The score doesn't match the details.

Why even rate anything if you don't try to figure out what it's supposed to be. Dog and pony shows even rate to breed.

I'm glad you enjoy beer. That is what brings us all together on this site. There is, however, a reason why the beer advocate is far behind the wine connoisseur, and a lot of it is the fact that folks don't appreciate things for what they are.

If you can't appreciate a beer for what it should be, remove yourself from reviewing those styles.

Tickers gonna tick, and I sorta understand that, but beer styles evolved to fill niches. Does a beer fill the niche? Good rating. If what it's stated goal doesn't fill the niche? Poor rating.

If all of the beers you enjoy are either over the top fruity Hazy NEIPAs or super sticky pastry stouts, good on you. I won't take that away from you. If you can't appreciate the moderate gravity classics, though, don't yuck our yums. Those beers actually are harder to brew.

 

The snobbishness here is astronomical.

 

Seems the reverse-snobbery runs pretty high too.

Why not understand why so many BAs get so deep into beer? We understand why you don't want to -- and we're just answering your queries based on our reasons why we got into beer. You don't want to follow that path, fine. But don't insult us for our honesty.

 

A lot of other people (I'd say 90% plus around here) don't have the palate or knowledge to know when someone has *nailed* a kolsch. Do we want people who have the equivalent of a McDonald's palate trying to finesse the finer points of such a lovely, delicate beer? It's simply not possible. You'd almost need to spend some time in Cologne to understand such a thing (which I have - good lord I sound insufferable). The average BA on the street can try to understand what it should taste like, but it's likely they really don't know.

I do agree that if you don't like a style of beer, don't review it. For this reason I rarely if ever review sours or saisons anymore - just not my thing.

 

If you hate the beer style, why are you reviewing it?

 

This is a good question, but I've also re-tried the styles I don't really care for (very few) just to see if I may have had a palate shift -- but I still rate to style and the Kriek in my glass will get a fair review based on what the beer is supposed to be.

 

Based on a quick check of the Heady reviews it appears like the review in question was from an account created today, only beer reviewed.

 

I am sure the ranges of opinions here and commitment to a current viewpoint are second only to opinions about national politics. However, my conclusion from reading the guidance on BA is that beers are supposed to be rated to style. Styles are described on this site and easily reviewable with little effort. Those definitions serve as a resource that contributes to consistent benchmarks for comparison. A beer rating number that mainly reflects an undefined personal preference that may bear little resemblance to style standard does no one any good. What I wish for is an indication in the ratings like what is done by Total Wines in their reviews, i.e., the rater has to indicate their own assessment of their level of expertise so that readers can choose to weigh the comments of a connoisseur differently from those of a novice. I know that some could argue that the beer karma level somewhat does that but, for example, while I feel pretty competent at rating IPAs and stouts, my confidence at accurately judging a saison or pilsner is significantly lower, regardless of anything I have or don't have in karma points. Maybe in addition to offering the opportunity to assign rating scores without commentary, BA should allow commentary without assigning points in beer ratings. That way someone who has no clue about or cares little about how a beer measures up against a style standard can still supply observations without skewing the numeric rating.

 

Should be reported?

 

Yea, subjective-ness stinks, is tasteless and myopic for sure.

 

I was going to post that everyone should read Todd's post on reviewing -- thanks for adding the link.

 

I don't hate any beer style. I'm open to anything and everything with regards to beer. But since I'm not an expert on every style (or any style, for that matter) how am I to judge what truly constitutes as a legitimate representation of the style, even if I like the style?

I have 10 reviews/ratings on Schwarzbiers. I have no clue what truly constitutes a "good" or "traditional" representation of that style, other than what BA offers. But it's a style I have come to greatly appreciate, mostly because I love how they look and taste. Mönchshof Schwarzbier is legitimately one of my top 15 beers of all time. Is that worthy of the 4.84 rating I gave it? I have no idea. I just know it's an amazing beer to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

What is "reverse-snobbery"? Someone who hates snobbery? Well. Guilty as charged.

It wasn't necessarily the best way to respond, as we're trying to have a mature conversation here. So to that end I do apologise.

But I'd say I'm "deep" into beer. Not as much as others, certainly. I'm not a "ticker" either btw. I don't think writing a full review for a beer counts as ticking.

 

I didn't even know this existed. Thank you for posting this.

I'll definitely try to keep this in mind going forward.

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reverse-snob

https://brainmass.com/sociology/theoretical-framework/phenomenon-reverse-snobbery-436489

Basically, someone who is snobbish about not being snobbish.

 

I was going by the part of your post I quoted... a beer you hate but would be a 4/5 to style. That you hate a very good representative of the style would indicate you hate the style. If I misunderstood, sorry.

 

Luckily I have freedom when rating/reviewing. NA beers are all supposed to be one style