Do you review to style?

I don't write many reviews sadly, but I at least evaluate based on style and the brewer's description/intention of a beer. If a brew is intended to be a nice every day stout at say 6.5% abv then I'm not going to dog on it and say "pssh this should be more like (insert name of trendy imperial stout)!"

 

BL does have over 5000 ratings so I would say plenty of people have rated it. All I was trying to say is that I believe people tend to rate beers more according to overall preference as oppose to rating it compared to others in that same style. I know I do, as it helps me to keep track of what I would buy again.

 

i use a combination of both. i'll rate against style first and compare it to other beers i've had in the class, sometimes i'll rate a beer against the brewery's entire portfolio

 

I do rate to style to a degree, and I also take the beer and review it as a unique individual creation.

Eric

 

I have requested style changes, but usually due to some indication from the brewery. Your side note is actually very important to this thread. I've seen beers listed in the "wrong" style with many reviews stating that it's a poor example of that style. Let's say a beer was intended to fall into the "English IPA" classification, but it was listed as an "American IPA." If reviewers were judging according to style as listed, they would give the beer an undeserved poor score.

 

I base 80% on style and 20% on how the flavour sits with me... Example I don't like certain styles, I drink one to see how a new beer I am bringing into store compares to others (mind you I DO NOT hate any beer). While I still may not like the beer in the end... I do find appreciating qualities to it often. Odel for instance has some styles I don't favour all to much but, tasting the beer I usually find they are spot on. When a person wants to try a New beer it helps to know what the frak you are talking about (not that I consider my self an expert by any means). I don't like to suggest things with out SOME knowledge... mostly because I tend to be a little pissed when I get something that is far from what its described as.

 

Ideally one should relate a review to the style of beer. In a practical sense it's less simple as there exists no authoritative style definition or even guide.People quote the BJCP but this only exists for the purposes of enabling homebrewers what class to enter their beers in competitions.It is incomplete and often misleading for everyday purposes.
The problem is that names remain but what they describe evolve.My grandfather drank mild but it was pale, strong and heavily hopped at the time.Look at all the posts arguing whether beer XXX is an IPA , a Pale Ale or an APA. Or a Porter or a Stout. These are all derived from simple names applied loosely at the time and the tighter one tries to tie down styles the more evident it will be that it's a futile exercise.

 

You need to recheck that.BL has only about 1300 ratings. Compare that to PtY at over 3000 and the only conclusion you can come to is most people only rate beers they like.

 

When I wear my BJCP hat, I rate to style. Here, I rate based on the enjoyability of the beer. Historically the concept of style is fairly fluid and it is even more so now. Many smaller breweries do not often designate their style and the style listed on this website may be what the person entering the beer decides and not what the brewer decides. What is important is whether or not you like the beer and whether or not you think other people will like the beer.

 

I generally don't see much an issue with classification when the styles are fairly loose and there is a great deal of overlap between different styles (for example, I view the APA/IPA/IIPA thing as a sort of spectrum). I'm primarily annoyed when beers are placed in one category, but clearly better fit another. An example would be Clown Shoes Mangö: it's called a kolsch, but the addition of mango pretty clearly places it in the "fruit beer" style, as it substantially changes the overall flavor of what is generally a narrow style.

 

It would be totally unfair to rate Stone's Ruination against Old Rasputin. They're two totally different beers.

(and Rasputin wipes the floor with Ruination)

 

Nah I just compare everything to the best whale I've ever had, that's why lagers and lighter styles don't do it for me I'm just looking for the next heady topper...I mean biggest DIPA from treehouse, trillium or hill farmstead

 

I try to the best I can, I hate when I see a rating of 1 out of 5 for a sour or big imperial stout and in the review they state "not a huge fan of this style" or "don't usually like sours"

 

In a classic porter I would expect it to look, taste, and feel like a porter. If the beer is a coffee porter I would expect to pick up on that as well. It might be an excellent porter but if it doesn't deliver any coffee flavor or aroma then it is important to note. Not every brewer out there is brewing to style, as styles are a guideline; not a rule.

 

I try to take style into consideration, but I'm not going to give a pilsner a high rating because it's not as shitty as other pilsners.. It's still shitty.

 

I can't decide which negative emoticon to use in response to this.

 

I rate to style. For me, it is impossible to say this barrel aged stout is better than this IPA or vice versa. I'm looking for completely different characteristics between the two styles, apples to oranges I guess you could say.

 

I like this one, personally. Sort of a combo of shock, awe, disgust, bewilderment, etc.

 

Not trying to be a d-bag but maybe you should recheck. 1300 reviews, but over 5000 ratings.

 

Ok. I guess I'm still old school. Don't count ticks