Updates: Top Rated Beers

Just wondering. What makes a retired beer? Caffe americano rum and imperial apricot bu and black and wild have not been brewed in over a year from all the info I can find and from friends who live there. So why are these not retired? Thanks

 

If the brewery has not officially announced they are retired, then they can still be occasional/periodic.

 

Does browser type and whether I'm logged in or not impact the ratings? I am logged into my BA account on Chrome and #249 is Nelson by Alpine and #250 is Bretta Rose by Firestone Walker. I'm not logged into my BA account on Internet Explorer and it shows #249 as Rare DOS by Peg's and #250 as Nelson by Alpine.

I also noticed a few other differences within the list such as 237/238/239 on Chrome is Cutting Tiles (Galazy)/Edward/Breakfast Exorcism, but on IE it's Edward/Breakfast Exorcism/Cutting Tiles (Galaxy).

 

Trying to be constructive here - if the thought was that the previous "m" was too low, I don't think the goal has been achieved. From what I can tell, the change has actually let more beers with fewer # of ratings or reviews to be included since the "m" was switched to ratings. That probably has a much bigger impact than going to a dynamic "m".

Just looking at Illinois, there are 8 beers on the list now that weren't eligible to be on the list before (had less than 10 reviews). Also, it seems like beers with far fewer # of ratings but a slightly higher avg now have an even better chance of moving ahead of a beer with more # but slightly lower avg. Could be wrong on that though, harder to tell.

 

I'm not understanding the Beers of Fame list. Ten Fidy used to be there (added to the site 2006). Any change in the criteria that makes it not qualify?

Thanks

 

Yeah, weird since it has a 4.33 avg across 9,837 ratings. Other beers with lower scores and less than half as many reviews are high on the list. Must be length of time as a quick check of 25 or so revealed none newer than 2002.

 

@Todd: Thanks for the explanation. Any day you can use "Bayesian-based formula" in a post about beer is a great day.

I use the "Top Beers" list as a guide, not a Bible, and I like seeing it evolve to reflect the trends we beer nerds are generating in the market. My son, OTOH, still can't get over the fact that Heady is no longer at the top of the list (we shared a couple of pints 3 years ago, and he was pretty taken with that beer). When he saw that it had been "dethroned," he was ready to call the FBI, CIA, and the DHS. He was crushed AND angry.

He did NOT take it well when I told him, "It's just beer, son." A most serious beer nerd, he is.

 

Honestly I think a lot of us were disappointed when heady was dethroned. It ended an era of a reasonably obtainable #1.

 

what is it now?

 

Top beers as rated by Poo-Bahs?

 

Opens up to a lot of Belgian Beers, as 15 years is before many current craft breweries came on to the scene.

 

My first reaction to reading the 15 years was that seemed a bit too long. But on further reflection I think 15 is pretty much in line with what I think fame with staying poer is all about and that I am happy like to find in a "Beers of Fame" list.

These are beers with staying power and that have not gained their reputation based on current excitement or the enthusiasm of the moment. In addition they are also mostly beers from breweries that have also demonstrated over time their ability to make one or more beers of quality and so are also breweries that are producing beers I might enjoy after spending my money but before having even tasted a sample.

 

Lovin that new Most Popular Beers list. All I have to do is drink a Sam Adams Rebel IPA and an Obsidian Stout and I've had all of them!

 

I still think 15 is a bit long. You can't tell me at 10 years isn't long enough to show that the rating isn't from enthusiasm at the moment. With 15 years we have beers with an average rating under a 4 on the beers of fame list, and that doesn't seem right to me.

 

Yes, I originally thought 15 was on the long side as well but decided I wasn't bothered by the change.

But as for beer on the list of Fame having under a 4, I don't find that particularly bothersome since the rating biases on this site guarantee that some styles will have lower average ratings as a style than do some other styles. For example, the worlds best Pils, will not have an overall score as high as some fairly average RIS. But this is not because one style or another is superior. They are simply different and appeal to different folks and to some of us at a different stage of their maturation as a beer drinker. In my own case I once listed RIS as my favorite style. That has long been changed to the German Pils which I find much more complex and enjoyable than I find most RIS, which I don't purchase much any more.

Edit: The bottom line is that a 4.0 overall score has a different meaning from style to style.

 

I agree with you that it's important to look into style bias on these lists, but I usually go to the top 100 in the style when searching for an under appreciated style. You've also got to consider that beers that just aren't that great are now on the beers of fame. I just liked 10 years better, I feel that's a long time in beer time. A lot has changed since 2007 and a beer thats been around that long and has still maintained great ratings should be on the list.