Are your beer ratings linear?

I concur with your non-linearity, and I probably use even less of the scale. I rate almost none below 3.5 and few above 4.5. A beer has to really suck to get below a 3 from me. Beers below 4 I may have again if offered it or no other choices, but sure wouldn't buy a pack. Most of the beer I buy packs of and/or cellar are ones I rated over 4.25.

Most of the beer I buy are singles to review, and I won't generally try one unless it's rated over 4 unless I suspect by the description I might like it anyway. Life is too short to drink beers with a good chance of sucking. I'd rather spend my time and money on highly rated beers less likely to disappoint. That said, there are some brewers where I will try anything they make, such as Prairie, Founders, Avery, Drekker, White Elm, Surly, Central Waters, GI BCBS, and Boulevard.

 

Yeah, the difference between increments of .25 vs quality is very much a parabolic shape in this sense. Above and below 3.5 is where I would say my ratings make a “difference”, for lack of a better word

 

He's doing maths! Anything to say about that?

 

Yeah, I agree with this, but perhaps, for me at least, it's the .5 jumps that are harder. If I'm having two beers that are very similar (both in the say 3.25 range), I'm likely to bump one of the numbers (either up or down) so that they're not given exactly the same score. So, while one beer might end with something in the 3.1 range, and the other nearer to 3.2, to me they're the same beer.

But, a 3.5 beer is leagues better than the 3.0, and noticeably better than the 3.25. And, no, I am not any of the three things you list at the top of your OP.

 

Some of my very best teachers through the years (there were many) operated this way in dealing with all of the disparities of students and general demographics. Closely watching students that need assistance is the mark of a great teacher. Parcing achievers is not as hard to do and generally works itself out nicely. Rating beers does seem to be a mostly benevolent exercise.

 

Why do people withhold 5 star ratings for beer? I know people who refuse to give a beer 5 stars and I have never understood this concept. If I love a beer, I'm happy to give it the highest score possible. And yes, more than one beer is eligible to earn that score.

To answer the OP, I rate purely by feel. I have arbitrary lines in my mind that go approximately like so:
>4.5 - one of my favorite beers and something I'd keep in my fridge if possible
>4 - something I would buy again and I really enjoy
Between 2.5 and 4 - something I'd happily drink, but wouldn't seek it out or buy it
Between 1 and 2.5 - basically all your crappy cheap beers
<1 - something I would not drink even for free.

The reason I dislike people not using 5 star ratings is because when your theoretical best possible score you're willing to give is 4.25/5, then that's only a B grade to the beer. And that blows my mind. So you've never had a beer that earned an A???

(Not directed at the OP in particular, I have wondered this for awhile)

 

Well, on this website, you're not allowed to give a below 1 score. And, that's quite a jump from 2.5 to 4.

For me, a 4 is truly great beer, one that gets you excited, and there's relatively few of those. With over 3600 ratings, and over 3200 full reviews, I've only given 4 5s, 126 from 4.25-4.75, and 162 4s. That's 192 beers out of well over 3000 that are that exceptional. On the other han, from 1-2, inclusive, there are only 62 beers. so yes, in my experience there are far more good beers than bad, but the exceptions on either end are very rare.

 

I guess my point is mostly semantics but it's weird that a 4/5 (80%, B- grade) classifies as truly great. In your example, you've rated 292 out of 3000 at 4/5 or better, meaning less than 10% of beers earned a B grade. That just strikes me as odd. You aren't the exception though, I've noticed the general populace tends to grade similarly.

If beers had to be assigned a score on a scale from 1-100 instead of 1-5, I wonder how different they might look.

 

For the record, to @beertunes in perspective your average beer rating is 3.42, right bro? You admitted that when Todd and crew expanded the ratings options.

I'll stop short of calling you jaded. But your perspective on quality beers is definitely skewed.

And we in fact DO have several similar ratings on OUR local beers, on some.

 

Oh, sure. I disagree with the word "skewed" though, I think all the high ratings for hype beers are skewed. We saw it in the other thread, with statements along the lines of "I only buy highly rated beers that I know will be good, so I give them high ratings". In other words folks are rating beers highly because others are rating them highly. It's worse over on UT though. Shrug.

I've said before that the more you try, the more the more the number moves to average. It can still be a great beer, but it might be one of a hundred great beers of that style I've had, so, it's closer to average. My "average" beer is pretty damn good, but that in and of itself doesn't raise it above average. Shrug.

 

I'll agree to a degree, there are few and far between beers where I'm like, "Holy Shit!, This is killer!", perfect example over this summer, Pizza Port/Modern Times 'Gentle Reminder' average at best and $16 a four pack!?

I'd much rather hit Walmart and get a sixer of Cedardust

 

I’ve never understood the scoring system starting at 1. I wish it would have been that way in high school. It’s like getting credit for putting your name on your paper.

 

I am definitely a math-minded person, and I definitely am non-linear in my ratings. A beer has to be borderline non-drinkable for me to give below a 3. Typically, 3.5 is what I would consider a perfectly average beer. 3.75 is above average, 4 is good, 4.25 is great, 4.5 is really great, 4.75 is fantastic, and 5 is one of the best beers I've ever had. I know that it makes no sense. based on what a 1 to 5 scale is supposed to be. But I cannot help but rate things in this manner. I don't even record these ratings at this point, but if someone asks me what rating I'd give it, I still end up using this absurdly non-linear scale.

 

So are you saying you would give... say a Goose Island Bourbon Barrel aged a higher rating on a 95 degree day over say... a Gose/Wild on that same day? I tend to take style and the seasonal conditions in to consideration as a determining factor.

The main factor being my personal experience within the same style.