Constantly underrating beer?

I feel like I constantly overrate beers (by Untappd standards). Or maybe I'm just good at picking out what to drink.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that one of you is an unhappy optimist, and the other of you is a happy pessimist.

 

Maybe a touch of both. Who cares? Rate how you want. It is your palate.

 

One thing I always remembered when I starting reviewing was to review 'with style in mind.' This means that you shouldn't rate a beer low because you don't care for the style, but rather how well that beer represents the style that it is portraying, and compares to others in the same style. A lot of people do not follow this reasoning, hence why the most popular styles dominate the top beers lists.

But as long as you are doing that, I wouldn't worry about you're low ratings!

 

No, I overrate. Damn, beer is just so good, when it hits your lips.

 

No, I overrate them. I think most people do. Average beers score 3.8 to 4 when they should be getting 2.5

 

^Good point. I tend to think of rating beers in the same regards as the Westminster Dog Show, meaning judge a breed by what it's supposed to be at it's best and not against another breed. So don't judge a Stout on what you think an IPA or Belgian is. Though, I do a bit of both, judging a beer by it's style and also overall if it has that 'it' factor and makes me chuffed to bits that I'm drinking it.
I have around the same amount of reviews as the OP and think I'm pretty balanced with some being within +/- 5 of the overall, some being much less than the overall and some being a good deal higher than the overall. Overall, I don't give a fuck as it's my palate and I discerned what I discerned. I like to think I have a good palate (for not just beer but wines as well, so I consider myself rather flexible) and know a good beer from an average one and one that's utter shite.

 

I'd say its a combination of this, and the fact that many only like to rate when they have gushing review. As a result, most the ratings end up being positive.

 

Probably not, most popular beers on here are heavily overrated anyways, people seem to forget that whole thing where 3 is the average. I try to keep my ratings more realistic these days. But the ratings on the other site are just downright ridiculous sometimes, not everything can be in the 90+ point range...

 

As mentioned before it is your palate.
I haven't rated a beer in years though I have probably tried 1,000 new ones in the past 2 -3 years. Styles don't really exist anymore in the mainstream stick to it design.
Cmon Lemon Pepper Kolsch Really!! but that's my opinion

 

A lot of people overrate (what does "outstanding" really mean to you?) but I think the broader issue is that craft brewers have so dramatically increased the quality of their product in such a short period of time. As a result consumer expectations haven't caught up yet. We're still being amazed and not yet being spoiled.

 

When I scan my list of reviews I don't get the sense that I am over or under-rating beers when compared to the average. I've got some that vary significantly on both sides.

When I scan your list I get the impression that you prefer stouts to IPAs, but most of your reviews are for IPAs. Maybe that's part of it?

 

When doing ratings you should use the scale as it feels best to you. Some folks are more conservative and some are more liberal in their use of the numbers, (e.g., some people will never use the extreme values and stick to the middle of the scale, others are quite happy to use the extremes) but at the end of the day it all averages out and the overall numbers are a pretty accurate representation of how folks feel in general.

 

Or alternatively many breweries never let their mistakes see the light of day so there are more positive beers to review.

 

But you see 3 is not the average. It’s a made up number that assumes a normal distribution of beer quality. An assumption which is clearly in error.

 

Yes, the One Who Shan't Be Named has highly skewed ratings. But there is a reason why choosing 3 as "average" may be responsible for some skewing here as well. "Average" is seen as "mediocre" and "mediocre" in craft world--where so many people are mostly hunting whales--is bad. So if you like something, you're not going to rate it "mediocre". Which leads to...

Second,

That means that, on average, you had 1 new beer every day for nearly the entire 3 years. That would make you the Wilt Chamberlain of beer...

 

FWIW, I've rated about the same number of beers as the OP. Half of them are within plus or minus 5 on the rDev, and of the remainder, I have 3 times as many negative rDEv as positive ones. So maybe underrating is the norm for relatively inexperienced raters? Or maybe I need to drink better beer (I've been a consummer of finely craft ales for over 35 years since my CAMRA days in England, but haven't been rating consistently until the past few months)

 

My bad, I meant to say 3 is the median and should represent the "average" quality beer.

 

Maybe so, but if people were really honest there's plenty of craft beers that deserve 1's and 2's, and there a ton of stuff at the middle of the pack. But I think people are too quick to praise craft beers because they're "craft".