Proposed Updates to Top Rated Beer Lists

well it’s a kind of bandwidth issue isn’t it. 10 gives a suboptimal result because there simply isn’t a great enough population of people drinking and reviewing the beer, but 1 is suboptimal because one person reviewing the beer is statistically inadequate. 5 seems like the right trade off between statistical significance and efficiency of result of the top 100 list, in my opinion.

 

Yeah, one of my locals has beer that is basically their flagship, but they've never brewed it the same way twice. Different beers, same name.

 

Wow I just now got to look at the Top 250….

Adding back in the raw average instead of truncated mean has really shaken the order of things up. I think this change has shaken up the list more than any of the PROPOSED edits will do. Not saying it’s good or bad, just an observation

 

At least with the inactive portion available, it would be easier to go thru and flag these, as mentioned in the other thread.

Just need some man hour(s) to get it done.

I know I've used the inactive list to report at least a dozen retired beers. I plan on getting around to more with some of my upcoming time off.

 

Once a beer gets to 10 ratings, it's "eligible". But BA has a formula to determine the list, and 11x 5.0 isn't still going to score lower in the formula than the 100th ranked beer on that particular list.

 

Thanks for that additional input.

Needless to say but quite a confusing (for me ) situation here.

Cheers!

 

I often don't know myself when I add new beers either, but I don't really find this as a big deal to me. It all works itself out so I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. This category I find is just for some minor informational purposes I feel in my opinion.

If a beer is a one-off or seasonal, whether that information is correct or not does really mean much to me personally.

Long story short, If I know it, I will chose the right info, if I don't know if it's seasonal, one off or whatever I just guess and don't concern myself with it.

 

Hey we all know who that is... that's not a mystery...

 

Yes siree Bob.

Cheers!

 

Obviously opposed… biased because I’m so damn close to having them all ticked.

 

Imma ask a silly ass question. Isn't this kind of like ignoring the statistics of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb because they're retired? Only Bryce Harper and Jose Altuve matter because they're active? Is the rookie of the year the most relevant because he's new? Just throwing it out there.

 

The analogy here is that the Top 250 list are All-Stars, while the Hall of Fame is the "Beers of Fame" list.

 

Not really….The beers of fame list does not include retired beers. Once a beer is retired it no longer receives a ranking. Beers of fame simply means the beers were added 15 or more years ago….but still active

 

Just my two cents:

• Do not consider active beers only. If an inactive beer generated a response effusive enough that it isn't unseated from its top rated position after two bloody years (all while the entire user base is rating other beers and the forum's hype trains for new releases keep on choo-chooing), maybe it's fair to say that that beer earned its ranking?

• Do not lower the minimum threshold. If you don't have enough user engagement for a top tier beer to get a scant 10 ratings, then the problem is a user engagement issue, not an algorithmic issue with top rated beers.

I don't think the threat to the top rated beers lists with respect to users discovering new beers is the Top 250 list tickers. My concern is small groups of colluding fanboys will be able to hype a one-off single keg release from their favourite hometown nanobrewery by putting up perfect scores and landing the beer on a list.

If anything, raise the minimum threshold. These lists will only be treated as the de facto best beers lists worldwide (be it by BA's membership, by retailers posting the list(s) on their walls, or by the casual consumer/non BA member who prints off a list one random year to naively bring into their local bottle shop) so long as they actually do reflect the best beers.

My concern with a five rating threshold is that all it would take for a beer to make a list would be the equivalent of a table full of neckbeards using Untapped at the local taproom. Not exactly the authoritative "benchmark for beer reviews" BeerAdvocate is intended to be.

 

@Todd correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the top beer lists used a weighted algorithm to formalize BA score, with one of those factors being number of reviews and ratings.

This could silence a lot of the doubt, i.e. five users couldn't recreate a top list.

FWIW, I tried to dig up the answer where I thought I saw it, but turns out my memory and internet archives aren't as deep as @jesskidden and others.

 

I would personally like to see the minimum number of reviews dropped, as I have taken the time to review many brews that will likely/never get to ten, but where five is doable....I know I'd like to see a score with more of these types. I'd also like to see inactive beers stay in the rankings on top beer lists.....some people may be aging brews that are no longer available, and others may discover a said beer this way, by acquiring one through trade or by chance finding one on a shelf somewhere....I've found beers no longer brewed before myself.....If its good enough to have made a top beers list, it should stay there.....what about a top 250 list specifically for inactive/retired beers?

 

I'm definitely in support of that, regardless of how it impacts top lists and other site features. When I add a new beer to the DB, I rarely have any clue if the brewery views it as a one-off or plans to make it again, either on a sporadic basis or seasonally. Hell, even the brewery may not know until they see how it sells.