Retired beers that aren't

Recently, I've had it happen to me twice.

Cheers!

 

Don't add a new one please. Simply submit an update, and select type "Not retired (still brewed)" and explain what tells you that - bottle, website, etc. I've done this many times. Ideally you can include a link that shows it on the brewery website.

 

@bbktd is right. Unless it's a specific vintage, like Sierra Nevada's Oktoberfest collaborations each year.

Usually I find a beer has been listed as retired only because it hasn't been reviewed in a while, or only has a handful of reviews, not because the brewer has indicated it. I don't know the algorithm that determines the status.

 

It is based on time, but I couldn't find the post from when an administrator said how it worked.

 

I'm fairly certain @Todd has said that if a beer is entered as Limited (Brewed Once), the system automatically retires it after one year.

@Thomas_Wikman - I would echo what has been said on here. Please don't enter it again. You can review a beer even if it's still marked as "Retired", and just submit an update to get it marked as Active again. IME, it's one of the Update Requests that gets handled the fastest anyway.

 

Unfortunately, there are some lazy users who seem to add all new beers as "limited."

When breweries can "own" their pages I am hoping this will diminish as a problem.

 

When adding new beers there is quite often no information to indicate whether it is year-round, seasonal, rotating, or limited (one-time). Brewers, particularly smaller ones, are probably playing it by ear before deciding. If you are adding beers you have to put something, and limited is the lowest common denominator.

 

I don't see the logic in limited being the lowest common denominator. If "brewers... are probably playing it by ear..." then they are obviously considering bringing it back out at some time which would warrant a listing of "rotating"; and unless the label was specifically marked as "limited" I'd imagine it was anything but "limited". Given that it's a selling point, why would a limited beer not be marked as such? It's just my opinion, but for me "limited" would be the last option I'd choose unless I knew it to be true, especially given that it's the only option that then "retires" beers in the system later on.

 

Agree. I always default to "rotating" if there is any uncertainty. It doesn't automatically retire beers that end up being brewed again, doesn't affect the lists that so many users enjoy and work with, and doesn't elicit the requests for changes to the beers' status that an erroneous "limited" designation does.

I'm hoping that eventually brewers will take over this aspect of the site so that users aren't left to guess. All the errors of this type, wrong style, no description, etc. will be a thing of the past.

 

If they come out with a beer and don't say anything about future production, you don't know any more than it came out that once. You have no idea if they ever plan to make it again because they haven't called it seasonal, rotating, or year-round. If you call it anything more than one-time, you are speculating.

 

It's not like a beer can't come out of retirement.
I use the update option all of the time.

 

Personally, I feel like the site editors are so quick and efficient with the updates that it's almost a non-issue. If you run across a beer you know is rotating, then they'll fix it.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I find it just as frustrating to visit a brewery page (often a place I want to visit or look for beers from) to find over 100 beers on their active list, most of which haven't been brewed in forever. Not sure what the benefit of that is. That's why I like dbrauneis idea of an automatic retiring after a couple years without a review. That would be cool if it could be done.

Might not be a good idea for International beers, though, which barely get reviewed at all.