1. American Craft Beer Fest is this weekend in Boston, Mass. Join us for 640+ beers from 140+ brewers! Tickets for Friday, May 29 are still available. Cheers!

Updates to Changes: Beer Hads, Full Reviews & Ratings

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Todd, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. I noticed that if you go to a beer and click on the "Bros" review, when the page reloads it will show the hads as well as full reviews (the checkbox is automatically checked off). I am not sure if this is a glitch or it is supposed to happen but I thought I would bring it up.
  2. HalfFull

    HalfFull Savant (490) California Feb 19, 2008

    So I've only known about Hads being incorporated into rating reviews for one hour, and it is blatantly obvious to me that serious manipulation is in order. Just as site reviews are sometimes manipulated by owners creating bogus accounts to flood them with 5.0 reviews one after the other, the same seems to be in use by some small brewers. Many sought after beers have now been 'had' by countless users who hide behind a long black veil. I wonder what is the true percentage who have actually had the beer? And they give it a number, but if you review and the weighting changes, then your number changes. The legitimacy of it all, while always taken with a grain of salt, is now much more suspect than ever.
    spinrsx, endovelico, mactrail and 2 others like this.
  3. Don't let hads influence the rating in my opinion. If you don't have a few minutes to explain your rating, then your rating doesn't deserve to count.
    endovelico, kevanb and jrnyc like this.
  4. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    This occurs when you click on a URL that calls for a specific BA's (or Bros) rating. It's not a glitch. It needs to show Hads as the BA might have only done a Had for the beer, so it defaults to Hads view temporarily. Clicking on a link after this that doesn't call for a specific BA rating will result in whatever your current view is set to.
  5. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    This UI has already been addressed in the site redesign; it's going to be much more user friendly, functional and efficient. I'm not in favor of having new ratings default on a selected number though.
  6. The only downside i see is if a beer gets a bad score because of a had, no way of knowing if they're reviewing an out of date bottle and being fair to it.
  7. After a week or so with the changes I couldn't agree with this more! Hads are useless on the recent review page. Please make the full reviews the default as it is much more informative and entertaining - plus it highlights the site's major difference between the other sites out there - thought, creativity and passion.
  8. atone315

    atone315 Champion (845) Wisconsin Oct 8, 2008

    After perusing all the threads on "Hads" and "Reviews", I would like to make a suggestion. I use the "Hads" function, exclusively. I would love to contribute more by reviewing beers, but quite frankly I have little faith in my ability to review a beer. I have a feeling I am not the only one either.

    I know there was mention/ suggestion of a middle tier of reviews earlier in this thread, maybe it could be some sort of transition between "Hads" and "Reviews". A type of review which could be more Q&A based, where a short review could be built on top of a series of form questions asked for each beer, i.e. what was the bottling date, what was the color, how was the pour, etc, etc. After doing some reviews in this fashion, it may build confidence and make it easier to write a review which is based on facts and could also include the reviewers opinion...

    If this was taken into consideration, I would weigh the review process like this- Review- 100% value, 2nd tier review- 25% value, Hads-10% value towards it's overall ranking, as each contributes to it's overall score, but they are increasingly valuable to the BA community.

    Hopefully this makes sense, and it is definitely just my .02!!!
    Zach136 likes this.
  9. just dive into the grown up's section of the pool. it's not as deep as you might think, and nobody is going to actually push your head down and try to drown you.
  10. atone315

    atone315 Champion (845) Wisconsin Oct 8, 2008

    Fair enough....but there is a reason the pool doesn't just go from 2' to 9'. I am just shooting ideas out there other than, "this sucks" or "this doesn't work".
  11. I would just drink a beer and read a few reviews from "top reviewers" as you drink it and see what commonly comes up as important in the reviews. Also note what was most useful to you in them. Then use http://beeradvocate.com/articles/637 and http://beeradvocate.com/help/index?topic=reviewing_beers as resources to begin writing reviews. When you think you're ready to review a beer, try NOT to read others' reviews of the beer prior to your own review to keep yourself unbiased. Also, be aware of your surroundings, your palates condition, etc; Learning when to review is almost as important as learning how. Lastly, as someone who used Hads previously, try to keep your score in-line with your Hads (bearing the weights of the components in mind). It would be unfair if you gave a 5 to a good beer, then 4.3 to a great beer after doing a review.

    You don't need to be able to pick out every flavor or component of the aroma to review beers. You just need to be able to articulate your thoughts on the beer, and give a score that is an accurate representation of your impression. Experience helps, but everyone has to start somewhere.
    LeRose, ehammond1, endovelico and 2 others like this.
  12. Franch

    Franch Advocate (575) New York Mar 22, 2011

    so if someone reviews to a harsher scale/curve (like sean or arbitrator) and believes that a 4.1 or 4.2 is a truly excellent beer writes reviews, it's okay, but if they just 'had' the beer, it's not okay? furthermore, boosters are okay for hads as well, and those who curve their hads to about a 4.2 like many BA reviewers curve their reviews are fine?
  13. mactrail

    mactrail Champion (855) Washington Mar 24, 2009

    I totally agree. "Hads" should not count toward the score, or anything else. It's an invitation to abuse. On "My Beers," there should be a number for Hads and a number for actual Reviews. Make it easy for people to count, identify, and rate every swill they've sipped, but those Hads should be their own stats, not the community's.

  14. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (960) North Carolina Dec 8, 2007 Staff Member

    I have mixed feelings on whether or not I think the Hads (quick review) should count towards the total score - assuming that what the Bros stated was true, it seems like the rAvg for the Hads are pretty similar to those from the full reviews.

    Well, when I look at someone's Beer Ratings page I see something along the lines of "Hads (2398 w/ 2310 Reviews)" so I can get a decent idea of how many reviews a person has submitted in addition to a quick review/had.

    Is that what you are meaning?
  15. mactrail

    mactrail Champion (855) Washington Mar 24, 2009

    Yeah, that is helpful to see a person's Hads vs. Reviews. The Had scores may be in the same ballpark as actual reviews for now. But it's so easy to pick some numbers and shazaam! you've had and rated that beer, and jacked up the score. For instance, here's a guy whose entire BA history is one Had-- and a suspiciously high score: http://beeradvocate.com/user/beers?ba=zacajawea56

    Maybe it's not a bad thing that the scores may become more suspicious. It will just encourage people to read the reviews and see who has interesting or insightful comments-- or whose taste buds they agree with.

    dbrauneis said <<Well, when I look at someone's Beer Ratings page I see something along the lines of "Hads (2398 w/ 2310 Reviews)" so I can get a decent idea of how many reviews a person has submitted in addition to a quick review/had.>>
  16. TicoCali

    TicoCali Savant (460) California Jul 25, 2010

    Thanks for the AWESOME FREE website and keep up the good job.
    mnrider and AgentZero like this.
  17. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (960) North Carolina Dec 8, 2007 Staff Member

    I would consider that "Had" to be a little suspicious but since the member just joined BA last month, I would probably give them a little time to see if they start to "Had" or Full Review some other beers. On the other hand, they are just a small amount higher than the other reviewers of a beer that only had a sample size of 8.
  18. Now, there's an idea. Maybe, in addition to Latest, High, Low, and Top Reviewers, I should be able to sort reviews in manner that puts the BAs I am following first.
    dbrauneis likes this.
  19. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    We agree. It's something we've been wanting to do for a long time now.
    atone315, richardflyr and dbrauneis like this.
  20. So a review out of a shaker pint doesn't count?? Not ideal, but c'mon, that's just ridiculous.
  21. Thorpe429

    Thorpe429 Champion (895) Illinois Aug 18, 2008

    That's the point. People were being ridiculous trying to impose ideas of what should and shouldn't count as a legitimate review.
  22. Ahh, got it. Agreed.
    Thorpe429 likes this.
  23. Not to mention that some people seem to know more about the reviewing/"ticking" habits of others than would be possible... and seem more concerned about those habits of others than is at all reasonable.

    The Bros have set up a pretty impressive system that accomodates the various ways people want to voice their opinion on a beer.

    Use it, enjoy it, have a beer and relax.

    Oh, and the suggestion that scores that may be lowered by "inaccurate" Hads is dangerous as it might somehow effect a brewery's business/livelihood??

    If your brewery is that succeptible to a drop in ratings on a free user review site... maybe brewing isn't the right business to be in. Sheesh.
    barnzy78, JulianB and Thorpe429 like this.
  24. lpotter

    lpotter Savant (315) Pennsylvania Dec 13, 2008

    Most of the arguments against Hads affecting the overall score are based on the assumption that the overall score was not useless before this change went into effect. The real value of this site is the database of user-generated content, good or bad. You can read a 250 character review or a few numbers. It's up to you to place credence on what you've read, or write it off as useless. The individual scores, as I see it, are more valuable to the user that did the scoring/reviewing. The overall score is just a fun extra, and it has never been anything more.
    TMoney2591 and mactrail like this.
  25. cosmicevan

    cosmicevan Champion (835) New York Dec 13, 2009

    please run a scrip that searches for users that rate every "had" at the same value. it would be cool to give them a heads up before just zapping them or something like that, but i continue to see users with all 5's and all 1's or another number, clearly indicating that "had" is being used to tick and not rate the beer. this really hurts the integrity of the review system and any ranking lists.

    i propose creating a quick rate to replace "had" that includes a numerical score and adding a "had" that lets you just tick it without a rating for users seeking that functionality.
  26. morimech

    morimech Advocate (740) Minnesota Nov 6, 2006

    That is until retailers started to use BA scores as a selling point or recommendation for beers. BeerAdvocate scores use to mean something and carried more weight than RateBeer or other scores. Now they mean little and they shouldn't.
  27. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (960) North Carolina Dec 8, 2007 Staff Member

    Not sure that I would go that far... still have more meaning than the other sites in my humble opinion.
    Craigory likes this.
  28. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Of course you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's overly dramatic and simply not true. While you might not value the scores, which is fine, countless others do.
  29. morimech

    morimech Advocate (740) Minnesota Nov 6, 2006

    Don't know that I was overly dramatic. But your changes has brought BA scores pretty much in lock-step with RB scores. If your intention was to create more "clicks" and "likes" and revenue, you succeeded. Good for you if that was your intention for this website.
  30. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Like I said ...
  31. Jason

    Jason Founder (1,365) Massachusetts Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    If revenue was our chief concern you'd see full site wraps, pop-ups, sponsored search bars, fixed twig banner at the bottom, etc.

    More than a bit of thought was put into the change ... what do you mean by "has brought BA scores pretty much in lock-step with RB scores"? That the beers are ranked similar?
    2beerdogs and Psychmusic like this.
  32. Treebs

    Treebs Initiate (0) Illinois Apr 18, 2011

    I've mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again. I just hope there some is sort checks and balances going on every so often to catch people that are abusing the hads (by their own stupidity or intentionally). I just found several users at the beginning stages of this and hope those scores/users are taken care of accordingly.
    cosmicevan and cavedave like this.
  33. i know todd has said that "had" scores don't deviate much from full reviews. but it's only been around for several months. and if it's made even easier, then more people will utilize it. which is all well and good, BUT if they continue to be weighted the same as full reviews, then there are two problems: 1) diminished incentive for full reviews 2) far less accountability.
    mactrail likes this.
  34. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Before this, you could have said the same exact thing for Full Reviews.
  35. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    1. Creating incentives has already been address.
    2. Abuse is easy to detect, and will be easy to report in the future; same goes with Full Reviews. We're not concerned.
  36. morimech

    morimech Advocate (740) Minnesota Nov 6, 2006

    How do you report abuse now?
  37. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (960) North Carolina Dec 8, 2007 Staff Member

    Send a message directly to Jason or Todd.
  38. morimech

    morimech Advocate (740) Minnesota Nov 6, 2006

    Ok then. What was the incentive in moving away from a beer review format?
  39. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    The site redesign will have new options for this. For now just send us a note; for abuse only, not a difference of opinion. Thanks.
  40. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,650) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    This was explained in previous updates.