How Have Your Ratings Changed Over Time?

Yes, they have changed. Both the positive and the negative rDev have gotten smaller. I see this as a result my increased experience and improved internal standards against which to make my judgments, given that I deliberately avoid impuse buying and much more likely to be drinking beers from the "Beers of Fame" list than the "Top 250" list.

 

I'm actually opposite the OP. I tend to rate most beers higher than the avg. BA now adays than in years past. My theories:
1) I'm more able to enjoy more styles and flavor profiles now than in the past with my beer drinking experience. I just love beer and most all beer styles now adays. Something really has to be "off" for me to give a beer below avg. rating. Beers that I thought were really bitter years ago now taste sweet and balanced. Sours are a flavor I crave now, but was a turnoff years ago. Beers that I would have rated a 2-3 years ago now may be in the 3.75-4.25 range.
2) I'm a more experienced beer purchaser these days than my early years. I know how to check dates on bottles, don't buy beers sitting in the front window getting the UV rays etc. Many beers in my early years, I think were old and bad ones that I just didn't know so I gave lower reviews than most people who probably had them fresher.
3) I have no bias, politics etc and don't care what other BAs think. I've give several adjuncts & BMC macros well over 4 ratings because I think they are excellent for the style and work for me.

With that said, many of the really high rated beers I reviewed in early years (5's or near 5's), I've re-reviewed and dropped them down a little since I've had some better ones in same style more recently.

 

Since I got to about 100 beers rated, I've been periodically monitoring my rDev- particularly at the mean. My mean rDev has always been within +/- 1%. To me that is an acceptable variance.

 

I no longer rate beers a 5 and I use the attribute rating system to vote

 

I think my ratings are generally under the average these days compared to the past.

 

I think having to judge beers at a few competitions has made me think of the importance of being really aware of what you are drinking, and that it really does have an impact, even for beers that are widely rated/reviewed, and that the folks who brew them are highly cognizant of what we think.

My scores seem to have lowered over the years as I do this, but I feel more confident that I gave them an honest shot.

 

I've had some pretty shitty beers that were almost perfect in one way (say, appearance); but I have never had a GREAT beer that was perfect in every way.

 

I am not really sure...

As I have had more beer my reviews have certainly grown more detailed. Kind of funny since my first review I ever did was barely three lines and not really informative.

Still I find my overall feelings for a beer in the end don't change I just can say more about it.

What I have discovered though is that if I find a beer really exceptional I can write more and say more about its character. That is when I know I am into something special.

 

Appearance is a sneaky one, isn't it? That initial draw after a beer is poured...

So often I find it hard to knock a beer on that attribute.

I realize that I have given out some higher ratings a little crazily. Early on, I think I was influenced by the hype, and now I feel much more confident in reviewing/rating a beer. I think there is a curve we all go through as we move along.

Now, I realize that it is just as important to give "bad" beers proper reviews as it is good beers. As the Doctor alludes to, every beer has a redeeming quality.

I expect the over more time, I will start to flat line. @TongoRad has the method I think I will follow...using the gradepoint average.

 

Nail on the head. I think the 'answer' to this whole thread that is often glanced over is that everyone here is learning. This curve is like the proverbial 'learning curve.'

Sure, people review/think about beer because it is fun, but at the end of the day reading about beer, thinking about it, drinking it, reviewing it, etc. is all practice.

Naturally I would imagine most everyone has noticed this flat-lining as they gain a bigger base of experience to judge not only beer in general, but what makes individual beer either good or bad.

 

Would you believe that a group of academics actually studied and wrote a very well-received academic paper about this? When I say this, I mean precisely how users on BeerAdvocate change how they rate beers over time.

In general, it seems that as users gain experience, they tend to rate the beers they like higher and the beers they dislike lower. They become more bimodal in their distribution of ratings. Also, they tend to like ales way more than lagers.

It's a really interesting piece of work, though may be a bit technical. Check it out here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.4402.pdf
The title of the paper is "From amateurs to connoisseurs: modeling the evolution of user expertise through online reviews"

 

I have always given high rating to good to great beers and low ratings to moderate to bad beers. The longer I've been rating the closer I am to the norm.