Beer Reviews: Relative Versus Absolute

There is nothing wrong with comparison, I really do not even have a problem with the quote you initially use as an example. If you want to write a better review you should probably articulate why those differences equate to higher or lower scores.

How we think about beer, food, cars, women, anything has to do with preference and it is one natural to for comparison to sneak in. I am not sure your example really illustrates the point you want. Yes, two beers can be fives (or two women tens) due to different characteristics and reasons. But if you introduce something less favorable according to your preferences, it rates lower probably because it is lacking in an area where the other isn't. Comparison is just natural.

 

honestly when you rationalize beer reviews are regular old opinions, constructed by regular ole' people, how much should one rely on a single review anyway? i guess my point is reviews are random opinions, whether or not we feel those random opinions are well put together is a secondary opinion.

 

Call me crazy but I think that's almost a perfect way to review. If I drink 5 different IPAs and 1 of them is not as good as the others, why would it get as good of review?

 

I guess it all depends on how an individual looks at reviews. For me, the reason I read the reviews is to get the comparisons.

 

Let's give everyone first place, including the one who finishes last.

 

So your problem is with people comparing two beers of different natures rather than with comparing two beers. Your OP is rather scattered on this point (and your analogy misses what a lot of people say all together).

 

*inserts picture of Syndrome but doesn't because of ban hammer*

When everyone is special... no one will be.

 

whats interesting about this idea is how your view of a beer, or anything else, will change once there's something better around.

you drink a beer five years ago and its perfect - 5 out of 5. you spend the next five years seeking out and then drinking 10 different beers, all in the same style, that are all somewhere between slightly to definitely better than it. you then drink the same beer you had five years ago today. now its a 4 out of 5... but you remembered it being better five years ago! now you write on a message board that so-and-so's beer "just isnt as good as it was five years ago."

which is right? its all subjective. which means both ratings are right, at that particular time and place. no point looking into it any further.

 

The title and OP reasoning involve a false dilemma: when you review a beer, unless it is the first beer you've ever had in your life, you're both considering it in and of itself (absolute) and, whether you realize it or not, compared to pretty much every other beer you've ever had (relative). An overall opinion of the beer is thus created in your thinking piece (brain). Now, when you critically consider it, you can compartmentalize your thoughts a bit, actively comparing it to others in its style or trying to isolate it from everything else, but all attempts are probably moot, as you can't help but allow your sub-/unconscious biases/preconceived notions/opinions/random thoughts concerning the multi-talented Ms. Hayek (this is both a symbolic and absolute reference...mmmm...) to invade.

In other words, you're always thinking about the other beers you've had and comparing them to each other, whether you think you are or not and whether it manifests itself "on paper" or not. As such, I have no problem with stating so in a review.

(Insert obligatory "Everybody reviews in his/her own way, if you don't like it just move on, Go do I love subjectivity, variety is the spice of review life".)

 

The hops don't lie.

 

I don't even know how you would do what you're proposing. Is it possible, let alone desirable, to isolate a single beer in a vacuum, outside of the context of every other beer you've had? Can you taste a beer of a given style and not evaluate it relative to every other beer you've already tasted within that style? How can you not apply your past experience to the process? Some beers are simply better than others. Which beers those are depends, at least in part, on each person's unique, subjective palate.

 

This topic is a concern of mine as a newcomer to BA. I'd like to contribute more, but the relative paucity of my beer tasting experience might cause me to rate a beer that is considered by most as merely "good" to be "exceptional". Knowing this, I feel like I should be conservative in my praise of any beer, and might therefore rate a beer that is considered "world class" as being merely "good". Next year, 100 beers from now, my opinion of a particular beer is likely to change.
Additionally, it is clear to me that some reviewers have olfactory and taste senses that are capable of discerning subtleties that elude my own. I suspect I am also untutored in how some of the various flavors and aromas that are described so eloquently in the reviews might present to my own possibly older, battered and abused senses.
So, should I just give it a go and say what I think, or should I wait a while and sample a few hundred beers and different styles before I do more than just list a "Had"?

 

If everyone could review each beer in an "absolute" sense, then the "relative" would be something you could deduce from the "absolute" scores. That said, I think people have already described why this is problematic - your evaluation of any beer depends on what beers came before it.

I prefer reviews that emphasize a more "absolute" approach, though. In your example, FBS may very well be < Abyss/Hunahpu. But FBS may itself be > a shitton of other similar brews. I prefer a review that just discusses the merits and issues with any given beer and scores accordingly. Having a wider range of experience for comparison should ideally make it easier to describe those pros/cons relative to the competition. "This isn't as good as X" doesn't tell me much about why and it's the why that drives the review for me.

 

Just go for it. A review is simply an opinion of a beer, based on its physical characteristics and the taster's perceptions thereof, at a given moment in time. Can/Will your opinion of a beer differ from others'? Definitely. Will you opinion of that same beer change over time? Definitely. Will you get "better" at reviewing as time goes on? Probably. Does any of this diminish a review made now? Hellz no, babycakes. Do it!

 

While I love long-form reviews.

I kind of wish the short 1-5 ratings could be submitted multiple times, allowing an aggregate rating of my own tastes over time.

So over time I could see my tastes change, and my ratings adjust accordingly.

 

I'll tell you what I did, for what it's worth (not that I'm a seasoned veteran or even an intermediate beer drinker). I didn't start reviewing until I had 200 or 300 different beers of many different styles under my belt. By that point I felt that I was ready to start, but always knew that my palate and experience level would continue to evolve. I don't think artificially "downgrading" beers to account for the experience you don't yet have is a very good way to go.

 

I love comparisons. Everything is subjective and subjectivity is usually relative to our own sphere of exposure and knowledge.

That said; I'd rate Kimberly Wyatt as Celebration Ale and Ashley Roberts as Hopslam.

 

This illustrates one of the many reasons why the beer reviews are fucking dumb.