Do you Rate or Review?

I have been just tossing a rating on the beers that I have had recently. I would like to give an actuall review more often than I do, but I do not always have the time or motivation to do it.

 

I only review beers that don't have hardly any written reviews to try to give someone a guide to what the beer is like. Otherwise my review of Yeti isnt going to be substantially different than the other billion reviews of it.

 

lolz I am looking forward to reading these. =)

I faithfully rate and review each new beer that I have. I have only one tick to my credit and I plan to rectify that. The reason that you should pay attention to the styles and what they should be like is so that you are not simply rating a beer based on your bias or your dislike for a particular style. I can recall thinking ill of some beers when I first started reviewing that perhaps did not deserve it because I did not know one style from another.

 

I thought a "tick" meant that you gave it some starz but did not write any review.

 

I review 'em all.

And @Hop-Droppen-Roll and @utopiajane, any beer you have for the first time is a "tick" - I don't think all "tickers" have to rate or review necessarily, they're just trying as many different brews as possible (or at least that's my understanding).

 

Never reviewed a beer. I drink because beer because I enjoy it, not so I can review it. There's plenty of reviews on this site and I don't think mine would add any new relevant information. Also, I feel like I would always need to update reviews - 5 years ago I would've give 90 minute something like 4-4.25 but now, more like 3.5 or so

 

I've "reviewed" only one beer, basically, because I added it. Other than that, I've "rated" every new beer I have tried.

 

You're probably right and I'm probably just OCD, or in love with my own words *self-hug*
Also, now I'm depressed, so thanks for that...

This is true - and when I come across an old beer with a review that I no longer agree with, I do make adjustments. Fortunately my disease hasn't progressed so far as to have me revisiting all my early reviews, 'cuz like you said, a lot are off-the-mark (for me) now that I have a broader frame of reference and my tastes have changed.

 

That's what ticking means to me. I don't do full reviews often mostly because I don't think I'm that qualified to perform one. Bready notes? What the hell is that?

I'll do a review if there aren't any reviews out there but mostly when I hate a beer. If I give something a 2 or less there should be a good reason why other than it's yucky.

 

Eh, I am an old curmudgeon when it comes to the reviews on this site. I feel too many people review a beer according to popularity, rather than how they would have felt if it had a BMC label on it. I feel too many people rate/review without regard to style. One wouldn't rate a Prius poorly because of its looks or top speed compared to a Ferrari, nor should they compare one style of beer because it didn't blast them a new colon from overhopping. I feel that my ticks are more of a log for myself and there are plenty other reviews that can be read if a person is interested in the beer. I feel that peoples palates change over the years and I feel that beer changes over the years, so a review done in 2001 might not be accurate at all compared to a newer review.

I do enjoy reading reviews, especially from one of the Bro's and I love the discussions these forums have.

 

Well I am glad I said something because i had the wrong idea completely.

 

If it's my first time having it, I'll usually just rate it. If it's something I've had many times and can fully understand all the nuances then I'll tend to review. Don't have time to sit and over analyze a new beer every time I have one.

 

When I first joined, I just did the quick rating on the beers I had just to keep a record. However, as I started using the site more, I began developing an interest in writing reviews, not necessarily because I think my review #1,000 on a given beer is going to add anything particularly revelatory (it's not), but because it helps me continue to hone my palate.

I find that when I'm going to review a beer, I give more thought to the flavors and characteristics I'm tasting, which in turn becomes a sort of practice for understanding and identifying new and various flavors.

You can see this evolution in my attitude if you go look through my list of reviewed/rated beers. Before May, the ratings were far and away the most frequent, but then over the last six months, that has flipped, and now full reviews are far and away the most frequent way I evaluate a given beer.

 

I do both. Sometimes you just aren't in an environment to write a review, but you know you really like the beer you're drinking and want to refer back to it. The Hads rating is perfect for the tickers to quickly rate their beers. I'd much rather Hads than a junk review just because it was required. You can even filter out Hads on the site if your thing is to look at past reviews.

Keep in mind that the majority of us are doing reviews for our own benefit. Don't get caught up trying to write some elaborate review. Use the BA guidelines and have fun doing your best.