Updates to Changes: Beer Hads, Full Reviews & Ratings

I've read plenty of rather idiotic reviews that were quite lengthy. I've also read very insightful reviews that could fit within a tweet. To me, a review of an IPA that says "Citrusy. Could have used more dry hops, a lower mash temp, and a lower fermentation temp" is much more useful than something praising how much orange, clementine, tangerine, blood orange, etc that comes from the hop bill, and spends a sentence detailing an inch measurement of the beer's head at different intervals. I'm guessing the shorter review is much more helpful to a brewer as well.

Maybe, just maybe, someone who wrote a very short review spent a good deal of time considering the beer while amongst friends and doesn't have the time to write lengthy reviews?

By way of further example, I would much rather get nothing other than a score from someone I know to have a good palate versus a page-long review from some idiot who would give a 4.5 to hight-hopped dishwater. When Armand told my wife and I that he thought Consecration was "excellent," that endorsement did more than anything that anyone on this site could do in terms of causing me to seek out that beer had I not previously known that it was quite good.

You may also want to remember that many brewing awards are given out after tasting sessions not unlike what you describe with "tickers."

Not everything is necessarily so black and white. Perhaps you should consider that.

 

Again, what's really wrong with a short review? What about the person who wants brief notes of his or her thoughts on a beer without a full review? If hads count, why not hads with a short statement? Maybe those could even be hidden like hads are so that the toggle option was for full length reviews or "hads and short comments" with the 250-character limit being the dividing line?

BA has the potential to do a great job serving as a database for people to keep track of their thoughts on beers they've tried, while at the same time offering at least something to the overall set of data.

 

But it's much, much easier to use blanket statements and condemn people who don't do things the "correct" way!

 

Seriously, what's the point to this? Is it a server issue with more hads being added now that they count toward ratings? It's horribly inconvenient.

 

Fully agree with this. Prior to the update I had no problems with entering a large number of hads quickly. However following the update it is now very annoying.

 

I'm glad they changed it so that the default is just reviews, and you can filter in/out the hads...it was pretty stupid to see 12 "reviews" in a row that were just numbers, and having to scroll through everything to find real reviews.

Also very glad they changed the time stamps back, as if I've had a beer, I like to see when I entered the review/had the beer.

Overall I don't really like the changes, but those were my biggest two complaints, so now that they had been addressed I don't really care.

I'd prefer if a review that someone took the effort to write, rather than just clicking a number in a box, was worth more towards the overall score...I think they said this would be addressed in the redesign. I don't mind having "Hads" count towards the score, but a 1:1 value of Review:Had towards the overall score seems weird to me.

I also would be curious if less people keep reviewing if they know their "Had" they clicked in one second is worth just as much as if they put 10 minutes of thought into a review. Maybe people don't care if their Had/Review contributes to the overall score, but it will be interesting to see if review totals suffer by trying to highlight Hads.

 

Very glad only full reviews are the default now. It looked silly when you had a page of just numbers and no words.

I still don't really like "Hads" counting just as much as full reviews. Down the road I hope you decide to weight Hads less than full reviews. I understand the desire to attract more people that like beer but aren't intense enough about it to write full reviews. But even with that philosophy, it makes sense to me for a review that takes five seconds to create to count less than a review that takes five to ten minutes and thus almost certainly reflects more careful evaluation.

Just my .02. Keep up the good work Bros Cheers!

 

Happy to see that the full reviews were changed back to the default!

I completely agree with Thorpe429's statements too! There are some lengthy reviews filled with a shit-ton of adjectives describing the appearance, aroma, flavor and mouthfeel that, honestly, most times just are necessarily needed. My ADHD won't "allow" me to read a review that is 5 paragraphs long when it could be better if it was pared down to 1.

 

Thanks Bro's! I like these tweaks to the recently made changes, great work. Glad the community was very consistently vocal on some key points, and we all appreciate the receptiveness in adjusting the changes with the best made, and agreed upon suggestions.

I do agree with many others, that the weight of Hads to the score should be at least 50% less then a full review. Since a full review overrights the had, having it only weigh half as much towards the average gives a bit of a small incentive for a user to come back and write one, imo. Perhaps tie that into the Karma points once they return, so more Karma for full reviews, and half as much for hads. I think that's a decent compromise to make the hads count, so users that only do them are appreciated, and have their contributions to the site matter, and it's a least some acknowledgment to those that do full reviews that they are valued as well.

 

the intent is not to generalize in a dismissive fashion. the problem is accountability. as others have pointed out in the original thread announcing the switch, without any context to a "had" score, there is no reliable way to gauge the sincerity and thoughtfulness (or lack thereof). at the same time, to give the honest "had" reviewers the benefit of the doubt, their scores should count, but in what i see as a fair and reasonable compromise, they should count less.

i don't know if the bros want to add yet another tier of "short reviews", but i suppose it's feasible.

 

I agree with a lot of this, but is there really much of a way to judge the sincerity or thoughtfulness of a 250-character review? It would take slightly more time, but someone could easily (1) make up a review of a beer they'd never had to either promote or smash a beer, or (2) just pick out adjectives from other reviews without really forming their own opinion.

I'm not saying either of those things does or will happen often, but I don't think it's that much less likely than someone using hads in a disingenuous way.

I agree that the hads should count less, and would prefer something like a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio in favor of incorporating scores from reviews versus hads.

 

I like the hads for times when you're having a good pint somewhere. You don't feel like getting to much into words yet you still want to give your .2 cents, good or bad.

 

I gave an example of the type of short review I meant, and it had no info of any use. I assume you agreee it didn't?

Of course a concise review that is short and contains lots of information helpful to a purchase is best.

Maybe the bros. will enable us to see the qualifications of those giving hads, then your suggestion of how hads can be useful will be meaningful. Until then it is meaningless. Of course I would trust Armand for a number. Beerluvvrr69 who only gives hads not so much.

And as for your point about awards, of course number ratings can be used when doing large judging, I was asked to do this myself when I judged at a recent event. Don't see how it's relevant to this discussion about hads on BA, but perhaps there is a point I am missing with this.

 

My point is that length of review probably isn't all that correlated with the usefulness of that review.

Point about awards is that "tickers" and their scores can't be completely discounted given that numerous beer awards are given based on judges "ticking" samples throughout the course of the event.

All in all, people need to remember that beer is a fun hobby, and these are just scores on a website. We're not making life-changing decisions here.

 

the scores can be life-changing (good or bad) for the brewers of the beers being reviewed...

 

Perhaps in the aggregate, though it's likely more that these scores will lead to beer geeks following them. There are plenty of local places near DC that are slammed all the time yet don't have many reviews on BA or RB. These sites are still just minor, minor portions of the overall beer landscape.

Within these sites, getting the word out is more helpful. I'd rather have as much data as possible. There's no question in my mind that hads should count toward overall score. The question is in getting the balance right.

 

On that same note it would be interesting to see a Top 100 list per year. Like the Top 100 Beers Year ending 2002 Etc.

ON to the current changes...

I like all the new updates except for the time out for adding in Hads. This is especially true since I just found my old “Hads” scrap book dating back to 2004. After I tried a new beer I would print out that beers 1st page from this website on a gloss 8.5 x 11 paper and put it in my book with a quick score of 1-5. There are about 1000 beers in that book and I stopped when it got to full to add in any other pages in 2006.

Otherwise great job!

Cheers
Mike

 

I agree. My point is we are making beer buying decisions as best we can, and any way that improves that ability is better than any way that doesn't. It is a fun hobby, more fun when the beer is more fine. If I could make equally great decisions based on a 100 character review or a number score I would be happy to use them. Except in those 2 exceedingly rare circumstances you pointed out I can't.

 

I don't think those two types of circumstances are exceedingly rare. Adding hads improves beer-buying decisions, because it increases the overall sample set. I don't care whether it's a full review or a number because it's the person giving that information that concerns me. If I don't know the person's palate, I have no reason to trust their score/words. Once there's more information, whether through scores or words, I'm apt to try a beer that has received enough praise, or stay away from one that's universally condemned.