Ranking Beers by Tiers.

I think you're on to something and I sometimes describe them as different "leagues", regardless of what the numerical scores are here or on another site. I just find the categorization better this way, because there are some really large gaps out there, in my opinion.

 

kind of like the letter system they used to use on here?

 

Yeah I pretty much group them this way in my head already anyways. The key is finding a "Tier 1" beer that is easy to get and has a great price ie Founders IS and Breakfast Stout

 

I couldn't do it. There are beers I like and beers I don't like and while I do have favourites, I don't think I could sort them into any reliable pecking order. I suspect that if I did do that I'd soon find myself wanting to revise my decision. Plus there are just too many beers in many styles.

 

Oh, look! You've discovered the qualitative vs. quantitative distinction!

Every time you have some form of indexed quality, there's disagreement about the values in the index. Nonetheless, most of the time, there is clear breakdown into clusters of roughly comparable quality. For example, the actual linear ranking of colleges & universities in US News (or similar publications or categorizations, e.g., Gorman Report, USNews ranking of law schools, etc.) is quite worthless and generates a lot of debate on its dubious merits. But if you look closely, there are distinct clusters that hover around the same ranking every year, with only a very small number of schools migrating from one cluster into another over time. This is particularly noticeable in their law school ranking, but it also exists in the regular College Guide. In many ways, it is the function of selected criteria and the weights given to these criteria. For BA, this is a bit more generic because many people make no distinction between categories or let their rating of each component be influenced by expected overall rating. E.g., any ranking for appearance on Heady Topper above 2 is patently ridiculous, so someone giving it a 5 across the board is clearly not paying attention--face it, it's an ugly beer, but that's not where its strengths are supposed to lie.

There is also an additional question of whether reviewers should give scores for each beer within its style or across all categories. Cloudiness is expected from Witbier so a highly cloudy beer should earn a high appearance score and a clear one a very low appearance score, but if we compare these to other styles clarity should rank higher. Same with nose and flavor--if the style expects a bitter beer, fruitiness is a detractor, but someone who likes fruity beer is likely to give a higher score even if the beer does not fit the style very well. I had this problem with Cisco Island Reserve Gose which is not at all a traditional Gose, but more of a Witbier with salt. So what are you supposed to do? Downgrade it for not fitting the style even if you really like the beer itself?

 

Why would you mark a beer down for being different from other beers if you liked it?

 

Are those the only three sentences you read? I thought his reasoning was pretty cogent.

 

No. Guess again...

I don't see the value in rating to style. Style is just a general way of grouping similar beers together, it's go nothing to do with what a beer should be like.

 

This goes back to discussion of traditional styles vs "fuzzy" (newfangled) styles. "Liking" is personal and highly subjective. Fitting to style is often more important to a consumer than someone saying "I like it". If I'm looking for an SUV and see a glowing review of one that's actually a mini, I'm going to be mightily disappointed when I go to see the car. If I want a bitter and get a fruity IPA, I'll be disappointed because I did not get what I was looking for, even if I like the beer for its own qualities. A concrete example: the reviews for Allagash White are very positive and I like it for what it is, but it is not a traditional Witbier. There are times and circumstances where adherence to style is a positive and there are times when it's a distraction. Ideally, I'd have dual scores. Another case in point is Southern Tier Creme Brulee and FBS. They defy categorization and often end up as drain pours because the people trying them don't expect them to be sweet. As a standalone, without expectations, they may be great. But for someone looking for a particular palate they are going to be foul. Just check the Latest Drain Pour thread and you'll see what I mean.

Now WRT OP, this is where tiers can come in. Tiers don't necessarily have to be hierarchical--some of them can run in parallel. So, you can have a top tier of traditionals, and another top tier for great product that does not quite fit the category. As you move to lower tiers, there is no longer need to differentiate because poorly ranked products are usually there because they violate multiple constraints.

 

1: Smokey Robinson - Tiers of a Clown - "A" list:
PA - Zombie/zombie
IPA - Jai Alai/Stone Enjoy By
ll IPA - Hopslam/Maharaja
Porter - Founders/Fullers London Pride
Stout - Ten Fidy/Zhukov/Speedway
Barrel - Bourbon County(S)/Firestone Walker/Cigar City

Tiers for Fears (I can't get an invite) aka "B" list
PA - Sierra Nevada
IPA - Racer 5/a dozen others
Ii IPA - Double Jack/Resin
Porter - Sierra Nevada
Stout - The Yeti's (kinda like the Flintstones)
BA - Deschutes/Bruery