Diversify the top ranked brews

Hello new member. I would say the answer to your question (well, not actually a question, but ...) is: keep reviewing, and encourage other people to. I suspect that there is some correlation between people who rate religiously and those who are "fad seekers" to some extent.

 

They sorta just did something like this. http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...mum-ratings-required-to-be-considered.222437/

 

You know you can view the top beers for each style separately? It's not going to change the overall top 250, but if you're looking for the highest rated beers of any particular style, it'll do the job.

 

I mentioned something similar a few years back. I think a big reason is people don't rate to style ( even people that claim to). In the end this results in some styles having more higher rated beers.

 

Both of those styles have very robust flavors to them. That more than anything is probably why they represent the top beers. Lagers and pilsners are generally lighter and probably would never be as highly rated as a more flavorful style.

 

Welcome to the site.

Don't spend time with the top 250 list at all for a while. Instead, go to the list for a style you are interested in (see beer styles) and look at the version that lists examples in order from highest rated on down.

Great resources on this site. Explore and enjoy!

 

I personally look at the top 250 as a bunch of beers I'll probably never try. I don't trade and most aren't available to me.

I take ratings with a grain of salt anyway, because not only aren't they rated to style, but rarity obviously plays a role in most brews' ratings.

There's a lot of good beer available, so I look at that list as something like a beauty pageant. Fairly meaningless in the world of beer drinking.

 

Somehow I don't see the top rated gruets ever being as delicious as the top RISes. There are several very good reasons why brewers switched to hops, taste among them.

 

The Top 250 list is a wonderful tool for illustrating the absurdity of treating beer as a competition. I hope it never goes away.

 

I've heard people mention IPAs as being a fad or even a "drink for hipsters" before. Perhaps IPAs, BB-aged stouts, etc are new to some and are certainly becoming more prevalent (yes!!), but I don't see these styles fading out in decade or two. Evolving, of course, but definitely not going away.

I do agree however with the skewing of the data from opinion polls in general, and the Top 250 is no exception. Take it all as a grain of salt and enjoy the styles you like, and don't forget to explore outside of them from time to time.

 

It all comes down to taste my friend .. well plus ratings and reviews . would love to see more porters and one off's up there as well but ... beers need to make the grade to get bumped into to cream of the crop AKA 250 club

 

I like the top 250 list the way it is....it lists the top rated beers, regardless of style....and some styles ARE better than others. IPA and RIS are better styles than American adjunct lagers. In my opinion, An American style lager should not be rated in the top 250 just because it is the best of that style, as an extreme example. The beer still stinks because the style stinks. If you like another style that is not rated as highly, than look at ratings for that style and you get exactly what you are looking for: relevant rankings. I won't give a skirt steak 5 stars no matter how nice that skirt steak is, because a filet, NY Strip, or ribeye is a far better style....same with some beer styles. People will always have "style bias" in the rankings, and that is okay, because no matter how you cut it, some styles are better than others.

 

What part of a pale lager is the skirt steak and what part of a BA RIS is the filet?

 

Yeah, it's the "Beers I Will Never Have List". I don't worry about it, and I don't think you should either. Let other people like what they like, and rate how they like. Diversity in a website's beer list is not an important kind of diversity.

 

The Top 250 to me, is a wish list, I've only had about 30 of them...about 10 this year though

 

There's a reason that there are no German Pilseners or AALs on the Top 250. People who spend upwards of $1 per ounce of beer will always want to feel like they are spending their hard earned cash on a worthwhile product. Those ratings will always be inflated.

And I'm just as guilty. A BCBS for $7.50, while absurdly expensive if I stop to think about it, is still just about the greatest thing ever.

 

To be fair, I'd equate rarity with desirability; if a beer is desirable, it will sell quickly, and thus convey rarity to those that aren't able to get a bottle/package. If the beers weren't good, people wouldn't be running out to buy it, and it'd be sitting on shelves. That being said, certain brewers (and I mean that with a large net) create demand based upon previous brews without an initial justification for purchase beyond loyalty.

 

I think part of the reason is that those two styles (IPA/Imp Stout) in particular have such a wide variance in flavor that people are able to easily distinguish the beers they like a lot better (and a lot worse) than all the others. With beers like hefe's and pilsners you don't really get beers that rise head and shoulders above the rest. Sure, some are definitely better than others, but it isn't quite so obvious, especially to people who rarely drink those styles.

 

Honestly, I don't know that that's entirely the case. Obviously people expect their expensive-and-highly-rated beer to be good, but I've had a good number of situations trying a beer of that reputation/price point and being underwhelmed and disappointed that I'd spent as much as I did on it. Additionally, I've had situations where I expected a beer to be mediocre or 'good' at best and ended up impressed... while paying $2-4/pint.

That being said, I'll agree that BCBS is still pretty untouchable to me; every variant I've had (disclaimer: haven't had the 'cough syrup' Bramble) has been outstanding and worth every dollar.