New Rating System Feedback

I can't seem to find it now. That language must have disappeared during one of the updates to the "Reviewing" interface. You used to be redirected to a new page, not just a drop-down window.

 

Point taken, the reviewing average is going to end up above 3.00 based on people seeking out good beer.

That's where the weighted averages of the Top X beers lists are helpful. It states the current mean across the whole database is 3.74

 

It may have been taken down, as just another part of the never ending evolution of this site. I would imagine that is the most likely explanation. I don't doubt that it may have once been here, but to grow to the size this site has, I don't think you can maintain that school of thought as the only way to view the rating/review system. Not if they want be inclusive to all users.

 

I have been actually throwing around the idea of doing this myself as well. The only downside of this is that it doesn't show this when looking at your list of beers at a glance. You would have to go into each beer to see this score. Maybe a little gripey, but it would be nice to see this score when quickly glancing at them. Just my .02 cents for what it's worth.

 

In the grand scheme of things, the more people rating or reviewing beers, the more reliable the average scores are. As such, I feel a rating system that encourages more scores from more scorers should be the goal. So what if a guy with 120 ratings has score 10 beers a 5? You think that makes a big difference when there are so many reviews on here??? If you're a savvy user, are you paying much attention to scores from people like that when deciding whether or not to buy a beer? I sure as hell don't. I scroll down to the full reviews and look at the tasting notes and their scores, not any rando's scores that pop up first.

Further, there are enough more talented and eloquent reviewers out there that I really don't feel my opinions or tasting notes are necessary or even relevant. It seems everyone has their go-to favorite reviewers (hell, there's even a thread on it) so why push everyone to try it? It'll only result in fewer beer ratings, fewer users, and fewer content on the boards (the MAIN thing I come here for).

Side note, I think it's kinda creepy that people are looking so closely at others' ratings in these cases. I understand if there are people whose ratings you trust or who you are friendly with, but to study someone's ratings and then throw them back in their face in a comment, creepy. It always creeps me out when I see people making comments like the ones below and that feeling is only accentuated when it's my ratings being talked about. I know, I know, that stuff is out there in the public domain but that doesn't stop me from feeling a little creeped out when I know people are looking at how I rate beers. If I wanted people paying more attention to them, I'd write full reviews, but I don't (again because my ratings are for me, not for you). Just my .02.

Creepy, man, just creepy.

 

I am happy with the new "old" system and am pleased to note that reviews are on the rise. I have found myself disappointed when pulling up the profile page for many recently released beers to find a dozen or so ratings but not a single review. I like to read about the flavors that other reviewers find in a beer while I am tasting it. From time to time, it causes me to notice something I might have otherwise overlooked. I understand many BAs just want to be tickers and I don't want to run them off - I just wish that more BAs put in the time to be reviewers.

 

Just a couple of things:

Just as an FYI, for professional reasons I'm well aware of the effect an increasing numbers of ratings will have on the score for a beer. And apparently I expressed what I was trying to say poorly so I'll not bother to elaborate further.

As for your side note, a Scots friend of my used to say, "dinna fash yerself, laddie." Given that you seem to have interpreted something intended as a compliment as being creepy and throwing your ratings "back in your face" suggests a communication breakdown which won't be resolved in a written discussion. But I agree, if it bothers you that some people may actually just happen to read your ratings because of their interest in a beer you rated/reviewed, then it is probably best to keep them just for yourself only and not put the information out there to be seen by others.

Enjoy your Holiday season.

 

I like the change back to the old core system.

 

You're right. We are having a communication breakdown. In those instances, I usually find colorful colloquialisms that may as well be another language to be massively helpful in solving the problem. (heavy sarcasm at work here)

I wasn't trying to suggest that you or jmdrpi were throwing my scores back in my face (in fact, you guys seemed pretty OK with my scores) although re-reading my comments, I see very easily how you took it that way. I'm sorry if it offended you (or jmdrpi).

What I was referring to, however, is the preponderance of people doing just that in these types of conversations. I've never seen anyone in a thread comment to another user, "I looked up your scores and you know what, you're right, you seem to know what you're talking about" (well, I guess you sorta kinda maybe just did something akin to that). Usually, though, it's "Looking at your scores, I see you rated Shock Top and Pabst each a 4.5 so I'm not about to take any guff from someone like you."

 

Those are two distinct things, though. An individual can plausibly give more high ratings on this basis. And good beers might get more reviews on this basis. But the average of the average rating of all beers should not be 3.74. That's a result of people refusing to recognize average beers as such.

 

I have no problem with the new-old rating system per say, but as someone who primarily uses the site for record-keeping, losing the ability to log breweries into the "your places" file is disappointing. I am a bit of a compulsive beer tourist, and not being able to rate brewery that don't have food-service seems a bit odd for a site devoted to beer. Most breweries that I have been to have taprooms, but even the ones without them are accessible to their customers and offer experiences that are worthy of comment and remembrance.

 

Why can't you submit a request for that brewery to have a 'Bar' classification in addition to a 'Brewery' category? That would open up the review function for usage. I think the lack of that classification for any brewery would be for only those breweries that don't have any tasting. sampling, sipping, etc. and no access by the public, i.e. strictly a production brewery. I've done it for at least one brewery and then was able to add a review.

 

Hmmm. See I'd have suggested it was that it was a shortage of average beers since what I get to choose from in the store is already preselected. At the end of the chain the retailer decides what to offer so it will sell. Before that the distributor decides what to bring in with the expectation it will sell. Before that the brewery decides what to brew and may even have a tasting panel to decide if it is worth bottling and putting up for sale.

Do we have data that supports one explanation over another?

 

This is a perfect summary of the reasons for the changes.

I'm sure the Bros did a ton of statistical analysis on the data that they own to decide that that the "quick rating" data has so much less value to them that they should stop collecting it and risk alienating some users. I'd like to see the reports and summaries that they used to inform their decision.

 

No offense taken. Fundamental difference of opinion aren't easily thrashed out by written communication in a forum such as this.

 

I guess it comes down to whether you think "average" is some baseline of quality of beer that is independent of how many beers are actually produced of that quality.

Or whether you think "average" should function more like a median, in that if you lined up 10 beers from best to worst, the number 5 beer is "average".

 

The previous factor was whether they had a taproom, not whether they had food. I think the intent is to eliminate "place" ratings for breweries that are only production breweries, and have no place to sample beer.

 

Well that is clearly not the case now. I was at Fort Hill, Powder Hollow and Abandoned Building breweries' taprooms 2 days ago and can not rate them.

 

The issue I care about is the "grade inflation" aspect of it. The more people who are giving out 5's to a bunch of beers, the more the average scores loose meaning, as the averages will all trend upwards.

This also mucks ups any comparison of scores across the database of newer vs. older beers. If new beers are more likely to have more more 5's, then you can't compare against an established beer that's been in the database for 10+ years (and therefore a larger majority of the ratings were given under the original 5 category scoring system and most likely did not give out 5's in all categories).

 

You should just need to request an update to add the "Bar" designation to them.