rating beer styles you dont enjoy

Because I do not like most of them, I do not review pilsners and light lagers here on the forum. Nobody would get any benefit from my comments on those styles even though I have had a few that I do like and recommend to friends that are looking for that sort of thing. And I am reluctant to offer opinions on some other styles too, like the spicier exotic Saisons or herbal experiments that pour into my glass from time to time, these would really have to stand out in my opinion (good or bad!) to put up any comments at all on them.

 

You are supposed to rate the beer for its style and how well it represents it. I wouldn't personally rate a beer on something like this if I don't like it because it would just drop the rates of it because of my personal taste.

 

But that's exactly what should happen. If you bother to review a beer at all you should do it considering what you like or don't like about it. It is everybody's personal tastes combined that create the rankings, otherwise we'd have beers that almost nobody likes with high ratings just because only the few who like them would rate them. Or worse, good beers with bad ratings just because they don't fit the style. Whatever that is.

 

I know there are some styles that I don't like or haven't tried. I mean I liked Stouts, but I have run into a slew of ones that I didn't like and am now doubting my Stout palate or taste for liking stouts. However, I am still new. The same goes for geuze and lambics. When I first started out I didn't even review beers, it was more of a I liked it and would by again or I didn't and wouldn't buy again. This was back when I was only going through DFH's catalog, which is a decent foray into beer styles and really opens you up to some weird stuff. However, if you like a brewery a lot then you are most likely willing to try what they put out. I know that I try everything that Stone puts out and some of those collaborations I don't like. I mean they could come out with some weird lager, which I am not a particular fan of, but I would still review it to put my thoughts down. However, I stay away from what I don't like but if I am venturing into a new style then I will seek out the highly rated ones, because those seem to usually transcend their style and almost have a universal acclaim, that people who might not like the style can nonetheless appreciate.

 

I wish I could write and finish my take-home exam as fast as I did that response.

 

I wouldn't file a rating for a beer I didn't like simply because it wasn't to my taste.
Sometimes I have had to give scores in situations I found difficult. Recantly I was a judge in the "Speciality" section of a competition and had 10 beers from IPAs through stouts and porters and a wheat beer. How do you score a wheat beer on appearance? Yet strangely enough the team had little difficulty in picking two beers to go forward, our first choice was the eventual Champion.

 

These kinds of reviews can have their value if the reviewer provides some kind of characterization of the beer even in view of their bias.

For example, whereas "I hate IPAs, so this beer automatically gets a 2 from me" doesn't do anything other than drag a rating down, something like "I hate IPAs, and the heavy grapefruit and pine flavors of this beer do nothing to change my mind" actually provides some information about the beer. If someone likes some but IPAs but not those that are grapefruit bombs, the first review provides no guidance, while the second review at least gives some information.

 

I use rating beers as a way to learn more about each style. I have the guidelines next to me while I review beers, and I try not to think about whether I personally like or dislike certain flavors. This approach has also helped me to appreciate and then to enjoy styles I previously wasn't fond of, like American IPAs. I can safely say that I no longer dislike any style, though I do still find certain beers that I'm not fond of.

 

Even so , there's an element of personal taste involved which I believe needs to be guarded against.
I recently tried an IPA and thought that if I want a grapefruit taste I can buy grapefruit juice a lot cheaper ! I like my beer to taste of beer.But others wouldn't agree and I didn't submit a review.

 

I think everyone takes styles into account. That's why Imperial Stouts, IIPAs and Sours are the highest. Coors consistently may make a stellar AAL, but that won't get me to rate them a 5. Another maybe better example is Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. They make a great, consistent product. It epitomises the style, and yet, you don't see it atop the lists. I say its all right like that. Take reviews for what they are.

 

Personal taste DOES get factored in, but it resides usually within the style. Example, I try Heady Topper. Fantastic. One of the best IPA's that I have ever had. It ranks lower than Reisdorf Kolsch however, because there are more flaws with Heady Topper (namely the appearance) than the kolsch. Theoretically, even if I can't stand kolsch, Reisdorf Kolsch would still achieve a higher score than Heady Topper...

Most people don't review that way. Many people will factor rarity into their scores, and many will give bad scores (or good scores) just because...well, they don't give a shit. I saw a review where it stated IN THE REVIEW that they were giving the beer a worse score than they thought it deserved because they were trying to bring the overall score down. That's why I don't think BA reviews are a good indicator of the quality of the beer.

 

Why should personal taste be guarded against? The beer ratings provided on this site are not a collection of carefully-considered tasting notes of professional beer judges. Rather, the reviews provide an aggregate assembly of personal opinions. In that regard, I am all for "keeping style in mind," but the ratings are plenty useful as identifying the users' subjective enjoyment of a particular beer.

 

Let me start off with qualifying that I don’t like IPAs. I haven’t had one that I like even after several tries, and as such I avoid the style all together, and I certainly don’t review them.

However, say I am reviewing an IPA, for the sake of argument, say PtE, and because I do not enjoy the beer does that mean I should still give it high marks, because every IPA fan out there thinks it’s the best beer out there? Or should I give it low marks because I think it’s a terrible beer, based on my taste preferences? Or should I say something like: “I absolutely hated this beer, as it was way too damn hoppy, and all I tasted was bitterness which made my mouth dry and give me “Popeye Bitter Beer Face”, but because I hated this beer, it must be one hell of an awesome example of an American IPA!” ?

Because I don’t know how to be objective in beers I do not like, I’ll have to keep my reviews only to beers I do like, which means that pretty much every beer I review will probably be rated high. Or not review at all.

And commence the slamming of me for not liking IPAs, in general and PtE in particular, in 5…4…3….2….1….

 

I don't normally grade a beer if it's a style I don't enjoy. Not fair to rate a beer poorly because I just don't like the style.

 

Really. Nothing is gonna make me respect a review more than by seeing a shitty score and then the reviewer beginning like this: "Well let me start off by saying I'm not a big fan of (fill in particular style)..."

I see it a lot.

 

The words in a review are more important than the numerical scores.

 

If I don't like the style I don't buy the beer.