Changes: Beer Hads, Full Reviews & Ratings

Didn't really like this update at first, but I guess a combination of sleep, beer and the quick response/tweaks from Todd have softened my stance, as I don't mind it so much now. Making hads filterable was crucial; the review pages were aesthetically awful for a while there with all the blank space and disjointedness. I do appreciate how quickly that tweak was put in place. People who aren't signed in to BA who visit the beer's individual page should either see only reviews or only hads; I don't even care which is default, it just looks messy when they're mixed like that.

The addition of 0.25 increments was a really good idea, though.

Honestly I did kind of think it was silly that hads didn't count at all toward a beer's overall score before this update, but I still feel they shouldn't be considered completely equal to a thorough review from a trusted BA. I would prefer some sort of karma-related system that would naturally tend toward weighting 'trusted/liked' reviewers' scores more highly than tickers or people who registered yesterday.

Saying 'hads are worth half of a review' (or some other fraction) and leaving it at that is too simplistic, because it's not like some reviewers didn't/don't abuse that system too (e.g. IPAh8er420 giving a common, standard issue IPA a 1 for 'tasting bitter', or the new user who reviews everything Local Brewery X brews over a period of two days and gives out straight 4.5-5.0s). There are plenty of hads users who are giving the beer a fair shake and just don't want to review for one reason or another, and their opinions should count at least as much as a ticker who writes 3-4 vague sentence fragments about everything he reviews.

Right now the only thing that really bothers me is the 100 character limit, but that's probably just a product of nostalgia. The main reason I originally joined this site rather than the other one is because I'd prefer to read an informative review over something that reads like wine notes or a tweet.

It kind of seems like a big change in philosophy, but I'll get over it eventually. I'm sure there are plenty of people who see one of my reviews on a beer's page, raise an eyebrow and quickly skip to one with lots of concise, easy-to-read-on-your-phone ASTMO-organized facts, but those people just want different things out of BA than I do. As long as more potential users are satisfied I still consider these changes welcome progress, though. So thanks for all the hard work, Bros!

 

Since the changes yesterday I find myself having to click this checkbox for every beer I view because I find the had scores to be meaningless and completely out of context. Is it possible to make "Full Reviews Only" the default setting on a beer's profile. I feel like the hads do provide some good insight as to the overall quality of the beer, but not the specific details which I believe to be more useful.

IE. I want to find a great hop forward double IPA, I might end up looking at Dark Horse Double Crooked Tree and say, wow, look at these great scores, buy it and then be bummed at how it's basically a barleywine and not really what I was hoping to get out of my DIPA experience despite it being a great beer.

What say you community?

 

Seeing a long list of "Had" scores is ineffective viewing and terrible clutter. Whether to include "Had" scores or not in a beer's Avg score is an entirely different argument and one I don't really care about one way or the other, but I completely agree with you in this: only reviews (and not a long list of "Hads") should be visible.

 

Don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but I'm a database guy, and perhaps you could build a 'preferences' section at the individual user account level that would give individuals the ability to select their 'view' and choose whether or not they see just 'hads', just 'reviews' or both, i/e enabling users to customize their view? This type of UI would enable users to see and utilize BA according to their preference - just my 2 cents. I love this site, and greatly appreciate all of the members input and all your hard work, thank you all - Cheers!

 

Well, it should matter less. I'm kinda torn on this, my gf and I both drink a lot of beer, she likes Hads, I like doing full reviews. And I actually like Hads when it's not possible to do a full review, like at a festival or that final pull before 'last call'. But this is for my own reference. The problem is, 'ticking' beers like this dilutes the integrity of the BA averages. It seems the site has gone to great lengths to weight the averages with a fairly complex model, and now someone can drop a '1' or '5' bomb without giving any explanation (which I've noticed is already happening).

This isn't good. Obviously there's an element of subjectivity to review beer, the biggest of which I call 'BA inertia', where people bend their score reduce the rDev. However, I can't count the number of times I've changed my mind over the course of reviewing a beer. Actually sitting down, relaxing and spending several minutes pondering the nuances of the beer is inevitably going to lead to a more 'accurate' review.

 

I generally only write a full review if I'm drinking the beer right then. If I'm out at a bar and want to record the beer when I get home, I use a had. I see it as more of an approximation.

 

Err... isn't the whole point of the beer reviews, no matter what format, to express an opinion?

And the Hads "reviews" certainly don't include any facts, and the opinion part is boiled down to a simple number with no context.

 

My opinion, slam it if you want: It is more like how much more value is a careful, BJCP format review than a had, or 100 character ratebeer-esque review. To me it is easy. Had with a number/ratebeer-esque review = almost completely valueless to me to examine when I want to purchase a beer. These types of "reviewing", for lack of a better word, are for keeping score in the game of ticking, despite the supposed care and thought given to them. It is the lazy way to try to describe how one feels for a beer.

Try telling your wife on her Valentines Day card you you love her 4.5. Perhaps you can tell her afterwards that the number means just as much as a detailed description of why you love her, because you gave it a lot of thought. I'm sure she'll agree with you.

 

Everything right here.

 

Which is of course fine, you don't (and won't) see me advocating for limiting long reviews. I'm just providing a counterpoint to all the people complaining about short reviews and wanting to raise the minimum word count, or make the rating's weight proportional to word count, or other such nonsense.

Adding Hads simply provides a large sample size and provides a smaller standard deviation on the final number.

As for opinion vs. fact, I suppose that's true but I think we're arguing semantics. When I say facts, I mean things like "dark brown color," "thin mouth feel," etc. Of course those are all opinions, but they're a lot less fluff than you'll find in a page long review. Basically I'm counting facts as descriptors that the majority of consumers would agree with - which I find a lot more useful than wondering how well my tastes match up with the wordsmith reviewer.

 

Dude - I think you can remember if you liked a beer or not.
If you did - have another!
If you didn't - don't!

But seriously - my sincerest condolences on your lost reviews of the beers of fame...I know how much they must've meant to you.
Hopefully they are in a happier place now...RIP

 

They are back, as I expected they would be. There was no need for you to get all snarky on me. I like to keep records of what I've had as any BA that reviews would.

 

Just jesting - no offense meant - I'm glad you're going to be alright!

So I'm curious...you keep stats on the beers you've reviewed....how do you even go about doing that?
I need to upgrade my software.

 

Hads shouldn't be counted. They should serve only as a personal log. It will dumb down the reviews on the one hand, and besides how are we going to be sure if someone who gives a perfect score even had the drink? It takes time and effort to write a review and justify why you give the score you give, this will just make the reviewing a personal logging thing instead of a pre-requesite to guarantee reviewing quality.

 

Much has been said on the dislike side. For me, here's what I like:

1. Increments of .25. This was sorely needed.
2. Puts my reviews up top for me for quick reference.
3. Ability to toggle on and off full reviews only. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'll keep this box checked.

 

P.S. I agree with the concensus on hads not being included in ratings.

 

IMO, "hads" provide no benefit to anyone except for the user who rated it for tracking purposes.

 

I think it's a bad idea to count Hads towards the rating AND shorten the review minimum. One or the other could work but not both at the same time. I for one stopped reviewing since it was too much work for the amount of beer that I try. I just don't have the words!