Do you think most BAs rate beers too high?

I know, and that's perfectly acceptable, but I find there's an irrational hate for Rogue on these forums. Whether it's because of their business practices or the high prices for their beers anything East of Nevada, it's en vogue to rip on Rogue. That may be why you find people bashing the Voodoo any chance they get, while the ratings don't necessarily reflect the flak it takes.

 

Green? That means you rated above the average...

 

eh, kind of using extreme examples to illustrate your point. i.e., the majority of beers in the BA database are not BMC , so even stipulating that BMC bias exists in the ratings, we're only talking a small percentage, no? plus, believe it or not some people actually like voodoo doughnut.

right, and maybe so could i, and many others too... but we're all just as likely to pick it over different beers . so in the final analysis, cumulatively bud light still ranks lowest. also, i'm starting to lose my grip on what exactly it is we're debating here...

 

I merely consider 3 to be average. Why would I choose to drink a below-average brew when there are so many good-great offerings out there?

 

Absolutely yes, BA's are far too easy on almost every beer.

4.5 = Mindbogglingly delicious
3 = UNDRINKABLE

 

Hard to get beers are rated to high. Beers you can buy anywhere (SNPA ect.) are rated to low

 

Who do you know that considers 3 undrinkable? I haven't seen anybody post anything so ridiculous! Would I choose to buy something that I consider a 3? No. Would I take it at a party if offered and there wasn't other choices? Yes.

 

when I rate I start with a baseline of 3 which would be an adjunct lager with a pale yellow color without a strong aroma, very little lacing, boring mouthfeel but no serious flaws in the taste.

If a beer has a nice color and decent lacing it gets a 4 in appearance. If a beer had nice color decent head but poor lacing it would get an appearance score of 3.5.

any score less than 3 means a serious flaw.

I hardly ever give a 5.

 

No. RateBeer people rate beers ridiculously high. And that's not really my opinion. That's practically a fact from what I notice when comparing reviews and scores.

How I compare beer: To the BJCP style guidelines OR if the brewer explicitly states the approach to a certain style that they were aiming for, I'll judge it on those merits/qualities. Other than that, every beer is subjective for everyone, so drink what you like and screw what anyone else thinks.

 

I certainly only reveiw beers that I enjoy or beers on the way to the one i enjoy as I'm planning my evening drinking. I feel you shouldn't reveiw a bottle of this beer you know to be bad (noticable off flavors from light struck or infection) or out of date. And You should avoid style's you don't like till you "get a feel". My reveiws should generally be above average since I strive to reveiw, drink and share above average beers. All the math in this forum has motivated me to go rate Natty Ice a zero.

 

I usually do most things too high.

 

As a side note in the math, you can't give a zero only a one. So one is the lowest possible reveiw.

 

I absolutely think that the ratings are too high. Giving a beer a 4 seems like the normal, but translated that's an 8 out of 10. Most beers are not 8 out of 10. An average should be in the mid to high 2s... An awesome beer should be 3.5 to 4 and the best in the mid to high fours.

I've been thinking this for a while but figured I'd get shit on by people that rate beer frequently...

 

Incorrect. If you read the whole thread or even part of it you would notice that it has been thoroughly discussed and proven that 3 should be the average. Since you can't give a 0 the scale is not the way you described it.

 

If 90% of the beer consumed nationwide is BMC shite aren't we talking about the top 10% of the beer brewed nationwide? So average reveiw should be 4.5 if we are judging the cream of the crop. I guess this is world wide website so that probably pulls that number down slightly. The big problem in our statistical analysis is that BMC doesn't represent 90% of the beer reveiwed.

 

I will agree that some people consistently rate beers too high and that there are many that shouldn't have as high of a rating as they do, but at least be appreciate that this website has a better overall system than some others IMO. Half the beers on Ratebeer have a 100% rating. That is something that has always bothered me and why I don't use them as a source for anything. I know I'll probably get some backlash for that statement but just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

I always thought this phenomenon was interesting - my gf's younger brother loves every movie he sees, it's the damnedest thing. Then I realized that I do the same in this context. I never rate anything here per say, but I do on untappd and other places where I make notes on what I have. Further, if my friends are talking about what beers I like and what I don't I do the same thing. It turns into a battle between what is okay what I like and what I really like. It a tough choice making a rating based on what I like or what is empirically better. I prefer the former method, which is part of the reason why I don't rate here in BA. If I like something, it doesn't mean you will, and vice-versa.

 

I don't review on here, but I keep track of my ticks on Untappd. I give lots of beers good ratings on there because I (and my friends) mainly buy highly regarded beers and when I drink those beers, they taste good in my mouth.

 

I wasn't aware that if was possible for them to taste good elsewhere! Guess I have a few things to learn still =P