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!

Updates: Top 250 Beers & More!

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Todd, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Due to Hads (quick ratings) being applied to overall beer averages and increased site activity, we've made some changes to ensure our ratings and lists are as accurate and relevant as possible.

    Top 250 Beers: http://beeradvocate.com/lists/top
    "Top 100" popular with 10 or more is no more. It's been replaced with BeerAdvocate's Top 250 Beers, to create a list that stands out from the rest. We've also raised the minimum number of ratings to be eligible for the list from 10 to 100 in order to adjust for Hads and increasing activity on the site.

    Beers of Fame: http://beeradvocate.com/lists/fame
    We wanted to make this list of 100 classic brews more meaningful, more of an achievement. So we upped the minimum number of ratings to 2,000 and also require that beers be listed on the site for 2 or more years in order to be eligible for this list. This also helps create a bit more of a distinction compared to the Top 250 Beers.

    Top New Beers and Bottom of the List remain unchanged.

    Most Popular (Regions & Styles)
    "Top Beers" for regional lists and lists by beer style have been renamed, and we're now displaying 50 of the most popular beers accordingly. With a minimum of 10 ratings to be eligible they'll continue to be dynamic lists that allow both new and veteran brewers to rise and be recognized.

    West Coasters. We heard you. We now have two separate lists: Northwest and Pacific. Enjoy.

    We've also added some new countries. Brazil, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands join the lists. Why these and not others? Activity. They're higher than others in user traffic and beer rating activity. We simply wanted to recognize this. Of course we'll continue to look at other countries in the future.

    Retired Beers
    On a related sidenote, it has been a while since we mass retiring of beers tagged as "limited" releases (brewed once and never again), so earlier yesterday we retired 2,780 beers. When this occurs beers are no longer eligible for any of the lists and brewery overalls are adjusted. We'll periodically retire limited release beers, but only if added 2 or more years ago.

    We view these lists as ever-changing snapshots of what's currently popular on BA, and we'll continue to adjust as the site evolves and data accumulates. In the meantime, Jason and I hope you enjoy the changes and welcome your feedback.

    Cheers!
  2. MCain04

    MCain04 Savant (390) Illinois Jan 3, 2013

    Love the new lists and the weighted ratings. Thanks!
  3. sukwonee

    sukwonee Advocate (535) Washington Dec 13, 2011

    I like this much better than the rating system before the update.
    smutty33 likes this.
  4. shuajw

    shuajw Savant (485) Georgia Aug 12, 2007

    Any chance a top retired beer list will ever be created? I think that's something that tons of people would be interested in seeing.
  5. Top Canada went from Top 100 to Top 25 o_O

    Any way to up it? Belgian & German beers are well represented in the Top 250 but there are only 5 Canadian ones and if one wants to see more, there's only 20 more in the Top 25 (minus the 5 in the 250) :eek:

    I find this excludes many worthy breweries. The Top 25 of Canada is almost the Top 25 of Quebec!

    Suugestion: Any way to give the option to show more after the 25 (not just Canada) but leave the default at 25? Sort of like the reviews being the default on a beer's page but you have the option to show the hads or hide them.
    kuhndog and Rutager like this.
  6. drabmuh

    drabmuh Champion (815) Maryland Feb 7, 2004

    Bring back the extended lists for styles please. Shortening those lists makes no sense. If you really want to delve into a particular style the top 50 was extremely useful. Although I should probably just sit right for a few months since altering how these lists are populated is a frequent "update" on this site.
    Duff27 and Rutager like this.
  7. When is the next update to these lists? I'd like to still have access to some of the old ways of aggregating the top 100 to create a better sense of continuity with the history of the site.
    Beerandraiderfan and drabmuh like this.
  8. eawolff99

    eawolff99 Advocate (550) Colorado May 10, 2010

    Kaggen! is now 133 rated beer in the world? RareR DOS is 172? Really? Come on... These were top 25 beers a few days ago...doesn't make any sense.
  9. smakawhat

    smakawhat Poobah (1,000) Maryland Mar 18, 2008

    This is great stuff! I actually prefer the new Canada list it used to be filled with so many brews that were written with maybe 10-15 reviews if that? It looks more concise.

    aw the Tripel list is so small :( how will I go on, I think I'll live... :p darn those pesky Tripels you will be mine! .. all of you someday...
  10. shuajw

    shuajw Savant (485) Georgia Aug 12, 2007

    It looks like beers with reviews in the 100's really took a hit. One of the Peg's Canitna beers (RareR D.O.S.) went from low 30's to 172.
  11. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (925) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    I agree, Top 25 doesn't give me much to work with if there aren't many distributed to my state. I'd prefer it went back to 50.
    drabmuh likes this.
  12. smakawhat

    smakawhat Poobah (1,000) Maryland Mar 18, 2008

    I love the count list of "your own" at the bottom of the list! Real useful!
  13. Thorpe429

    Thorpe429 Champion (885) Illinois Aug 18, 2008

    That's been there for at least the past few years.
    drabmuh likes this.
  14. smakawhat

    smakawhat Poobah (1,000) Maryland Mar 18, 2008

    It has? man I never even noticed it before :confused:
  15. eawolff99

    eawolff99 Advocate (550) Colorado May 10, 2010

    Exactly! So apparently a list of beer rankings really doesn't rank beers based on how they taste, they rank by how many people tried it and thought it tasted good. ISO: Kaggen! FT: Hop Rod Rye
  16. abraxel

    abraxel Savant (375) Michigan Aug 28, 2009

    Is your complaint that those beers deserve to be much higher on the list, or is it that change is bad?

    There's enough activity on this site that if a beer has only 100-200 Hads and Reviews, it's barely available to anyone and is probably predominately rated by locals or even regulars of the brewery. There's now a higher standard of proof to be placed high on the list, and that seems like a good thing because local/regional bias is real. If Närke and Peg's want their top beers ranked higher, they should release them more often ;)
  17. fox227

    fox227 Advocate (555) California Nov 19, 2010

    Wow! I've only HAD like five beers in the Pacific list and I'm in San Diego County! I feel like I've had so many beers from here! Stupid wales. (grumbles)

    PS: I'm not saying that the beers that I haven't had shouldn't be on the list, but rather I'm expressing my frustration in not finding many of them.
  18. According to Todd's initial post in this thread these new lists are both as accurate and relevant as possible.

    I'm just curious if he wants to clarify what they are trying to be accurate and relevant to? I'm assuming a more inclusive, broad appeal audience than previous lists were targeted at? (Saying the new Top 250 "stands out from the rest" doesn't really say anything at all)
    Beerandraiderfan and drabmuh like this.
  19. I've got a view bug/issue. On IE at work, the dropdown for different styles under "Most Popular Beers (by style):" on the right sidebar is unreadable and tiny. This is the same on any of the lists pages.

    But I've got no complaints about any of the changes.
    His_Royal_Hoppiness likes this.
  20. drabmuh

    drabmuh Champion (815) Maryland Feb 7, 2004

    So years ago the Top style lists were introduced as top 10 lists. At the time it was great and made sense. A couple of years back those lists were expanding to 50. Again, a great improvement. At the time it was explained that finally there were a lot more beers in the database and several beer styles could populate a meaningful top 50 list. I'd link to that announcement but it has disappeared due to other changes like losing the forum posts. So explain the logic behind folding the Hads into the same pot as reviews increasing the number of ratings to almost 2.7 million and THEN lower the number of beers on the style and geography lists? Too much information?

    This site already provides less data for the user that spends time to keep the database current and relevant. We no longer know how many different breweries , states, countries we've reviewed beer from. We don't know how many photos, beers, places we added to the database either. Now the one portion of the site's database we could interact with has been further restricted to 25 top Belgian beers and 25 American IPAs. Why? Was a top 100 Belgian beers standing in your way of having "Top Beers - Mexico". Dos XX is number #25 on that list. This is where people usually write LOL or LMFAO.
  21. eawolff99

    eawolff99 Advocate (550) Colorado May 10, 2010

    Right! I keep using Kaggen as an example as I've had it and it's in my top 5 fave beers, and I've now had well over 200 on this new list, but to say Abyss is #10 and Kaggen is in the 130's is ridiculous (while I agree a certain minimum # of reviews should still be a factor, but not the driver). And the post above that says if these breweries release their beers more often the rankings will be higher is equally ridiculous. Isn't a list of rankings supposed to be based on taste?
  22. abraxel

    abraxel Savant (375) Michigan Aug 28, 2009

    Yes, it should be based on taste (if we're being picky, it's also based on appearance, aroma, mouthfeel, and people's overall impression), but unfortunately you can't blindly trust everyone with an internet connection. More reviews don't mean a beer is better, it just means you can be more confident that a beer deserves its rating. The Top 250 list sets a higher standard of proof than the previous Top 100, and rightly so, in my opinion. The "New" list and the regional lists have lower standards of proof, and Beers of Fame sets an extremely high bar. You can choose which list works best for you, but keep in mind than none of them are particularly important or consequential.
    woosterbill, Rutager and Todd like this.
  23. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Correct, and it makes sense if you stop for a moment and think about the math. As the threshold is now 100 or more ratings, and it only has 129 ratings, the list now places more weight on more opinions (validation of a beer's rating); scroll down for how the list is generated.

    Anyway ... If the beer is really that good, and more people agree, it'll rise to the top again; as will others.
    Thorpe429 likes this.
  24. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Yep. It's been there for at least a decade.
    yourefragile and drabmuh like this.
  25. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    You could always ask Todd. ;)

    "accurate" = given the increased data over the years, a minimum of 10 for our core top list was too low.

    "relevant" = to all of the recent changes, and future ones, being made.

    "stands out from the rest" = of our lists.
    yourefragile likes this.
  26. eawolff99

    eawolff99 Advocate (550) Colorado May 10, 2010

    Sorry, I did stop and think about it -- it doesn't make sense. Just because a beer is more widely distributed doesn't make it better tasting - which is the point of rankings. Abyss being 10 and Kaggen being 132 is non-sense...
  27. Jacobob10

    Jacobob10 Savant (490) New Jersey Feb 23, 2004

    This is excellent. I am going to Italy in July and was making my own list of beers/breweries to be on the lookout for. Now I will just print the "Most Popular Beers: Italy" list and bring it with me.
    Todd likes this.
  28. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Hey man, let's leave politics out of this; where you sit shouldn't matter to these lists anyway. ;)

    Changes to the lists, which have indeed occurred over the years, and should, and are indeed "updates" too, are hardly "frequent." The core WR system hasn't really changed much at all. We have added more lists though.

    Anyway, bumping sub-lists up from 25 to 50 is a simple request that I think we can accomodate with a few keystrokes. In fact, done! Please note that because of this there's not enough data for certain countries or beer styles. As a result this lists might not reach 50 of contain beers that might be questionable to some; this is the "makes no sense" part you were referring to. This will of course continue to be less of an issue as activity increases.
    kuhndog, papat444, Rutager and 2 others like this.
  29. Think about how many beers are in the database. ~80,000. The difference between 10 and 130 is around 0.1% percentile. 99.99% percentile overall vs. 99.83% percentile. At #132, Kaggen isn't just better than 99 out of 100 beers. It's better than 9980 out of a random 1000 beers. It's statistically almost identical.
    sneezye, crushedvol and Ungertaker like this.
  30. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    I'll play around with the idea and data this week and let everyone know.
    huadog, Rempo, yamar68 and 10 others like this.
  31. drabmuh

    drabmuh Champion (815) Maryland Feb 7, 2004

    Thanks. I really love the expanded style lists.
    Todd likes this.
  32. This really changes the landscape as far as whales are concerned! I like it.
    msubulldog25 and Todd like this.
  33. DCgolfpro

    DCgolfpro Savant (440) Maryland Oct 26, 2011

    So you think a beer that 100% of 2 people have rated as a "5" should have the same value/ranking as a beer that 100% of 2,000 people gave "5's" to? No, sir
    Docrock and Beerandraiderfan like this.
  34. JohnnyHopps

    JohnnyHopps Savant (485) Indiana Jun 15, 2010

    Really like the new top 250. More than anything, the Top 100 determined beers I was wishing for. Now that I have conquered many of the top 100, I have new targets to spend my money on. Thanks!
  35. How? A whale is a whale is a whale.
    Huhzubendah, drabmuh and Thorpe429 like this.
  36. In the way that really rare beers will have less exposure to the masses. If it's not on the top beer list, it probably won't be as sought after. I guess it depends on your definition of whale. I consider whales to be beers in very high demand that are only available in small numbers. If the demand dwindles due to less exposure...
    msubulldog25 and Todd like this.
  37. Guess we just have a differing definition of whales. Whales (M, Dave, Loerik, etc) have no exposure to the masses through lists like this and this has no impact on their status as whales. "Whales" (like Cigar Abbey Laird's Barrel Blackbeerd Bender Kopi Coffee Double Dry Hopped Miami Berlinner" will definitely be a little more irrelevant like they (IMO) deserve
  38. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,410) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Try now.
  39. Much better, thanks!
    Todd likes this.
  40. Really love the changes! Thanks so much for the hard work and thoughtfulness in continuing to improve this community.
    WassailWilly likes this.

Share This Page