The score doesn't match the details.

Unfortunately, all the time.

@FBarber

 

Appearance for heady should be NA...

But to add to your point I make it a point not to do this. Even if it’s a beer I really do not like I would never dock from appearance if it looks good it looks good, etc. I feel like the opposite happens to for me with a some lagers I’ve reviewed. The taste and aroma is great but I sometimes dock for appearance. Granted I just started submitting reviews weekly not too long ago. But hey I’m trying...

 

Yes, and I assume it is a reviewer who would rather have just a single overall rating, so they just put their overall rating in every category.

 

I can tell you this: if I ever get the chance to try Heady, it's going straight into the best IPA glass I own. Screw this "drink from the can" nonsense.

 

And it's a pretty good looking beer, so long as you aren't completely against a little haze.

 

Everyone views the rating scale differently, and some people might think a 2.5 or 3 isn't a bad score out of 5. For me personally I don't rate beers under a 3.5 unless I think it is worse than a typical Sam Adams flavor which is usually around average for me for their more standard beers from the past, not their best beers which I usually rate over a 4. Not many beers at all get under a 3 rating unless I really don't like it, like Yuengling Traditional or Shipyard Pumpkin Head, which are both on the cusp of a 3 for me. I don't even rate under a 4 unless I really think the beer is not very good, but for some people a 4 rating is a prized possession. Everyone rates differently, I've learned to deal with it. But yes, it's annoying when I see well known good beers get horrible ratings, especially when it seems like the person enjoyed it. Everyone is different though so whatever, a rating is basically someone's opinion.

 

Dumbassery is everywhere, not just here.

 

Simply trying to chalk up a number of reviews likely contributes to poor reviewing.

 

When I see a review like that I look at when the reviewer joined BA, and often I see a fairly new member, thus I can presume it is probably also a new drinker who doesn't understand the process of assigning scores to each trait that makes sense.

 

The one that drives me the craziest is when people describe a beer (usually a lager) as "the best *less common style here* I've ever had!" And then proceeds to give it a 4 or even less sometimes.

 

But, if the style calls for haziness the appearance score should reflect that.

So many reviewers score to their own (usually false) perceptions when they should be studying the characteristics of the style.

 

I mean, the drink from the can thing for heady means they knew the beer was ugly back when cloudy was considered bad for the style. Now with haze being accepted and arguably preferred, i see no reason to drink from the can. They (alchemist) were trying to protect appearance from detracting points for the overall rating of the taste of the beer. Is this is obvious, my apologies.

 

...or were they suggesting that the aroma and/or flavor profile is better from the can, e.g. more bitterness?

I never had a HT, so I don’t have a personal reference for just how “ugly” this beer looks.

 

I rate to style. I wish more BAs would do the same.

That being said, there are more good to great beers available now than ever before. Maybe old heads need to adjust our expectations? Are you damn kids ruining it for everyone? I dunno. Good IPAs are a dime a dozen now, lagers are getting there, but a well made mild or dubbel? That's worth noting.

 

I believe there was an interview with the owners of Alchemist where they addressed this and said that the reason it will canned is because of the floaties in the beers and thought they might scare people away. The HT I had didn't look bad but the Focal Banger had tons of stuff (yeast?) from top to bottom in the glass. It looked chunky almost

I know this isn't the controversial beer opinions thread but personally I find them both highly overrated. We all have different tastes obviously

 

I understand this line of thinking, since it's how judges review beer.

This won't be a popular opinion, but I've always had an issue with that, seeing as (just using myself as an example here) I am not a judge, or a professional, nor do I have a refined palate. I also don't feel I need to do "research" before writing a review on a beer. I'm not a beer expert, I simply enjoy it and enjoy writing reviews about the beers I drink.

Rating to style would feel phony to me if I was doing it. "I hate this beer, but it meets all the criteria of a good representation of the style, so I'm going to give it a 4/5."

 

It isn’t quite as cut and dry here, but on the now sister site, you know a lager that gets 3.7 bottle caps or higher on average is likely world class and far superior to an average pastry stout that only gets 4.45.....