How often do you re-do reviews

I redo reviews for misspellings, general internet boo boos, and I will continue to write the review until I am done with the beer. If I have six then, until they are all gone.

 

Not often, but if I do I leave the original review and note the date, then after it put a new date and review.

I like to be able to go back and see what I thought about a particular beer at a previous point in time so it would be a shame to re-do it and lose that.

 

Seldom, if ever.

I'll edit for spelling corrections, etc. or for clarification. But that only happens if I happen to be checking the review to remind me of something about the beer. I'll sometimes add a dated second set of comments onto the first set of review comments if the bottle age or year of bottling is radically different.

Occasionally, I may find I'm having more of something I only rated and I'll delete that ratings-only entry to replace it with a full review. I find ratings-only to be mostly a waste of my time since they contain little or no useful information that helps me remember why I used those numbers in the first place.

 

I have never actually done one....

I don't think my opinions on beers should matter to anyone else. Plus I don't trust my palate. Seems like the same beer at different times can sometimes taste much different.

 

Rarely, and when I do, I leave the original text but note I'm updating with the date prefacing the new information so I can compare time frames.

 

I will occasionally update a review or write a review for one I had previously only rated.

 

I rarely do actual reviews but I re-do ratings pretty often.

 

I asked a similar question here: https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/reviewing-a-revisited-beer.462731/

It's a good question, since some beers do tend to change over time. Reading a review of '13 BCBS doesn't do someone much good (other than showing it's a big stout) for someone contemplating buying '16 BCBS.

The tl;dr version is most folks seem to not re-review a beer.

Personally, I usually on re-review seasonal releases, where notes can change and shift between years. A great example is BCBS. Last year's (2015) was bold, thick, and full, with huge notes all around. This year's was thinner, with fewer notes, but each note was more pronounced. I plan on re-reviewing BA Bomb, since I got another bottle this year. Otherwise, I usually don't revisit an old review. Regular, every day beers like Boulevard Wheat tend to not change much over the course of time. The most notable changes are bad batches, which I don't think are necessary to mention in a review. Especially if it's one batch out of several years.

 

If I re-review, it's usually like this ^^^^.


I rarely do it, but if I do, it's because A) the beer has changed drastically since it was reviewed (Half Acre's Navaja, which I gave a perfect 5 to back in the day, has changed hop profiles many times since. The original combo I had was "ideal" to me, newer ones weren't), or B) I've had the beer again and realized that my original review was either very off, or coming from a place of inexperience (for example, if I had had 3 vienna lagers total, rated one extremely highly, and came back to the beer years later realizing it was pretty average and I'd had many better since).

I like to keep some or all of the original review to acknowledge both my changing palate and the possibility that the beer has since changed.

 

I have to feel strongly positive or negative about a beer to write a review about it; otherwise I'll just rate it. At times I'll throw in a caveat that a certain style isn't my favorite and I was trying the specific beer out of curiosity of maybe it could influence my preferences (almost always no although I can usually find some enjoyable aspect). The only upward revisions seem to happen after having something on draft after initially having it bottled.

 

If I have become more familiar with a certain style then I will revisit beers that fall into those categories and usually re-review.

 

I do if my opinion on the beer is drastically different or if a cellared version blows the fresh out of the water.

 

I generally will re-do a review if I revisit a beer and it changed for me. Let's say now I totally enjoy it or it had way more flavor, I will then check my old post and see what I said and comment or update as needed. This goes for both sides, if a beer tastes bad I will go back and down tick my review etc. I feel this proves a balance to the review.

 

For me, I usually do not do anything to a previous review, except if I see a spelling correction, or fix the wording. I do post revisits (if it's been a long time), different vintages...and I will change scores if need be.

Cheers!

 

Only for spelling/grammar errors, or an actual mistake. I have yet to re-review a beer. I have added comments where I had only rated it, but that's it

 

I'm fairly new to craft beer and have spent much time on this site reading and learning. I've taken some advice that I read here concerning doing reviews. I do them as a tool to develope my skills at tasting and discerning what I taste as well as building my beer vocabulary. Like Chairman I don't think my opinions really bring anything new to this table as there are so many members with knowledge more vast than mine. But it does bring something new to me. So here's to a hoppy new year abundant with learning opportunities.

 

I'd suggest that your opinions and experiences do bring something to the table, even when you think they only duplicate what others have written. As the number of descriptions that all point in the same direction increase we can have increased confidence in what those reviewers, and their numbers, have told us about the beer.

For me personally that increased confidence helps save me money by reducing the risk of buying something that I won't like. So, thanks for your efforts.