Changes: Beer Hads, Full Reviews & Ratings

Yeah, but just think how many more beers you and I can hate now

 

Also, as an addendum to my previous point:

This site has already had a problem with ratings inflation and over-rating of beers. Including adds is going to make it worse.

I will say I like the addition of .25 increments a lot, though. It makes it easier to differentiate scores.

 

I think it's one thing to include the "Hads" score in the overall score of the beer, I get it and that's fine, but can we please keep the "Hads" out of the review section? It's now literally impossible to gather any meaningful information about a beer when you see a review, then 30 useless scores that have ZERO context.

 

Alright well that is badass!

 

While these changes will be somewhat difficult to digest at first, I can see a few positives coming out of this. The .25 increment is a great change (I'm crazy enough, and half-tempted to alter previous reviews; the only frustrating part of this update!). Secondly, semi- or hardly- active BAs will finally feel a part of the site and use it more often. Perhaps, I can get my girlfriend to start submitting her scores when she splits bottles with me. I, definitely, value my girlfriend's opinion; however, she's not a reviewer.

With a 'Had' and 'Reviewed' segregation update (hopefully to come), the scores can honestly reflect the opinions of both along with a total rating. The big problems I still see that arise is the lack of honest question-ability of a 'Had' score. It was a good point brought up; you can't report JohnDoe user because he/she gave Founders KBS a 'Had' rating of '1'. In turn, that IS their opinion, and the debate becomes whether or not they should be allowed to submit it. Even though it's not a problem-solver, it's almost as if we should just discard all user 'Had' ratings of 1 or 5 off-the-bat.

I was curious and took a look at the top-rated beers for my favorite style - Flanders Red Ale. On top of that list now is Blueberry Flanders from Perennial Artisan Ales out of Missouri. The beer has only one user review and 9 'Had's, giving it the exact necessary rating count of 10 to allow submission and representation in the top beer lists. Here's a beer that will be hard to dethrone; seeing as it was brewed once, tapped, tasted, and 'ticked' by 9 BAs who had nothing positive or negative to contribute about the beer--only that 7 of those 9 BAs gave the brew a 5.0 'Had' rating (the other two, both 4.75 respectively).

The honest question out of this (out of fairness) is 'Do Beer Advocates think that Blueberry Flanders is a better Flanders Red Ale than Bockor Cuvee Des Jacobins Rouge?' Should Blueberry Flanders top that list, and continue to top that list for quite awhile? How valuable were the 9 'Had' ratings for that beer that bumped it the top spot over a list of countless other delicate, well-crafted, and highly-respected beers?

Like I said, I like the direction, but there are loose ends to tie up here. Good work so far, Bros!

 

I guess I need to put more thought into my "hads"...

 

Not really ... you can always report users that may be abusing the site.

 

Wow. I hope Todd and Jason view those profiles. That's exactly what we've all been talking about. You found two. How many more of those kinds of profiles exist?

Do these two users use the 'Had' rating system as merely a way to track beers they tasted? krispharper gave all 96 of the beers he 'reviewed' exactly a '1' rating.

 

Well aware of a small handful ... reporting directly to us is best.

 

I've actually never reported a user before. What is the best way of doing this? When you click on a username and go to their profile page, there is no 'Report' link. It seems there are only 'Report' links attached to a user's posts. I could use those links, although it wouldn't be to report anything particularly abusive about that specific post or thread.

 

Idk, I feel like reviewing scores have more thought (and typically more criticism) involved and tend to be more accurate. Don't get me wrong guys - I know some of you only do "hads" and don't want to write reviews, and therefore you put a lot of thought into your ratings as well, not knocking you at all. I know Hanzo, for example, only uses "hads" and based off of his profile and board activity, his ratings would be true and well thought out. BUT, I personally know people who will have a beer, like it a lot, and just go to BA and give it a 5 (or vice versa for a beer they didn't care for very much) without giving much thought to the rating. I have a feeling there are probably quite a few people like this.

Also, sure you can review a beer and give it a "1" as a troll, but what's more likely - someone to sit and type up a fake review just to give the beer a 1, or someone who can simply go to each page and pick 1 from a drop down box - and now all of these ratings are getting treating with the same weight (right?). As you can see from a link to one of the profiles I listed above, this guy goes through and rates 96 pretty good beers with a "1" rating, all listed for today's date. Having to write a review to affect the score certain deters much of this behavior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter too much because I still think there are more people on this site who care about beer and their ratings enough to provide honest and accurate ones, as opposed to people who just post fake ratings, so it's really not something to argue too much about.

 

This must have been fixed a few minutes ago. I saw a 100.24% pDev on a Kvass, then returned to find it fixed.

 

Can you please add the option on review pages to "hide reviews with no comments?"

It's really annoying to have to scroll past like 10 blank reviews to find one with tasting comments.

 

All the changes are fine and I'll get used to them.

One suggestion, when you view a beer, it should show reviews only as the default setting rather than hads and reviews mixed.
Also, the Beers of Fame list should have a higher minimum now.

 

This promotes exactly what people are complaining about! This is a review based website, why take out the reviews? If anything, encourage people to take more time and be more serious about what they write, otherwise there's no accountability! Having features that help newbies get involved is great, but don't water down the rest for people who are more serious- i.e. all brewpubs need a gateway beer, but that doesn't mean you need to water down the RIS to cater to those who are new to craft beer.

 

I agree with point #3, Hads do not equal reviews, this would be a fun feature for an app but Hads shouldn't affect the overall score of a beer, ESPECIALLY since the character limit has been dropped so low. I think these changes are generally good but I won't be posted 100 character reviews personally. I would like to see Hads and Reviews separated, hopefully this happens with the launch of the app.

 

This is a great idea. If the # of Hads for a beer was set at 25 or 50 before it affects the score ti would go a long way to prevent a group of homers from bumping a beer up just because they want to troll.

 

Who defined it as that?

From the "about" page...

"BeerAdvocate (BA) is a global, grassroots network, powered by an independent community of beer enthusiasts and industry professionals who are dedicated to supporting and promoting beer."

 

I agree with this 100%. Beeradvocate's appeal is the thoughtful data and user input, it isn't just a bunch of ticks but reviews that are sometimes funny, often thoughtful, and as an aggregate provide the user with a huge wealth of information about breweries and beers. I fear the dilution of this. I don't mind dropping the limit a little (as long as we can flag stuff again) but giving "Hads" the same weight as reviews doesn't seem right.

There should be "review of the week" section on here to showcase nice reviews or new beers that people are talking about. I've been on here for almost 10 years and the reviews is what keeps me coming back.

 

Not that reviews are the entire focus, but the site has gained its recognition and popularity (I would say) mostly from its reviews and rankings.