A case for "hads"

I wonder how the soon to be released (hopefully) BeerAdvocate app will effect this discussion. From what I've seen on Untappd, the simple 'hads' numeric ranking can result in similar results to those found from full review ranking systems. Said differently, the top rated list on Untappd (which only allows simple/quick numeric rankings) has a lot of the same beers seen on the top 250 list here in BA.

 

Good call. Never picked up on the dislike for "hads," in fact many people I've talked seemed to like the idea, but sometimes I'm guilty of disappearing for a little while and don't pay attention that all BA has to offer in the forums. However I like what you're saying and agree with all/most of it. The one thing I would add is that sometimes it's also a good way to keep track of something you may or may not had. I (like many others) like to try new beers if I'm traveling so it's a good way to keep track if you couldn't get some reviews in.

 

My biggest problem with hads is that there have been many changes since they were originally implemented. When they wer first implement you could only choose a letter grade: A, B, C, D, or F. I completed a few hundred hads that first week they were implemented. Then the formula changed and everything I scored an "A" was automatically changed to a "5". I didn't look at this as a problem until hads started impacting the overall scores of beers.

Now on almost every beer, they are getting 5 scores from that first few weeks of implementation, which means almost every beer on this site has an artificially inflated score. I try to update scores as I see them, but until every user who recorded a had prior to the date of the initial change goes in and updates the scores, the overall scores of all beers will be inflated.

This is an unfortunate problem.

 

That being said, I like the concept of hads and enjoy using them and have no problem with them calculating into the review scores. Some of my favorite reviewers on this site are able to keep things descriptive, but brief. Some of the 10 paragraph reviews I see make me cringe.

 

I personally hate trying to describe what I am drinking in words. I am an analytic person and can mentally figure out how a beer should score in my head. I know that it doesn't help others, but I respect my the scores I give each beer I drink.
Some BAs truly have a talent for describing the beers they drink and I look to their reviews before I consider buying beer, but there are many poor reviews I have to skip over to get to the good ones.

 

I totally agree with you on this. I am a proponent of any additional info I can get on brews I have not enjoyed yet. Listen, we all don't have an immense amount of time to write or read the reviews and I look at the overall rating as a quick reference if I am at a store and want to try something unfamilar. Any additional info for me is good to a degree. Of course there will always be others who disagree.

 

+1 for hads.

bigger +1 for the NFL Network. there's always football on.

 

Good post and topic. I'm on board with the 'hads', in fact I had no issue at all until today, when I came across this BA: CountryRock2001. Check out his 'hads' and you'll know my drift. It's a minor exception, not the rule.

I believe that my reviews can easily become repetitive as well, but I give my best effort and attention to keep them fresh.

By judging each beer that I review on its own merit, hopefully that avoids manipulation and competition ( A vs B ) from beer to beer review of similar offerings. Like you said, it's not always practical to take notes.

Another good point the OP hit on; a review can certainly be thought out without being written out. The 'hads' review allows just that, and why not?

Bash? Hardly, you've tackled this topic wisely. Hopefully, I've done the same.

CHEERS!

 

I agree 100% with the OP. I've been a member for a while and I have never posted a review. I don't think that I can add anything to the reviews that hasn't already been said. Yeah, the IPA has a bitter finish. Great addition. I didn't even know that the "had" option even existed. Now I'm off to rate some more of my favorite beers as I poop.

 

Hads should die a slow, painful death.

 

I ike them too. But now that I've thought about it. Maybe a "HAD" option without assigning a number. I don't want to check off a beer that I tried, in a style that I'm not too partial too, and bias the average down. For example, I'm not a big sour fan, so when I put my number in, it's basically useless for those who love to pucker up for beer.

When I write a review in a style that I'm not huge on, I state so upfront. I just thought this could be nice for us who want to use BA to check off a beer (or TICK, as some of you are fond of), just to keep track.

 

Keep in mind that at the time it was a simple rating process and didn't count toward anything, so giving something a score based on memory wasn't a big deal at the time. Although I guess it's even more justification as to why they shouldn't be counted in the overall scores

 

I like the hads feature. Now I don't have to come up with meaningless words just to fill the minimum requirement just to tic it off. What reviews I do make are well thought out to the best of my ability.

 

New to craft beer, but trying hard to catch up. I use the "hads" for a personal rating system and am glad BA provides this framework for relative evaluations. Should my opinions bias others? Of course not. But this is a good way for me to sort tastings out.

 

I like the idea of Hads. I like the number rating. I don't think it should be on the page for the beer. I like seeing written reviews there. I think it would be cool if the Had information was only shown on the Beers section of a users profile.