Why do people review beers when...

You are correct...

 

I think infections are important to note in the review, but I think it's weird that an infection would warrant a 3. I would give an infected beer no more than a 2 (and probably edging closer to a 1 or less). That's an actual flaw in the beer and it should be docked drastically as such. Now, if I could try the beer again, and it wasn't infected the second time, I would amend my score accordingly. Reviewing an infected beer with poor scores helps others realize the infection and steer clear.

I am with you on the second one, though. No one should review an IPA that's old and give it a shoddy score because the hops have faded. That makes no sense as it is likely not how it tasted when it was fresh. It is not the fault of the beer or the brewer that the beer is old.

 

I'll play devils advocate a little here.

• People might be reviewing it for their own reference later
  
• It could be practice on reviewing a bad beer
• People might want to warn others about drinking it past its prime/infection

To me, "ruining scores" doesn't justify avoiding a beer review. However, I agree the system isn't perfect and could be improved.

 

An infection is something that is happening in the brewing/bottling process and so is under the control of the brewer. Skunking is caused by distributors, retailers and customers.

My view is that its fine to review the first and that a reviewer should also report an infection to the brewery (assuming the reviewer knows the signs and symptoms of infection in the first place). In the case of a skunked beer someone other than the brewer should get the blame and the beer should not be reviewed.

 

Well I can see mentioning it in a post but suggest the review be included since many rely on ratings/reviews in making purchasing decisions and don't participate in the forums.

But I'm not sure why if a brewer produces an obviously flawed beer that wasn't what was intended they should not pull the beer rather than leave it out there to potentially turn customers away from their beers in general. And if they've already pulled it many reviewers will never know that since the one in their possession was not.

 

What I hate is the amount of reviews I see that say something like "I guess this might be considered good for the style but I just hate this style" and then proceed to give it a two. If you know you hate a particular style. don't review!

 

How about "I am not a fan of this style".

 

Why shouldnt you rate beer styles you dont like?

 

Because it is not a reflection on the quality of the beer but rather your personal taste and not helpful to others

 

I agree with this with the caveat that if you can review a style you don't like with a reasonable level of objectivity and insightful analysis, go ahead, but if you're just going to say, "Pilsners aren't my thing. 2/5," please don't review. It helps no one to say something like that and only artificially brings the beer's rAvg down. If you want to keep track of the beers you've had and what you've thought of them, consider keeping a Word document or similar repository instead of unfairly tarnishing a beer on BA where we are supposed to "Respect Beer" (or use Untappd where no one really cares about anything but their own opinions. That's not a dig; I use Untappd).

You're more than welcome to review styles you're not a fan of, but you should not rate a style you don't like poorly because you don't like the style. You should rate it against the style guidelines and against other beers in that style (and I can't believe this topic is somehow devolving into this topic again). It makes no sense to rate an IPA poorly because you don't like bitterness or a gueuze poorly because you don't like sourness. It also doesn't make sense to poorly rate typically restrained styles (kölsches, schwarzbiers, pilsners, etc.) for being subtle. That is what's not fair to the beer, and that is potentially ruining the score of an otherwise perfectly good beer.

 

Schwartzbier doesnt need to be subtle... but I digress. I rate beers to style per bjcp guidelines and against other beers of that style. I do wish more people would follow suit.

 

I think the issue being raised is that often, people rate a beer in a style they don't like against the standard of beers they do like. I apologize for the cliche but it's akin to an ardent apple-eater/admitted orange-phobe eating an orange and saying, "I hate oranges. I give this a 2." The full, honest review of that is, "I hate oranges. I give this a 2 because it's not apple-y enough for me." Well, no. It's not gonna be. You should know an orange could, in fact, be a 2 if it were dry or too seedy or tough to peel ... or any of a number of things that citrus rightly could be dinged for; however, it's not intellectually honest to low-ball a score because it's not checking any of the boxes for which apples are rated.

 

Yes, exactly!

 

I was thinking in terms of other dark beers that people might think of when reviewing a schwarzbier. "This doesn't have heavy milk chocolate/coffee/fudge notes. 1.75/5."

 

It chaps my ass when I see people saying x AAL is good and rate it at a 2. Coors banquet is a great beer compared to other beers of the style but it still gets poor ratings on here simply because its an AAL. The same hipsters hate music as well I have heard.

 

I will usually go back and revise my review after having a fresh/uninfected one

 

Here's one that really got me:

He got a growler filled with a beer that makes Heady look filtered, let it sit for 2-3 weeks, then complained when it was off-tasting and looking? Come on!

 

Coors Banquet, Narrangansett, Schlitz Gusto, PBR, and Yuengling are all vastly (stylistically) underrated here.