Do you review infected beers?

If it was bottled and you paid for it, review it.

 

Yes, you should absolutely review an infected beer. It's clearly the brewery's fault, they accepted money for it, and it's your right as a consumer (and arguably your responsibility as an Advocate ) to communicate your experience to others.

I would go even further than most and argue that skunked beers should be reviewed, too, provided that the brewer chose to package in green or clear glass and the beer was not knowingly exposed to excessive light by the retailer or consumer. I've gotten skunked bottles out of sealed cases before that were obviously ruined through the brewer's negligence, and see no reason why their review average shouldn't suffer as a result.

 

Well, I guess it really boils down to why you review anything at all. I for one only review beers I like because I'm using the data to compile a list of my favorite beers. There is, as far as I know, no rule against this and anyway I doubt very much that my single review of any beer has much overall impact on that beers overall score. I do feel some BA's have a highly inflated sense of self worth in this respect and might want to ponder the idea that their review will probably never be read by more than a few people. There is no right or wrong answer here, review whatever you want, if it violates the Bro's standards it will get deleted.

 

I can agree with this but I will say that if everyone were to review this way the reviews would not be a helpful resource to curious consumers. When I am putting a review on this site I am putting it in a public forum for everyone to read, it is not in a private data base for my own record. Even if only a handful of people read my reviews I feel it is my obligation to be fair, honest and even critical when necessary. If you choose to use your reviews as a personal date base that is fine just realize this is a public database and it is not beneficial for everyone to use it in this same manner.

 

If you choose to use your reviews as a personal date base that is fine just realize this is a public database and it is not beneficial for everyone to use it in this same manner.[/quote]
I applaud your efforts, BTW you are one of the few reviewers that I regularly read. But that said, I do believe it was you that said you don't put much of any weight in the overall score, but in the body of trusted reviews. That is exactly how I look at it.

 

Easiest question ever.

Yes.

 

Absolutely. The score is meaning less without the words to back it up. I will take a well written review. be it positive or negative, all day and base my opinion off that.

 

Pretty sure that's not what you meant, but my initial reaction was "I base my opinion off of tasting the beer."

 

Correct, my original response and this not really related. My statements stand on their own merit, should not necessarily be view as a continuous statement.

 

Huh? I meant specifically:

That sounds like you base your opinion of a beer off of other people's reviews.

 

Ok, clarification is admittedly needed. My opinion of a beer is based on its own merits and based on my taste alone. If a review is written well, I can take the reviewers experience and usually determine if the beer will be something I enjoy. I know my tastes well enough that is someone can describe a beer accurately I can pick up on what I may or may not enjoy it that beer.

I tend to only read a select few peoples reviews and rarely seek out reviews before I seek out a beer. My point still stands that a well written review, good or bad, trumps any number associated with the review.

 

I reviewed a Duck Rabbit Schwarzbier that was obviously infected, but put more into the words than the score.

 

Yep.

 

Yup.

 

I think it's fair game to review if it's been put into the market. I also always email the brewery and tell them about my experience. I've had very few responses, but one response basically told me "if you don't like our beer, don't drink it". Needless to say I don't drink their beer anymore.

 

It's all fair game. It should be reviewed to warn potential consumers as well as alert breweries to issues.

If you ordered food at a restaurant and it had clearly gone bad, you would say something right?

So long as it is a brewer's responsibility, and not user error I think it's fair game.

 

Care to name names?

 

I agree, name them and I'll stop drinking it too. A lousy response.

 

I thought I would re-post a broad opinion on the issue of reviewing infected/mishandled beers:

"No doubt it is only generous to the brewer not to rate their beers that they personally messed up --infected batch, or someone else messed up -- sold long past it's prime.

But, I think it's worth asking the following:
Are the number of people reviewing old or Infected beers over representing the percentage of the BA community exposed to excessively old or infected beers?

If yes, then this is a systemic problem in need of an active awareness-campaign to dettur people from, in effect, "poisoning the pool".

If no, these reviews are nothing but representative of what BAs are likely to encounter when purchasing that beer -- i.e. an old or infected beer.

BAs who feel a sense of responsibility to the community should do their best to provide as accurate a review of the product they purchase as reasonably possible. That means being flexible and using good judgment -- maybe try a beer more the once before reviewing it. It however, should not mean that the 20% (just to pick a random number) who are exposed to old or infected beers should simply remove themselves from the discourse.

The point is to review the beer you have access to, not the beer it should theoretically be. Perhaps it's not fair to the brewer, but it's even more unfair to consumers to paint a patently false portrait of the product in distribution -- especially if a measurable percentage of that product is not in its ideal state."