New Rating System Feedback

You're points are all valid and I won't argue with any of them. I suppose a lot of it ultimately just boils down to preference and ideology. Bottom line for me is that I trust myself to come up with a thoughtful score on my own without the help of an algorithm. If I want to write a review, I will write a review. My category scores may not reflect how I actually felt about that category though. I will tweak them to get the score that represents how I feel about the beer.

As for this, you're both right. I didn't realize that was explicitly stated and will adjust my rating habits accordingly.

 

So many rules! I rate for me, not for you so don't tell me (or others) how we should or shouldn't be rating.

 

I understand there is a "proper" way to review beers but I feel it's unrealistic to expect all 400K+ users (or whatever it is now) to follow the exact same method as everyone else. One of the beauties of the last iteration of the rating system was that it was flexible--if you wanted to sit down and write a full-blown review using all the attributes, no problem; if you wanted to update your ratings off of notes once a month and do it quickly (like I usually do), quick, single ratings made that possible.

Now by forcing (yes, forcing) me to use the attributes model, all my old ratings (over 1100 now) won't match up with any new ratings I enter. Apples and oranges. Apples being my old ratings (where 4 = drink again, 4.5 meant stand in line to drink it again, and a 5 meant I'd drive 1-3 hours AND stand in line to drink it again) and oranges being the new ratings under the attributes model which will now have to be manipulated if I wanted them to come anywhere near my old system. I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet, to be honest. All I know is I'm more than a little bummed by the new rigidity of this system.

What about having a check box (or separate score altogether) showing a beer's score from written reviews or using all attributes and a different score showing quick ratings? That would leave flexibility in the system (esp. for people who score a lot of beers at once) and yet allow people who take beers' scores super seriously to get what they want, too?

 

If you rate for yourself, you should be using a different service, like Untappd, where aggregate ratings aren't really significant and the more important user experience are the individualized reviews. What makes the reviews and scores on this site different is that the aggregate reviews play such a crucial role to the community. People use the database here for reference either when at tastings, when shopping, when discussing and/or researching new beers that might be of interest to them. Having a beer say 4/5 does nothing for a user trying to determine if, for example, a saison is too funky and yeasty for them or if it's going to be a bit more approachable to a novice drinker, the written information is absolutely critical.

If you are hung up on this new method, you could easily just rate everything a 4 across the board, or a 4.5 or a 5 across the board, though I sincerely hope that taking a look at the various attributes encourages you think a bit more critically about what you are drinking. That being said, obviously there isn't a review police and no one can tell you how to review beers, people here have different scales and curves that influence their scoring system and while those vary from person to person, there is generally a common significant trend overall, which is what is important.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if everyone on here is expected to take ratings THAT seriously, I think fewer and fewer people will bother to rate on here. I mean, how many current, regular raters write full reviews or even use all the attributes? My guess is it's less than 50%. If the goal is to alienate everyone else, then this seems the way to go. That's far more likely a scenario than believing everyone will all the sudden start taking this stuff so much more seriously that they'll take the time to use this new system the way it was meant to be used and start writing out useful or thoughtful reviews.

My suggestion of having two different scores would keep both parties engaged and give them both what they want. Just sayin'.

 

I love that it's back to very near what it once was. The only minor quibble from me is that the Drinkability category is something I miss. Put that back and give it a rating and whatever the final rating is, ends up being the Overall rating. I reckon it would take away some of the guess work, read be more accurate, for what you really think aboot the beer.

 

How can you call review text optional but have a 5 word minimum? Words have meanings. A forced text minimum means the review text is anything but optional. Luckily 'I do not write reviews' is 5 words. This is the least friendly system to the casual rater among the available options. Also needing to write a full review if I don't like something most people love or vice versa is silly. It either encourages dishonesty or not rating a beer when your opinion varies greatly from the hivemind.

 

If I HAVE to write 5 words the review isn't optional. Something tells me if my 5 words are blah blah blah blah blah my review will be deleted. 5 mandatory words makes the contents of people who just want to rate's reviews look silly. That furthers the myth that it is somehow worth less or more meaningless than someone who chooses to write a full review. It's already a hostile environment for raters, this just pushes that forward. Somehow this is still friendly to the casual rater?

 

Its just fine for the casual rater because one does not have to write any words at all to rate a beer.

 

Odd because I was just forced to minutes ago. The rules state I must write 5 words.

 

Well I just did it (a rating) without any review at all. (See the most recent beer added to my list.) It seems the five word minimum is if you chose to both rate and review.

 

unless your review is an 'outlier' which is outside of the experiences of the other people.

I've always been a fan of reviewing vs rating so this makes it feel easier. My biggest complaint with the previous rate/review system is that I would have to score it and then review it. I'd try and score it based upon the average review and then slide to the left or right as I saw fit.

FWIW I always thought drink-ability was kind of subjective because some high ABV beers are amazing but drinking a lot of it is more than a small challenge. Overall is much clearer

 

I must have hit an outlier already then with a review of average. Ridiculous. Homers and style boosters are forcig me to write about a meh beer. Awesome.