Enjoying & Rating Beer

I have never typed out a beer review, ever. But I do rate on untapped which is usually people's personal opinions and the ratings are all over the place. But here reviews should be more true to the beer style and and less biased. Should. It bothers me when someone rates a double ipa without ever having one with "it's like drinking a pine tree" and giving it a horrible rating without even knowing that I love pine trees, I fuckin love em..merry chrismas

 

Could you not say the same thing about movie critics? I'd argue that directors/writers/actors/etc. (the ones that actually care) put as much love into their films (and obviously more time) as brewers do into their beers. Should movie critics then review them and wax poetical about their flaws? Same goes for music, video games, books, etc.

I LOVE reviewing beers (and music, movies, television, video games, restaurants, bars, and books). It's what got me on this site in the first place. Over time, I've stopped doing it out of laziness, but I'm back on the upswing. I appreciate the work that brewers do, but it does not bother me to say that something sucks, just as it obviously doesn't bother me to praise something else. People have opinions, and when you're in an industry in which you deal directly with the public and the people that consume your product, you're going to hear them, like it or not. I don't think brewing (or making movies, music, etc.) is an industry for overly sensitive people. If you are afraid of criticism, the brewing industry isn't for you. No one is saying the brewers have to listen to us or care about what we think, but I can tell you for myself that I don't care what they think of my opinions.

I write reviews for three reasons: to document my experiences with a beer so I can revisit them later (and perhaps the beer if I liked it enough the first time around), because I enjoy writing (as evidenced by my always-lengthy reviews and posts on this site), and to help this site and some unknown somebody out there who is deciding whether to hunt down and purchase a particular beer.

As a semi-related sidenote (triggered by your mention of "armchair critics"), I never bought into the saying, "Those who can't brew (or write, play, program, direct), review." Reviewing properly is not easy. "Properly" reviewing takes serious contemplation, a discerning palate, patience, some semblance of a writing ability, and, by far most importantly, the ability to set one's personal biases aside and rate according to an established rubric. That means don't give Stone Ruination a bad review because you don't like hoppy, bitter beers; don't say Drie Fonteinen Oude Gueuze "tasted too much like a dirty basement;" don't hate on hefeweizens for their banana character.

Reviewing things is not for everyone and it is not something everyone can do well; for many, being even reasonably objective is not possible. Anyone can say, "Founders Breakfast Stout tasted like coffee, and I hate coffee. 2/5," but it takes someone with consideration and objectivity to instead say, "The coffee in this beer is very present and quite bitter. Coffee lovers will love this, but it is not really for me. Still, it's a good example of a coffee stout. 3.5/5." I think a good balance of about 65:35 objective:subjective is a safe way to review beer fairly.

Rubrics for each style are easily available (you are on the Internet, aren't you?), so there is really no excuse to not at least try to rate to style. This site encourages it (read "How to Review a Beer") because we are here to "Respect Beer" instead of throwing a 1.5 on Goose Island Bourbon County Stout because it tasted "too much like bourbon."

Anytime rating/reviewing comes up, this always comes to the forefront of my mind, so sorry to all who have seen it before and sorry further for the length of this post.

 

I try to rate all the beers I drink for for future reference. When I see a beer on the shelf that I may not have had in a few years, I can check my rating to see if it's worth buying again. The old scoring system was more useful, to me, than the updated system. 500 ratings is more useful than 50 reviews, in my opinion. I honestly don't want to know exactly how a beer is going to taste before I drink it, I just want to know if it's worth buying. As far as brewers having their feelings hurt by our critiques... that's just part of the game

 

You rate a FBS 3.5????

Seriously, I started keeping my own "reviews" (such as they were / are) for my own purposes. Mostly I did this to keep track of what I liked and didn't like. But, to be honest, it was also influenced by my engineer's mentality to document EVERYTHING!

I started, then, rating the beers here based on my own list and notes.

It was only after doing this for awhile (and posting one of my commentaries about a beer) that a member here suggested I should post my comments as a review.

I don't have a big deal if people do or don't review, do or don't rate. But, if I am looking up a beer, I ignore the overall score for the beer, and the ratings-only entries. I'm more interested in the "why" behind the rating than the empty number (which really tells me nothing), so I look at reviews-only. This does not mean the review writer's opinion is better informed, or more valid, only that it tells me more about "why". A number without a "why" is little more than a poll. The voting by the members here should be more valid wrt beer than a general public poll, but it still does not say "why".

 

If some Brewer thinks reviews are pointless just to have arm chair critics "poke holes" in them why even read them or even care they are out there?

The reality is there is.... I would saya lot... alot not so much bad... but there is a lot of mediocre stuff out there so sometimes reviews can reflect that.

If someone doesn't like a review of their beer... why should they even care since reviews are useless anyway. If anything they need to develop a thicker skin.

 

The comment by the brewer seems short sighted to me. Seems to me that if I were working hard to make something I like then I wouldn't care much about other people's reactions to what I make. However, also seems to me that if I were working to make something I like that I want other people to buy and appreciate as well, I'd want to know what they thought of it.

As for opinions showing through the reviews, of course that will happen, since we're not professionally trained judges, so I always try to give a reasonable description of the beer as I'm drinking and experiencing it, with an add in of what my overall feelings are about the beer.

 

I don't write full reviews but I, like everyone else, rate beers on Untappd. At no point do I think about the time and effort the brewers put into their beer when rating or reviewing a beer. We aren't 5 years old where everyone gets a medal for participation. If your beer is something I wouldn't purchase again, you'll be getting a 3 or lower and I don't know why that should bother anyone. At the end of the day, it's the brewers responsibility to put out a quality product, not quality effort.

 

Agree with the general consensus that rating is a good thing, appreciating their subjectivity--like movie reviews (some people are watching Nick Cage and Ben Affleck movies, just not me). If everyone were to abstain from rating, then you wouldn't have the benefit of quick reference when vacillating on a decision--though I realize there are probably those who will say they disregard rating completely when purchasing.

Also agree @JaefromLA that situational abstention, when encountering a new style for instance, is a good thing, because there is no individual framing for throwing a rating out there. But, even those errant ratings benefit from the herd immunity of the rest of the ratings of the masses; generally the overall rating is bound to regress toward a stable rating. Feel the @THANAT0PSIS "summarizes" sound reasoning for rating neatly, and makes a good case for an educated rater.

Though I personally rate more on Untappd than BA; the former I feel is less reliable and more for personal reference (when I've had the beer before) and the latter where I turn to when making a purchasing decision or when I'm in a brewery I haven't been in before and pressed for time/don't offer flights/need a quick growler and want to know what other advocates before me thought.

 

I really just rate beers to keep track of what I like or dislike. That's all. No disrespect to the people that made 'em.

 

Ratings/reviews for beer are always going to be there for people to take with a grain of salt or to heavily sway their choice when making a decision which beer to try. No one can tell people exactly how to interpret a review.

One thing I would encourage reviewers to do is have realistic expectations about any beer before drinking/reviewing. Do not look to find ecstasy in a bottle in order for a beer to hit really high marks. I am a certified beer judge and I see this over critiquing becoming too much of a habit in competitions and at times on sites like this as well.

 

Or make better beer...

All the reasons I review have been stated already.

I think overall there are enough reviews to dampen the noise. As I looked at the rDevs for the other thread on this topic, I probably have some that need adjusting. It is subjective to an extent, so no matter how hard I try that category "overall" for me includes the did I like it factor. It isn't easy to maintain objectivity. If I don't understand a style, I think I've avoided doing a review. If I just do a two ounce taster, I don't do a review but will score. I've found first impression doesn't change much, but a small taster isn't enough to write about fairly.

Why wouldn't a brewer want to hear the good, bad, and ugly? Isn't the mission to sell beer, presumably good beer, so they can keep the lights on, make money, pay employees, and things like that?

 

I'm not sure if rating is being considered the same as reviewing, so first let me go off on a tangent here... To me, a "rating" is just a numerical assignment without description or explanation, a "review" is a numerical assignment with a description and explanation...

I like BA's recent "return to it's roots" because I think a review is more of a critical evaluation, whereas a rating is more of an opinion - meaning, the former leans more toward content whereas the latter leans more toward opinion - of course, there's overlap, but I think that if you're just posting a number for the beer and walking away, I tend to consider it less likely to be reflective of the beer and more likely reflective of what you like in a beer (again, there's overlap). But if you're reviewing, you're forcing yourself to reflect and compare and consider style and what descriptors you use (though people can still subvert this if they're so inclined). And there are exceptions to this as well - it depends a lot on the person doing the rating/reviewing.

How good a beer is, and how popular it is, are often interwoven. The moment an item is put out there for public purchase, you're going to get arm-chair critics - 'specially in the digital age, where everyone has an opinion, but not everyone shows their face. Abstaining from rating doesn't make it a better situation for hard-working breweries - it's like abstaining from voting - the election is still going to happen, you just chose to have no voice, for better or for worse. Which is fine, of course, but I don't think not rating necessarily advances "truer" advocacy.

 

I review occasionally, not as often as I'd like. The "you shouldn't review because people worked hard on it" POV doesn't really resonate with me. The reviews can be really helpful for people considering spending hard earned bucks on a beer. Also, like others have said, it's a good record of your own thoughts on a beer. If you're a ticker, you're going to need some help remembering what you thought of a given beer, because there have been SO many...ahem.

Something I've found useful is to look for reviews of beers you've had that come close to your take on that beer. After you've looked at enough reviews, you'll start recognizing BA users, and you can pick out folks with similar tastes and palates as you. Then you can look to those BAs if you're considering a beer, and the reviews can nudge you towards beers you'll likely be glad you purchased.

 

I don’t really rate on here very often, only beers that I find exceptional for the most part. I am very active on untappd though… I am planning to ween off it though, as it was a great tool to record and rate my beers for future reference when learning beer styles and what I like/don’t like, but I am at the point when I am experienced enough to know what I like now and don’t rely on it much anymore. At the store I usually just take a look on here and read a few reviews if I am unsure about something I may buy.

Untappd is great for quick reference on beers I had prior, but tastes change… A few beers I had before and rated poorly I will have again and love, and vise versa. So it’s always worth trying ones again that sound good at the time, regardless of what you thought months ago. Usually the really good or bad ones you will remember anyway, without the need to reference reviews you had done.

Plus, I feel like a jackass sitting at a bar/brewery anymore and feeling the need to “check in” my beers… I would rather just enjoy the experience without the phone on the bar.

 

How are they going to improve if they don't receive candid feedback from the people who drink their product?

 

I do both. But sometimes I just drink. But when I do review I always enjoy the good beers and better understand the less good beers.

 

I'm sympathetic with what you're saying, but I think we should add that they have to actually take seriously the candid feedback from people that drink their product. (and I'm skeptical that happens often enough)

 

Then they deserve to fail, quite frankly.

 

I have been drinking craft beer for almost 20 years. During that time, I fell into rating and contributed hundreds of reviews to RB. About five years ago, I made the decision to stop because I felt reviewing was getting in the way of my enjoyment of the beer. I had the unfortunate tendency to write reviews on the spot, and I felt that compromised my appreciation of beer in the moment.

Was this the right thing to do? Perhaps, and perhaps not. It's a personal decision, and only you can decide that for yourself.

Ask why you rate beer in the first place. If it's for skills-building, then I would say it's a valuable practice. Rating can help you appreciate beer and qualitatively describe it, and that's good not just for others but for yourself. Eventually, you can describe the difference between Expedition and FIS, etc. If it's to contribute to the community, then I would say that's a worthwhile practice. There are lots of beers that still need a first good review on BA, such as Eventide Hopster the Grouch or Jailhouse Theives in the Law, and I occasionally write those. But at the same time, I don't feel the need to add yet another review for FBS. I think we've got that one covered.

But if it's to "tick" or compete, there could be some challenges. YMMV, but I came to the conclusion that you can't "drink all the beer" and that rating isn't some competition to be won. There'll always be someone with more ratings, etc.

All I'm saying is that you don't have to rate beer religiously to contribute to the community. The key is simply to drink the beer, talk about the beer, write about the beer, and, ultimately, think about the beer. That can take many forms.

No one can answer your question but yourself. Start by looking within, and good luck.