Reviewing an "off" beer

I refrain unless it was a known issue and intentionally not recalled - so to me that means the problem is intended. Can't think of a particular example though, perhaps some angels could help me out. Would love to share but can't think of one at the moment.

 

If people didn't review "off" products, how would you know if it was a persistent problem?

 

Ideally I feel you are correct. Unfortunately issues do exist, and I feel those reviews should exist.

 

I used to have the opinion to not review such a beer, but I've changed that opinion and now think it can be helpful to review "off" beers. If its a quality problem with the brewer, then the ratings should reflect that.

The only exception I'd say is if you picked up multiples of a beer and crack open a bad one, maybe try the 2nd or 3rd and see if they have the same issue or not before reviewing.

 

That doesn't bother me as much as people reviewing styles that they know they don't like. (i.e. I enjoy a fine Kvass from time to time but most people don't... I shouldn't have to sift through 1,000 asinine reviews before I find someone who actually enjoys the style and is willing to share their thoughts of that particular example of it.)

 

Depends. If off due to being old or an IPA stored in sunlight on a non-refidgerated shelf, then I don't think it should be reviewed (issues due to the retailer). If infected, then I think it is fair to review it as that is a brewery issue and should be used as a warning.

The area I am indifferent/undecided on are distributor issues. This is becuase 1) the brewery chooses their distributor and 2) customers in a distributor's area should be made aware of potential areas. However, the brewers are not in control of the distributor and we are rating the beer/brewery not the distributor.

 

I'll generally review something if it's infected because, well, that's a QC issue and if you have poor brewing practices, it should be known. In a similar vein, if I get an undated IPA that is obviously old, I'll review it as well since the brewery doesn't seem to have a problem with people drinking old IPAs.

I see your point, though it's also good to keep trying examples of styles that you tend not to prefer since you may find one you love. I saw a review of a "black saison" once that was half ranting about how saisons should not be dark in color, and that sort of review isn't beneficial to anyone. Also keep in mind that reviews are often done for for oneself rather than for others. It's nice to be able to pull up exactly what you didn't like about a specific beer or style.

 

I see no problem with reviewing a beer, in any condition.

I try not to review outdated beers with a "best by" date (particularly APA, IPA, etc), since it is evident that they do not want the beer drunk outside a certain window. This rule does not always apply to certain beers in areas where a "best by" date is required, but the style is obviously built for age. Although, I will drink them and am sometimes pleasantly surprised (see: 2 year old 60 and 90 min IPA).

If an IPA has a bottled on date, then I assume the beer is fair game for an indeterminate amount of time. It is up to me as the consumer to guess the best by date - and sometimes my estimate yields poor results. I consider this a responsibility of the brewer. That even applies to Pliny - despite explicitly stating the beer needs to be drunk young, but fails to dictate their definition of "young"...makes it fair game in my opinion.

If a beer is off (diacytal, flat, infected, etc), I always try to review it. Even if it is unusual for a beer or brewery to have this happen, it still happened. I even leave the review if I get a refund, because the beer was still fucked up. Just because you refund me money, doesn't mean you're a better brewer or beer. It does make you a better, more appealing business.

 

Yeah that is definitely true, which is something I should remember as I am someone who reviews solely for my own bookkeeping.

One change that I would absolutely love to see on BA would be a check box that allowed reviewers to keep their review from contributing to the beer's overall score. That way, beers could be tracked and reviewed by users as they are now, but they would have the option to publish the review without it affecting the beer's score (which, I think, would be very useful in the case of infection, general dislike of the style, or poor storage procedures).

 

If I pay money for it, I will review it.

I don't buy it to begin with if it doesn't have freshness dates, so that isn't even an issue.
If it is infected-- well fuck them. They released it. They didn't have it recalled. The review will stand until I run into a bottle again and revisit my comments.

My low rating won't hurt all that much in the long run, not with the over-inflated bullshit scores people give on this site anyway.

 

Cask-conditioned beer that obviously hasn't been looked after properly shouldn't be reviewed. The condition of the beer isn't the brewery's fault.

 

Looking at some beer reviews it's clear that some superb brews have been marked down simply because they have been served a long way from their best.
Actually, the cask versions of beers also available in bottles/cans should really be separate entries.Frequently they are brewed to different specifications.

 

Bigger breweries should have to bear the brunt of their beer being distributed far and wide, and the mishandling associated with that.

Small breweries with QC problems should also be exposed.

 

Not that I review, but IMO, I would treat on off beer as that, a one-off, and not review it. If I got another single or sixer that was off, then I would consider it a problem and review as such, with the caveat that it did not appear to be what the brewer intended.

 

If they bottled it and you paid for it, review it. They need to know about it and so do fellow consumers.

 

I've thought about this topic quite a bit. Unless the beer is severely out of code, then it should be reviewed. QC in the craft beer world is all over the place, and the breweries should know if their beer is bad. Especially these new canning operations that are putting short-fills out to distribution. If a beer is severely oxidized, try to find a date or code. If the beer is within code, then review it. If not, don't.

 

If I feel a beer is seriously off (and not just old) I contact the brewer and tell them where I got the beer, the bottle code and what it was like. If I don't hear back from them and/or they don't offer to compensate for the issue then I keep the review. That said, it has to be something pretty obvious for me to go to this length.