Why do (or don't) you post reviews?

I tend to do written reviews only when I thought a beer was well below average. I feel I should at least explain why.

 

I don't rate or review beers that I feel are below exceptional - just the best ones that I really like and would most likely buy again or recommend to others to try.

 

I don't because when I have:
1. It takes some enjoyment out of it because it seems more like a chore. I don't need to write what I'm experiencing. I can just experience and enjoy it.
2. I'm not great at it so it's not benefiting others. All my descriptors are usually experienced by other people who have written reviews, so it's redundant.

I wish I enjoyed it more, but I just don't.

 

I do a lot of tastings at our local liquor store. At those I am usually in tick mode except for maybe one or two that I really want to try. The small sample is not enough for me to do a review. I like to review beers that I am familiar with over time. One of the other situations I give a quick review for is if my rating varies a lot from the norm. I figure I owe an explanation for these. This thread had reminded me that I do need to go back and review some beers from my early days on BA. I really need to review more.

 

Well considering that I'm lazy and realize that nobody really cares what I say.

I must say I only enjoy the ratings that are more exercises in writing and cover much more than the beer itself or ratings that absolutely trash a beer. At least there is some entertainment in them both.

 

I homebrew, so the better I get at picking up the various nuances different grains, other ingredients, and processes have on a beer hopefully I can apply what I learned to my own beer. It's also enjoyable because I don't feel forced to review every beer I had. I can do that without posting them but when I joined the site I did it to check out the reviews and feel I should give back.

 

I'm not interested in what someone else has to say about a beer I want to try and, I assume, people are just as disinterested in what I have to say about a beer they want to try. As such, I do not write reviews. I also do not keep track of which beers I have had nor the total number of beers I have had. I got nothing against folks that keep track or write reviews. I see why it could be appealing. It's just not for me.

 

I tried reviewing, but it seemed like "work". I rate all my beers for my own benefit, so I can learn what styles I like, etc. my ratings aren't meant to influence anyone but me.

 

Personally I want to focus on drinking the beer, and for me, taking notes detracts from the experience. Sort of like when I go on vacation, I do take photos, but I try to keep them to a minimum so as to focus on the moment at hand.

I did try and use the simple ratings function, just to track what I have had. But I quickly gave up - to me it was tedious, and I don't think they add any value (whereas a full review does) to the site.

 

I provide ratings and write reviews for me. I want to think enough about beers to peg why I like what I like, and writing the review is a way to nail those thoughts down. I check ratings and read reviews when I see beers I think I might like but have not personally heard about, so I find the tool useful as a buyer, as well.

Now that I have a couple hundred reviews under my belt, and over 300 ratings, I often am drinking beers I've already reviewed, eliminating the burden somewhat. But while I try to write my reviews in a way that I hope is useful to others, my main goal is to be able to come back 6 months and a couple hundred beers later and determine what I thought of a particular beer.

 

This. I tried writing a few. Thinking too much about the experience took all of the enjoyment out of having it in the first place.

 

I write reviews to keep track of beers I do and don't like, also keep track of things like price point etc.

 

And this is why I feel almost all of the beers on this site are skewed closer to a 5 than what their actual ratings should be.

 

I write about every beer that I consume in a lined notebook (well, six). I intend to someday add them here, but not because I feel like my insights add anything profound. I just don't want y'all to think I'm a ticker.

I add the ones that are rare, or that don't have other reviews. Kind of hard to get motivated to review something like Heady or Pliny when everything has already been said.

 

Nobody cares what I think.

 

If there isn't a review that doesn't give a good description of what I got out of the beer, I try to add a review.

 

I do it mostly for my own notes. It's interesting to go back to a beer I reviewed after a while and see how my taste has changed.

Yes, I like to do this too. When I go to the reviews of a beer I'm looking to get an idea of what to expect and if there's nothing there I'll most definitely add one.

 

I'll add "inarticulate" to my own list, in addition to the above.

 

I do so also as a self reflection on my initial ideas of what I thought about the brew. Then it might help others out if they like certain flavors in their brew according to style of course. I don't like to "Tick" because it doesn't explain why I didn't or did enjoy the brew. Now I don't review highly acclaimed brews because most of them have a reason they are highly scored.