Thoughts on the latest updates? Top 250, etc.

So the top 250 is now based only on reviews? Not sure I agree with that. There are a lot of beers that I rated without reviewing on that list that I would love to go back and include some notes for, but likely won't have the opportunity.

I'm sure it is probably an attempt to weed out some disingenuous 5's and to encourage reviews, but it would be nice if mine counted. Oh well... not that big of a deal either way. The page should probably be changed to "As reviewed by our users" instead of rated though.

 

The #4 beer on that list only has one review. Is there any plan to require a minimum number of reviews in order to make the top lists?

 

I have to say that I think the counting of only full reviews and not the quick ratings for averages and scores is a big mistake. I have been a user of beer advocate for many years, and really appreciate it, not only for its ability to keep track of what I have had, but to look up new beers and see what their average ratings and scores are while I'm out at a bar or store buying beer.

This basically amounts to ignoring probably 80% or more of the ratings data for all beers, and eliminates the averages and scores for a lot of beers that didn't have a lot of reviews but might have had many ratings. Only popular beers or beers that have been around a long time will have meaningful averages and scores now, many smaller, newer and local only beers will be completely left out.

I understand the reason is to promote more quality over quantity, but when doing statistical measures, it is the quantity that matters the most, not the quality. Larger sample sizes actually produces a better overall statistical average, which means a more meaningful, higher quality final result, more so than trying to increase the quality of a smaller sample size. I really hope this decision is reconsidered and this large volume of quick ratings data is not just ignored and thrown out. It should be included in some form, maybe with a smaller weight than the full reviews, but please don't just completely throw out all this useful data.

 

With the new review system (http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/beeradvocate-returns-to-its-roots-part-two.313997/), the top beers have changed, rather dramatically.

I tend to not take much notice of it but with the Heady discussion recently, this has definitely made some interesting changes to the list.

http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/beeradvocate-returns-to-its-roots-part-two.313997/

 

When viewing the Top 250 List, I click on Toppling Goliath HOPSMACK! and I see 112 ratings and 1 review. Since the rAvg is derived solely from the reviews now, that one review (which is a 4.92) has sky rocketed that beer up the list to the number 4 spot. Am I looking at this all wrong?

 

westy 12 really gets the boost back up to where it once was. im sure some beers got hit harder than others, but i agree with the overall concept that the alstrom brothers are explaining. lets let the dedicated reviewers decide the ratings...not the tickers.

 

I do not prefer this new system. I appreciate the weight that real reviews go into scoring a beer but there are too many new, world class beers now missing from the "Top" lists.

 

I like the new system. Despite the fact that I don't review, I would rather take the opinion of those who took the time to think about the beer and critique it than those who simply "ticked" it.

Examples?

 

people will probably have problems with the toppling goliath coffee stouts plumeting

 

Any of the top lists by style. New beers simply haven't had the time to accrue enough reviews to appear on these lists i.e. Tree House Good Morning not listed as a Top American Imperial Stout. I support the idea but there needs to be a middle ground.

 

Maybe this is where we are seeing different things. When I launch the Top 250, it shows up at number 4. Is it not there when you look?

 

I like the new system a lot. It makes it so if you're not willing to take the time to review the beer your opinion doesn't count. These newer beers will find their way into the list, but it'll take people truly reviewing the, higher than the beers that are already there.

 

Plummeting is one thing I can deal with. When a beer is missing entirely I have an issue. Without staying on the forums all day it'll be much harder to see what newer, less reviewed but still very highly rated beers are out there worth seeking out, trading for, etc.