Regional rating bias

Well, what I've seen posted before is that this is because East Coasters and Midwesterners overrate their beers because they've never really tasted the good stuff from Oregon.

 

PNW - agreed
The whole of the west coast - not so sure

Let's not forget the midwest in this conversation

But regardless there's no way to really prove this

 

I'M PROTECTING MY TRADE VALUE BRO

 

It's definitely a more mature market but I don't know how you would quantify "tougher".

You're going to get a lot of feathers ruffled especially by guys like me who will politely remind you that the GABF winning IPA resides in Central OH but I digress....

 

As someone who lives in Seattle and has traveled all over the Northwest, I couldn't agree more. I've also spent time in the Midwest and a ton of time in New England, which is where I currently am for a wedding. Not only are we tougher in reviews but good beer is so much easier to get in the NW. You really have to work at it in New England. Lots of driving, few taprooms where you can comfortably sit and drink (and even if you can the biggest pour I've seen is 10oz), and many of the better local brewers offerings are rarely seen in local beer bars. Then there's pricing too.

The problem with bias is most people don't travel much and if they do they don't get to devote the time to trying regional beers. I think there's also just a regional palate difference too, at least to a small degree. So it's hard to blame people for being biased too much. But travel can certainly be eye opening.

 

Maybe OP is unknowingly a west-coaster and is therefore inclined to like their beers better

 

Are people confused about how to rate a beer with a 5 point scale? if I give a beer a 4.00 where does it fit:
95-100 = world-class
90-94 = outstanding
85-89 = very good
80-84 = good
70-79 = okay
60-69 = poor
< 60 = awful

 

If it's a BA stout then:

< 60 = awful

 

For me, a 4 would be a 90-94 on your scale, a 3 would be in the 75-85 range, the "okay" beers. Even a 2.5, which I'd put in the 60-65 range, would a decent beer just with either 1 big, or a couple small, flaws. The beer that get over a 4.5, or 95+, are very rare, IMHO, and the fact that there are so many beers rated that highly is a major reason why I don't look at the ratings here (or anywhere, really).

 

I'm guilty. I lived in Portland for 10 years and got into the rut of judging local beers against each other.

When I go back I am blown away when I realize how great nearly all of the hopped beers are there. I was in Seattle on Saturday and had one of the best IPA's I've ever had and nobody else seemed to care, including the brewery bartender

 

Get your hands on Citra Slicker if you have a chance... They had it tapped at the Elysian Bar last weekend.

 

I tend to use SABL as the measuring stick for 4.00.

Based on glancing at a few of the ratings on the site, it sure looks like 90 starts at 4.00 and 100 starts at 4.50.

 

Had it a few weeks ago at a beer bar down the street from me. Pretty tasty, but I liked Bale Breaker's (Elysian's collaborator on Citra Slicker) even better. Seattle (and likely the entire NW) was awash in FH beers for several weeks. Lots of other great beers during that time too.

 

Have you divided out the reviews and looked at the mean +/- SD and correlated it to rater locale?

I'm not trying to be a smart alack, I'm just trying to understand what lead you to this conclusion....