Heady Topper #1 on BA

People seem very angry that Heady is #1. You mad bros??

 

Well wouldn't that be the bottle shop's responsibility to take old beer off the shelf? I couldn't see a brewery buying back their old IPA's because they weren't the one with the problem selling them.

But yes, since combining the hads/reviews I can definitely see how that would effect overall score. The thing that I've noticed is that the ratings have went up...So for the sake of IPA's it seems that less hops(in the case of ticking old beer) is actually more favorable as I have noticed a few IPA/IIPA's go up in rating. Then again it is harder to get an average down after many reviews being combined with even more had's.

So I guess I'll reiterate my previous statement.

Before the change, I would much more trust reviews over had's for the main fact that they took the time to thoroughly review that beer, and in my head, who would want to write a review of say a really old heady for instance.

 

must be hard to get.

 

What the system needs for the hads is a place to put the best by or brew date of the bottle , I read the reviews a lot to see that a guy says this beer was 2 years old and sitting on the liqour store shelf

 

i dont think it has anything to do with being better than the other. i do feel that it is much easier to abuse the had system than the full review wihich requires more effort. (not thatthat cant be abused either but its much harder to fake a review)
i hope more folks review their hads like u do. djbutters above shows a good example of the abuse

 

About that list...It doesn't make sense to me that a brew can make the top 100 with considerably fewer reviews than others. 29 reviews can catapult a beer into the the top 100? Really? Statistically, I would think that you would need more than that to be relevant. How many? I don't know. I only had 2 semesters of statistics a very long time ago, but 100 sounds like a good place to start.

 

The formula listed at the bottom of each of the Top lists is statistically well-founded, although you can debate what the minimum vote threshold should be.

 

And I think this is the biggest difference. People are naturally giving beers higher ratings when they simply score it as a "had." When you write a full beer review you are dissecting every aspect of the beer and will likely give it a lower rating. As your numbers above show, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Heady Topper has a 4.7 overall rating, I don't remember seeing ANY beer on this site ever have a score that high.

 

Wow!!! I better get some more... Or not!! Its an awesome beer but not the best II IPA out there!!

 

I'm unclear whether thats abuse or a reviewer who works on a system like:

1 - I would never drink again

2 - Avoid

3 - Okay

4 - Pretty good

5 - I would drink all the time


You can argue that they aren't rating to style, but let's be honest and admit that there's an awful lot of styles that don't get much love around here regardless of how "to-style" they are.

 

A fact? Really? Based on the top 100 list you've generalized to every beer out there? Maybe Hads just accentuate the extremes and the Bottom 100 list just got lower on average.

(BTW, many beers have had runs at 4.7 and above. For a while Ann was up there.)

 

I think it's also possible that geographics affect ratings. A good (and valid) statistical sampling would be taken from various parts of a large geographical area (not just a couple of states). Folks on the west coast may not appreciate a brew as much as folks on the east coast and vice versa. Some may be partial to their local brews which could be due to freshness, package formats, etc. What I mean is..I tend to hold more stock in a widely distributed product on the top 100 versus one that is only available within very limited boundaries.

 

Which is why:

1) the ranking formula factors in the number of reviews, and

2) the Beers of Fame list exists

 

Spot checking it looks like that you are correct in that the average score of the bottom beers did decline. I'm willing to bet that if I were to rescrape and compare that the middle quartiles had slight changes. If plotted it'd probably look like a reverse bell curve.

 

I took it as "I can't believe people here consider the rankings here as gospel." I use the rankings as a guide. Been burned by too many 88-110's that were more like 60-70's because of some fanboy like obsession for an average beer.

 

That's why they want you to drink it straight from the can! The can looks rad...

 

Was the highest ranked sour always Duck Duck? Can't seem to remember..

 

I'm almost certain Supplication was higher before the change. Also, I'm pretty sure some of the Armand'4s were higher before they were retired.

 

Be aware? DANGER! DANGER!! Heady Topper went to #1 on an arbitrary list after some arbitrary inputs based on arbitrary numbers caused the old arbitrary list to be obsolete, and creating a new arbitrary list based on arbitrary inputs derived from arbitrary numbers.

If people let the ranking on a list determine their enjoyment of a beer, then they need to step away from the internet, and learn to think for themselves.