews. smart move.
     
    lpotter and Ri0 like this.
  12. JohnnyHopps

    JohnnyHopps Advocate (540) Indiana Jun 15, 2010

    I am going to politely join the outcry here. If somebody cannot constructively evaluate a beer, I have no interest in their opinion. Writing a review allows me to think about why I assign points in certain categories. I suspect it does the same for a lot of other people. Without being able to explain our scores, we may as well have two buttons: (Sucks / Doesn't Suck).
     
    cosmicevan likes this.
  13. mudbug

    mudbug Advocate (500) Oregon Mar 27, 2009

    Same thing on the "recent reviews page" and I agree with you. I've always thought that a reviewer rating system or weighting system should be there with the heaviest/best rated reviewers reviews on top in a descending order. The old Karma system seemed a good fit IMO acting as a score multiplier and also encouraging thoughtful input rather than pokemon card type ticking. This change seems like a race to mediocracy rather than a change for excellence. But what do I know about marketing? bupkis.
     
    flexabull likes this.
  14. JohnnyHopps

    JohnnyHopps Advocate (540) Indiana Jun 15, 2010

    I feel the same way about this page. I hope the Hads can be filtered here too.
     
    cosmicevan likes this.
  15. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    I sincerely beg that this change doesn't also come to exist for PLACES.
     
    libbey, cosmicevan, champ103 and 2 others like this.
  16. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (965) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    There really is already a filter built in if you click on top reviewers, only reviews will show.
     
  17. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    Yes. And that was one feature that made BA superior in quality over the alternative. Reviews should count, not ticks. A lot of us happen to think this way.
     
  18. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    Couldn't have said it better.

    It's a deal-breaker for me too when I'm in less than stellar drinking conditions (or tasting/sampling conditions). If I can't write a proper review on my smartphone while drinking the pint, it doesn't go on the site. But now just a vague recollection of whether I liked it or not will suffice. Not good.
     
  19. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (965) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    What if you needed to tick 500 Hads before you could review. How many reviews can I trust if someone has had so few beers? How can they be subjective or objective in their review process? I refuse to write a review until I have had 500 different beers to fully understand the breadth and complexity of different and similar styles.

    make your own site. I'll join.
     
    cmannes and yemenmocha like this.
  20. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    I agree with you and I think the detail to reviews aspect you mention was a great focus that differentiated BA over others.
     
    cosmicevan and Bitterbill like this.
  21. jrnyc

    jrnyc Advocate (640) New York Mar 21, 2010

  22. andthevolcano

    andthevolcano Savant (425) Delaware Apr 22, 2008

    As a relatively passive user of the site (and a non-reviewer so far), none of the changes bother me. I do read the reviews and am glad I can filter out the 'hads' from the beer pages. I just wanted to say thanks for discussing the changes in an open forum like this and responding quickly to the users when they make suggestions. That’s really cool to see. Keep up the great work, can’t wait for the mobile app.
     

  23. Well I logged out to see, and yes, users that are not registered will see this wall of 'Hads' instead of the reviews. They don't even have the option to sort out the 'Hads'. So a new user, for all we know, might pull up that page, think BA is all about picking a number and nothing more, and be done with it.

    I know when I first started visiting BA the reviews captivated me. If I was a new user now, and saw those scores and nothing else, I doubt I'd gain much insight.

    Will this happen all the time? No, there are plenty of beers with reviews at the top. Does displaying the 'had' numbers do the average user any good? Eh, I don't really see it.

    My .02
     
  24. Hanzo

    Hanzo Champion (955) Virginia Feb 27, 2012

    I understand where you are coming from. To me this is kind of a clash between the new and old guard if you will. I know when I am giving a beer a numeric score I am not doing it haphazardly, but there are those that do. But really, are there not people that half ass reviews?
     
    cmannes and Ri0 like this.
  25. I just read through the whole post, so I will try and not touch on things that have been discussed at length. Hads are not just for ticking. I often use hads so I have access to them on my phone, and to remind my self to take the time to type out a full review when I have the time from my notes. Also, since we can only review a beer once, it would be nice to see what style the reviewer had as well as the date of the review. Look at Grey Monday. I can not tell if someone has reviewed a bottle or on tap unless they say so in their notes.

    My thoughts: Hads not count for a score or weighted less, minimum reviews for Top Beers and HoF increased, multiple styles return, date stamp return.

    These are just my opinion and I will end up using the site either way. Thanks for all the hard work Bros!
     
  26. I personally do not have a strong opinion one way or another about the new updates. I only use the hads as I am not ready yet to be picking out certain flavors, or fully understanding what is a good representation of each style. The main complaint I have seen here is with the hads scores affecting the overall scores, without sufficient verbage to back up the given score.

    I personally would like to see the hads change from a numerical rating to ageneric rating system. Assign each number a word; 1=swill at its worst--->5=top beer in the world. Not those exact terms, but you get the idea. Then on the side there could be a bar graph representing the distribution of those generic scores....(49% of hads rated this beer a "liked, and would reccomend")

    This way, everyone is being included in some way, but the change does not affect overall scores of beers and those who write full reviews. Granted, I just gave a rough concept, but with some refining I think people would like it.
     
  27. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    Hanzo,

    Honestly man this, to me, is one of the LARGEST changes in BA in the 11 years I've been on here. It is nothing short of a change in the core philosophy. To me, this amounts to a sort of capitulation to tickers. It is. If not capitulation, it's a radical change in the appeal to who they want as current and future BA's. Hads might as well be relabeled as 'ticks' and now tickers have a score influence. The bros. said in some above posts, roughly, that they're changing to accommodate the new growth that they want and a key part is to be found with the hads, or ticks, feature. It's going to change the type of beer person who comes to BA now. I think this change is enormous and will have long lasting, and perhaps irreparable changes to BA. It's a huge change of direction.
     
  28. JOrtt

    JOrtt Savant (345) California Dec 20, 2012

    As someone who is a brand new member, I really don't like this. I read other's reviews because I don't put the effort in to describe what I'm drinking. Sometimes I don't understand what I'm reading either. People kind of go overboard. I either like it or don't..that is why I use the hads.
     
  29. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (965) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    I love the reviews that state: "I don't really enjoy this style so I can't give it a high mark." WTF are you reviewing it for? Just because you don't like a style does not make it a bad beer.

    I give way more thought to my score and I only mark hads.
     
    Puokie likes this.
  30. this rules, soooo much better than ever before
     
  31. Puokie

    Puokie Disciple (50) May 19, 2012

    I'm not active in the forums, and have only written one review. I don't think I've ever done a "Had" or quick rating either. I don't think it should count towards the actual scores, for a simple reason. As a quick anecdote: If I like a movie on Netflix, I'll give it 5 stars. If I don't like it, I'll give it 1 star. It's just a single, quick click. However, if I was forced to review the movie for my score to count, I would give a much more honest score upon reviewing. Same thing happens with this "Had" feature counting towards the overall totals. Some people will just click "Had" and give a solid 3.5-4 beer a 5 rating without even thinking about it. Best we can hope for is that some people might hit 3 if they don't really like it instead of just 1. Writing reviews makes you think about the rating, and the individual aspects of the beer, instead of an overall "I liked it/I didn't like" quick click. Reviewed scores are going to be more honest scores. I'd easily rate, for instance, Stone Ruination, a 5 with a one click system. One of my favorite IPAs out there. However, if I had to sit and think about the individual aspects while writing a review, the score would probably be closer to 4.25.

    I didn't actually realize how the "Had" worked, so I opened a new tab to check it out: It's even more fucked because when you click to pick the ratings, 5 is the closest to the button. Lots of inflated scores, ladies and gentlemen. It's just a bad system. A well thought rating is worth much more than two clicks.
     
    WillCarrera likes this.
  32. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    one more thing...

    BA is now more ticker friendly than RateBeer. On RB you have to actually write a few words and do the scores. Now, with this change on BA, you just use the 'had' function with a score. Is this really what is wanted, to be more ticker-friendly than that other place?

    Please, please rollback the score option for 'hads'. Tickers can still tick, have their number, but let there be no score that counts!
     
  33. Hanzo

    Hanzo Champion (955) Virginia Feb 27, 2012

    Tickers have feelings too!

    We demand representation!

    (how much have scores changed with the hads scores rolling in? Ten point swings?)
     
  34. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (965) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    Words mean nothing, scores mean nothing, and that is why I choose to look at many reviews and the Hads scores. Sometimes I am confused why the review score was lower that the Hads score.

    Best way to make it is more "accurate" is say that until a user has marked or reviewed 50, or 100 beers. I just don't know how accurate anyone can be until they have really had a wide variety of beers.

    My job is a data analyst and I have these conversations weekly.
     
  35. JamesMN

    JamesMN Savant (370) Minnesota Jul 12, 2012

    Definitely liking the .25 increments for reviewing now! I agree that being able to 'like' a review would be a nice feature. Overall I'm liking all the changes, makes for a more active reviewing community.
     
    Ri0 likes this.
  36. My world has been throw into shambles now that .25 increments have been added. Sure it makes for more accurate ratings, but it throws off my first 250plus ratings. How things may have been different if I always had the option to rate things but .25
     
    BB1313 likes this.
  37. As a professional webmaster, I have to chime in and say that if this does not change, it will quickly diminish the site and drive away hardcore users. Include the hads, great, but put them in a separate column in smaller text or make it REALLY easy to just see reviews. Users come here over RateBeer and its ilk because of the quality of the reviews.

    Trust me on this: if you allow hads to have the same weight on the page (scoring's another, lesser issue), the ratio of hads to reviews will increase and eventually the vast majority of "reviews" will be hads. It's the nature of the beast: why bother to write a nice review when it has little weight and will quickly be off the main page, buried under an avalanche of adds.
     
    chinchill and cosmicevan like this.
  38. Puokie

    Puokie Disciple (50) May 19, 2012

    The top 100 list has high regarded brews completely off the list now. [Stone Imperial Russian Stout was number 65, and now it's dropped completely off the list]. We've seen some VERY high rated beers drop down the list significantly. [Founders Breakfast Stout has gone from #25 to #45 overnight]. A lot of beers with inflated ratings because of the merge. Like I said, it's way too easy for someone who likes a beer to give it a 5 or 4.5 without reviewing or thinking about the beer. Sad state of affairs. The lowest rating on the top 100 used to be 4.32 or something. Now it's 4.42, because of the artificially high ratings given due to the "hads" being merged.
     
  39. HumanParaquat

    HumanParaquat Savant (430) Indiana Jun 23, 2011

    Any way we can get this same Hads filter on the ratings pages for individual members?
     
    yemenmocha likes this.
  40. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poobah (1,115) Arizona Jun 18, 2002

    ... and change the default setting so it automatically excludes them, and then someone has to manually select it to view what it looks like with them included. :)
     

Share This Page