Beer review pet peeves

Can someone please stop forcing him to read the reviews? We can’t make him read all of these, it’s not humane!

When I contribute to a site that doesn’t pay me, and my contribution is within the guidelines, I will be edgy, and now a little extra edgy because you said that.

There’s no reason to have overall be something you can select if you are required to have it map to a strict average. It doesn’t make much sense to have all ones then a five, but if everything is a 4.5 that’s a pretty exceptional beer and if you think that makes it .25 higher than the average of the rest of your score, I don’t feel like any puppies got fed to a wood chipper to make that happen.

 

Well, cat piss is sometimes an aspect of some hops, so that might be valid.

Ever hear the term "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"? That would explain why the overall score is higher than any of the individual components.

 

So if some of these are older reviews, they may be from the era when the 5th category was "Drinkability". That rating category was interpreted differently by different people, and so it was changed by BA to "Overall". I am not sure what year this happened but reading back through my reviews, it looks like I stopped specifically referencing drinkability in my reviews around 2010.

 

Or maybe there’s a beer that’s just all over the place but my god we are all better for it having been brewed, and I will tip my hat to the good people who did so with an absurdly high (.25!) overall score.

 

I dislike reviews that describe things only as whether it was liked or not liked without giving a description of the beer, nor reasons why it was liked or not liked. I don't bother with folks who give only number ratings,, but giving a review that is basically just a number rating that's put into words is even worse.

I like reviews that are about 100 words, are concise, describe the attributes of the beer well, and point out what it is about those attributes the reviewer finds positive or negative.

 

The overall rating isn't necessarily an average of all the prior scores, it can just be a metric of how much you enjoyed it or not, overall without taking the prior scores into account. It also use to be called "Drinkability" which was used for a long time, and I still kind of think of it as that...which might be a fault for me, but I never said I was good at this...

And I'm not the only one to say this, so there you go...

 

I agree with this, sometimes all I really want to know is whether an “imperial IPA” is a hazy or not. But I’ve searched pages to get any mention of those characteristics like clarity, mouthfeel, bitterness etc.

It’s the antithesis of untappd: pictures but no descriptors (usually, anyhow).

This happens often when I’m in a packie and see something new and just want to know what I’m in for cos breweries can’t be bothered to describe what’s in the can (half the time).

 

As others have said, overall can be used to capture a somewhat intangible “how much did you enjoy it in general” score. If it was by definition an average of the other four scores then it would not be necessary, because the composite score is already a weighted average of the categorical scores.

Now if you give a beer straight 3s in the first four categories and then give it a perfect 5 for overall (or vice versa) then you’re either stupid or dishonest. But I will sometimes give an overall score that’s a little higher or lower than the other scores added up and divided by 4—for example, maybe a beer looks really terrible (it’s nearly flat, murky, ugly color etc.) but its appearance has zero impact on the aroma or flavor. So “overall,” and especially if I close my eyes while drinking it, I enjoy it a lot more than if I’m looking at that ugly beer.

If I had to name one pet peeve, it’s more about ratings than reviews. I can’t say I’ve ever had a truly perfect beer, so I get a little annoyed by straight-5 ratings. To each their own but if you are giving beers all 5s that means there’s literally no way that beer could be any better than it is. I think everything can be improved somehow.

 

I can sort of explain you biggest pet peeve. I'm guilty of that one very blue moon. I may score the 4 sensory ratings lower vs others in the same category but I may still have really enjoyed the beer. In try not to do that because it is odd but every now and then it fits.

 

I always found it a bit off-putting when people add too much personal flare to a review. Not enough to be annoying (to each their own), but there's a difference between objective descriptions and obvious leniency towards a specific brew or style. Even before I made an account here, I'd go on BA to look into what a beer would probably be like (as in, worth purchasing). When I see that people are willing to skew a review for the sake of being edgy, funny, or not being descriptive at all (aka just a rating), it doesn't really help those looking for actual advice about a beer/place at hand.

When I review a beer, I pay close attention to the style. If the beer plays up to that style, it earns solid marks. 3 is average ("the bar"), 1 is abysmal, and 5 is the greatest. If you're going to rate a 40 of OE800 a 5/5, it had better play the absolute best to the style - not necessarily your preferences.

 

Sounds like you’d better talk to some of these folks

 

Brought that entire thing up here!

 

Certainly there are more than 4 metrics to drinking beer! The overall rating takes into account any metric/intangible you might want to include.

 

Oh, man that review from Stothep is comedy gold!

 

This website is literally full of neckbeards with biased opinions on shitty beer.


The doors that way>>>>>>>>>
you too @Orca

OE800 is 5/5 ...so is 211

 

Probably a bait post, but I will say that OE800 is my favorite 40. It's objectively a mediocre malt liquor, though.