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. ant880

    ant880 Advocate (635) New York Nov 7, 2010

    I believe to qualify for the top 250, a beer should have a minimum of 100 reviews plus it must continue to be reviewed at a minimum of a 4 average after at least three separate threads in three consecutive years in which it is deemed "not as ____ as last year's batch." No need for a statistician....
  2. I've searched for this question before I posted, so please excuse if this has already been discussed.

    Top 250 Beers vs Beers of Fame
    Look at the top three and in particular Pliny the Elder and Heady Topper. In the Top 250, Heady is #1 and Elder is #3. In Beers of Fame Elder is #1 and Heady is #3. In both lists both beers have the same number of reviews, but different WRs. Why?
  3. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,430) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    Different data sets/min thresholds.
  4. One interesting thing that I noticed - at one point, you could only rate Hads 1-5 without any decimals. If I had a beer that I thought was worthy of a score higher than a 4, I gave it a 5. I certainly would not have given most of these beers 5s had I actually reviewed them. The spectrum would've gone anywhere from 4.2-4.9 or so. I went back and changed all my scores to include decimals, but I'm guessing most people haven't done that. There are probably a ton of old 5 scores out there that are artificially inflating the overall scores of the beers for that reason.
  5. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,430) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    FYI: the 1-5 Hads without increments occurred for a very short period of time (initial launch over a year ago) and was updated to include .25 increments almost immediately based on user feedback. We're not concerned as a result.
  6. Your answer confuses me. If the data sets are different then why do both lists for both beers show the same number of reviews, that would be indicative of the same data sets. Unless there is an error in the number of reviews shown. Also the minimum thresholds should not apply in this case - Heady and Elder switching places between first and third - since both have the minimum number of reviews and the minimum number of years. Am I still missing something?
  7. The beers themselves have the same number of reviews. But Heady and Pliny have different number of reviews from each other. The way the WR (Weighted Rating) is calculated, beers with smaller number of reviews are pulled more towards the mean. The strength of the pull is different in each because the Beers of Fame list has a higher anchor. Heady has 24x the minimum number of reviews for the popular list, but only 1.2x the minimum for the fame list, so it is pulled much more drastically towards the mean on the second list.
    Onenote81 and Sludgeman like this.
  8. Thanks
  9. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (935) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    Does anyone else think that beers that were only brewed once should be excluded from the popular style list? I was looking at American stouts and many in top 50 were only brewed one time.
  10. Todd

    Todd Founder (1,430) Colorado Aug 23, 1996 Staff Member

    No. We shouldn't penalize a beer/brewer because it was only brewed once. Time will take care of this. As per my original post, we're once again retiring beers tagged as "limited." Before this updated was made, nearly 3,000 beers were retired; excluding them from all lists.
  11. Ri0

    Ri0 Champion (935) Wisconsin Jul 1, 2012

    Thanx Todd. That makes sense.
  12. BILF

    BILF Advocate (575) Israel Jan 9, 2010

    I like the "had's" style of giving a quick rating because i don't feel that i have had enough exposure to beer in general to provide a meaningful and usefull review. I enjoy the reviews that the Bro's do because of the rich descriptions they give. As they say - send 'em more beer. I did four reviews and then stopped because in reality i had no clue and was making shit up just to sound good.
  13. UncleJimbo

    UncleJimbo Site Editor (945) Massachusetts Sep 11, 2002 Staff Member

    I don't follow your logic. If you feel you are unqualified to write a "meaningful and useful review", then how can you be qualified to give a score with your Had?
    flexabull and Beerandraiderfan like this.
  14. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Site Editor (950) North Carolina Dec 8, 2007 Staff Member

    I can certainly see a case where someone understands the style and can tell whether or not they like it (and thus give it a relative score) but perhaps are not quite comfortable in properly describing all the elements of the appearance, smell, taste, and mouthfeel - I sort of think of a had as the moral equivalent of an overall score.
    BILF likes this.
  15. Case in point: Why hads shouldn't count as much (or at all) towards a beer's score.
    kevanb and flexabull like this.
  16. fredmugs

    fredmugs Champion (830) Indiana Aug 11, 2012

    I didn't make that post but when I read reviews I can see multiple people claiming different "notes" in the same beer. Obviously they are not all right. Since I typically cannot detect (or describe) all of the "notes" I do not feel qualified to write a review on it. Honestly I don't give a shit what the beer looks like either. Taste is at least 90% and aroma is the rest.
  17. Bitterbill

    Bitterbill Poobah (1,125) Wyoming Sep 14, 2002

    And like myself, the Bros don't mind throwing in a Had vs Review now and then. As long as you have and perhaps enjoy or not the brew you're drinking, it's still a useful tool to rate it as a Hads. IMHO, of course.
  18. I can decide for myself if I like a song on the radio(and where it ranks comparatively speaking to others I've heard), even if I can't name the "notes" used in it.

    I dig "Had" reviews
    sneezye likes this.
  19. gjoker321

    gjoker321 Savant (455) Florida Dec 26, 2007

    This is great, good stuff!

Share This Page