Do you think most BAs rate beers too high?

Do "hads" factor in to overall score? I believe they do (but could easily be wrong).
I could be wrong, but I feel like the majority of the "hads" are higher than the full reviews

Perhaps the "hads" pull it up a bit, it makes sense that people may not be as critical when they are just thinking of an overall score (also much more likely to be after the fact, as opposed to drinking the beer while writing a full review), as opposed to looking at each part of the beer as seperately and more in detail.

 

To me, it depends on how you define "3 as average". Are you setting the boundaries with only craft beer in mind, or are you including all beer, from mass produced down to the smallest of microbreweries? For instance, I consider most Pyramid and Abita brews to be average craft beer, but by comparison to some of the swill (pseudo-craft or otherwise) that's out there, I'd say most of their beers sit around a 76-82 rating. That's a score between 3.3 and 3.6.

 

starting with the premise that i like beer, and then adding to that the fact that i tend to purchase beers/styles i am likely to enjoy, to me it stands to reason that my scores will trend high.

 

That's fine, but doesn't it seem odd to you that there's very few poorly rated beers to be found on the site? Sure, we all gravitate to what we like, but tickers gotta tick so surely there should be some bad beers they've come across.

Top 100 scores: 4.31-4.7
Bottom 100 scores: 1.74-2.45

Doesn't something about that seem off? I'd really like to know what percentage of the database is actually below a 3.

 

It's someone else's opinion so it doesn't really matter.

 

Without sounding super elitist, is there a chance I generally try to avoid anything that would be rated that low?

 

Without reading through the entire thread, here's what I do in terms of ratings

1: Do I enjoy drinking this beer? (my most important criteria) This decides my "overall" score.
2: How does it compare to the style/category it most closely fits into? This helps decide the other scores.
3: If aspects aren't a perfect 5 (e.g. I can't think of single changes that would make the mouthfeel markedly better or something), how could it improve? Not necessarily that it could, but if in an ideal would I could tweak the beer to make it better (for my palate), how far away is this beer from that ideal state? I generally try to describe my subjective opinion in this regard in my written reviews.

Generally I consume the beers that were already getting high ratings to begin with so I am sure my average review scores will be above a 3. I think its a matter of perspective relative to the quality of the beers being consumed.

 

idk, to be honest i'd be a little surprised if it weren't this way, for the reasons i mentioned above. i would expect the number of beers that are rated poorly to be eclipsed by the good to great ones amid a beer renaissance (for lack of a better term ) on a site populated by beer lovers. you can get into the whole rating to style argument, but that's probably a separate debate.

 

That's a valid reason for an individual's ratings to be biased to higher than average. It's not a valid reason for the entire database to be biased to higher than average.

a) I think there's a semantic argument here about what "average" means

b) I've had some pretty terrible "craft" beers, including many that I suspect are worse than most of the "Bottom 100". For example, Apricot Fred (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/173/63701) is pretty much universally acknowledged as a disaster, yet is rated better than many beers that I would absolutely drink instead if I was forced to choose one.

 

Only if you feel beers should be graded on a curve, and not on the merits of each individual beer. All breweries strive to put out something people will at least like, even if they're more concerned with profit than with pushing the boundaries of awesomeness. There are very few beers that miss the mark entirely, and even then, that's entirely dependent on an individual's opinion.

 

sure i've had some clunkers too, but overall i find i'm satisfied way more than i'm disappointed. as far as your example, i just don't see what it proves other than further confirmation of taste being subjective...

 

And therein lies the problem. There seems to be the strange conception on the part of many that all ratings should fall on some sort of normalized, unimodal curve, with a large segment of "average" range and relatively fewer numbers of "great" and "terrible". Moreover, these same people seem to stress rating without reference to other beers. This doesn't work. The normalized curve can only really exist when all ratings are taken into account and forcibly normalized, basically forming a ranking system. Rating each beer on its own merits effectively kills a perfect normal curve (though some may just happen to occur by happy accident).

When you consider that many people have varying conceptions of what "average" means, both semantically and in terms of score, that people's perceptions of beers are subjective, that everything depends on context and circumstance, it's clear that not only will everyone's conception of a given beer's rating differ (from ever-so-slightly in either direction to massively in either direction), but their conception of the database as a whole will do the same. Mathematical constructs like perfect bell curves are simply that: constructs, tools to help us rank things relative to other things. Life doesn't fall into such lovely symmetries very often.

And, to answer someone above, yes, if a given set of five different beers are all world-class, I see no reason why they can't all be rated perfectly. Relative ratings, meaning this perfect beer is better than this one, is hard to achieve objectively, hence the incredible number of "which is better...?" threads. It's why those threads are necessary, even if they do grow a bit repetitive and tedious...

 

I rate relatively consistently high, because I use a completely average beer like Killian's as my base line, as opposed to the average craft beer (say, Boston Lager). I'm drinking the good stuff, it gets good ratings.

 

I have noticed that with the 0.25 increments now available my ratings have become lower as I can give more accurate scores without resorting to rounding up or down to the next 0.50 mark.

 

I think the ratings here obviously reflect some amount of high or low skew based on popularity (or unpopularity). Case in point, Rogue Voodoo Doughnut Chocolate Nightmare is the most often drain-poured beer here, but rates a 2.77. Yet a common gas station brand like Labatt Blue Light, which tastes just fine and refreshing if a little watery and sad, rates a 2.18. Gun to my head I'm chugging the Labatt.

I think the craft name Rogue artificially increases points, while the BMC-tainted name Labatt loses them.

 

Exactly. Bud Light is supposedly the 11th worst beer in the world according to BA, but if I was forced to drink 12oz of Bud Light or 12oz of some other beer, I guarantee you there's more than 10 beers where I'd choose the Bud Light.

 

Or perhaps it's just a case of people with different tastes. I for one honestly enjoy that beer. A lot.

 

I think most rate too low. 90% of my ratings are in the green rDev. Just my opinion though.

 

Fair point. I just used it as an example based on the frequent description here as some kind of bug repellent.

 

Hahaha! I might change a few of my adjectives, but that's pretty close to how I rate. Haven't had "earth shattering" yet, but can't wait til I do.